Posted on 05/12/2015 3:00:03 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The US Constitution is silent on the subject of secession. Had an article been put in it making the US Constitution binding on the states with no right of returning to self governance at will, then the US Constitution would have had no signatures.
The War indeed was an awful calamity inflicted upon the nation for our presumptive sins. Lincoln said as much.March 30,1863. The Sons of the South were Americans before they were pressed to secede. Their Constitution reflects heavily that of the parent Nation. The War was imposed.And Reconstruction was unnecessary and Cruel. The South Was Right by the Kennedy’s ought be required reading perhaps more for the several appendix than for the style itself. Every High School and College ought study those the wounds have not healed much—I suspect the picking at it by all sides -North,South, and hyphenated Americans led by the divisive Democratic Party.
I cannot find a source for that "quote" you made up. Here are few links maybe you can find a reference that is not just in your head.
Except I cannot find any reference for that made up quote.
so, are you saying that another country bombarding you is only an act of war if more than a mule is killed????
You guys make up quotes and never reference them.
Actually any good southern boy back in the day relished the thought of killing a Yank or two. Breaking the Union up and getting away from the arrogant and forever power hungry North was an honor and a duty.
Well when I do that then you can call me out.
The Constitution of the CSA was almost identical to the US Constitution. The Confederate Seal shows George Washington on his horse. If Washington had been around in 1861 he would have sided with the South, for the exact same reasons Lee would not take up arms against his state (country).
I can never seem to get the point across about the 19th century. It is true even today. Any good southern man just doesn't hate what the federal government has become, the hate is towards the Northern people. The hatred is for their haughty attitude and their deference to the republican form of govt. Belittling states rights, selling their slave to the south for a profit then turning around and condemning the ones the sold them too. In the late 18th century the North didn't free their slaves, THEY SOLD THEM. They adopted mercantilism and slaves were not part of the plan.
Lee and Washington are interchangeable men in history.
Correct me if I’m wrong - didn’t the U. S. Constitution permit slavery and wasn’t the federal side fighting the war to preserve the constitution?
Plus all that extra stuff about slavery.
If Washington had been around in 1861 he would have sided with the South, for the exact same reasons Lee would not take up arms against his state (country).
It's hard to say what somebody would do in a strange situation if you pluck them out of their own historical context and plump them down in an alien one.
Washington, though, had a political sense and was a statesman. I don't think he would have passively let things drift to the point where he felt he had to fight on one pre-determined side or the other, as Lee apparently did.
He would have been active in deliberations. IMHO he would have spoken out for preserving the union he helped create as long as he could. He wouldn't have been "personally opposed" to secession and kept his mouth shut about it. It's true that Washington didn't like to be in the limelight, but he knew how to work through associates to move the public.
Whatever path Washington chose, he wouldn't have drifted into it, as Lee did. He wouldn't have stayed on the sidelines and then assumed that wouldn't "his state" was something that he passively had to follow. He also might have had qualms about turning his back on his oath and long-time loyalty to his country.
Not much for individuality, are you?
Washington was a unique figure in American history with a unique role.
In some ways, Lee tried to follow Washington, but if he really wanted to follow in Washington's footsteps he would have taken more of an interest in politics and government before it was too late.
But Washington was unique. By the time Lee came along, one couldn't be a career military officer and play a role in political life -- not if one wanted to stay in the army.
He didn't believe in secession, either. He was trapped between bad alternatives.
Hey! I’m for that and have my kit, ammo and weapon ready to go. It would be wonderful to have the South stand again and throw off the rule of the North.
Well you S.H. in the North and people in Colorado already are pretty good slaves. In Colorado they have already taken your rights and the best you could do is roll over and play dead.
Didn't Washington at one time consider himself to be a “good Englishman” and actually fight for the British - before he fought against the British?
There was none of this having to go with one's people even though one didn't agree with them.
Also, taxation without representation was a big issue in the Revolution.
The Confederates had been represented (and over-represented) in Congress and the rest of the government, so it was a lot harder to rely on the right of revolution on the part of the unrepresented.
Yes slavery was permitted under the Constitution, hence the need for the 13th Amendment, and no, the North was fighting to preserve the Union. The Constitution wasn't really in danger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.