After 150 years, Confederate submarine's hull again revealed

“If you are referring to Kansas, I hope you know that both sides contributed to the bloodshed there, both sides came across the borders of their states to fight it out.”

Now that is one truly lame and discreditable argument. See:

“Tu quoque...;[1] Latin for “you, too” or “you, also”) or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent’s position based on criticism of the opponent’s inconsistency and not the position presented.[2] It is a special case of ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented.” (Wikipedia)

No, I am not referring just to the “Bloody Kansas” assault by Democrats upon the individual and state or territorial rights of U.S. Citizens. There are innumerable instances over a period of decades where the Democrats instigated violent armed conflict in contempt for individual and states rights. Readers can get a taste of this Democrat contempt for constitutional and God-given rights by reading about such topics as the Ostend Manifesto, the Knights of the Golden Circle, the Copperheads, William Walker filiusters, Guano Islands Act, the failed assassination attempt upon President-Elect Abraham Lincoln, and much much more.

“Oh really? So that is the Republican party was always in favor of higher taxes and tariffs?”

That was impossible, because the Democrats started the Civil War before the first ever Republican Administration came into existence in 1861 with the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Naturally, the Southern Democrat armed attacks upon the United States armed forces compelled the U.S. Government regardless of who was in office to make huge expenditures that would never have been necessary but for the unlawful rebellion.

“It was because they cared about the individual that Lincoln, almost as soon as he gets in office, passes the first income tax laws which define taxable income as that “derived from any kind of property, or from any professional trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere or from any source whatever.””

The U.S. Constitution quite plainly obligated President Lincoln and the U.S. Government to suppress the unlawful armed rebellion. The taxes required to fund the U.S. Government’s efforts to suppress the armed rebellion as obligated by the U.S. Constitution are a direct consequence of the unlawful acts of the Southern Democrats waging war upon the United States and extinguishing the constitutional rights of U.S. Citizens.

“And it was because they cared so much about the rights of the states that they fought a bloody war to deny eleven states the right to self-determination, the right to leave and create their own government just as the Founders did?”

The states were obligated to seek secession from the United States by the exact same means by which they sought accession to the United States, and that is by a vote of the Congress and ratification by each member state of the United States. Instead, a cabal of spies, filibusterers, and criminals schemed to induce elite Southern Democrats to conspire in fomenting a rebellion and secession using unconstitutional and unlawful means falsely masquerading as a states rights issue.

What is particularly heinous is the continued attempt to falsely equate the American Revolution to the utterly fraudulent, illegal, and immoral War of the Rebellion.

King George III instigated the American Revolutionary War by his breaches of the colonies’ Royal Charters, seizures of their colonial governments authorized by the Royal Charters, and then by making armed attacks upon the colonial government’s colonial militias. Even after King George initiated the hostilities, the colonial governments and their Congress made every effort to negotiate a peaceful settlement of their dispute and remain member colonial governments of the British Empire. King George refused to honor the Royal Charters and refused all efforts to negotiate peace. Consequently, the colonial governments joined together in self-defense and achieved the only remaining course of action left to them short of capitulation and surrender of their rights under the Royal Charters, and that was their own sovereign independence as the United States of America.

By contrast, the Knights of the Golden Circle, slaveholders and slave traders, filibusterers, adventurers, British Crown spies seeking once more to disunite the United States and dominate American slave produced cotton for British textile mills, and an assortment of other conspirators induced Southern democrats to repeatedly attack the United States until a rebellion could be provoked in the Southern states. Having provoked a rebellion in the Southern States, these conspirators incited attacks upon the U.S. Government’s armed forces and engaged in a conspiracy to assassinate and murder the President-Elect of the United States. Despite all of these prior major provocations to war, the new Lincoln Administration made extensive efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the growing unlawful rebellion, but the conspirators sabotaged every effort by Southern moderates to conclude such negotiations for peace. Finally after months of conducting armed seizures of Federal fortifications, armaments, naval stations, and other assets, the rebels attacked Ft. Sumter while knowing full well that president Lincoln and the U.S. Government would have no other choice but to bring armed force against the rebels and their rebellion. Such acts by these rebels were aggressive and not comparable to the defensive acts of the patriots in the American Revolutionary War.

“And I suppose it was because they cared about individual rights so much that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and imprisoned thousands of people (including hundreds of members of the press) without telling them what crime they were charged with, and how long they would be imprisoned?”

The U.S. Constitution obligated any U.S. President to suppress the rebellion by the use of martial law, and the Constitution explicitly provides for the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus under martial law. The Confederate Congress and the Confederate state governments also suspended the writ of habeus corpus, yet you do not disclose that fact with a hypocritical attack solely upon the U.S. Government you are criticizing. You also failed to note the fact of how the right for a writ of habeus corpus was ignored by the Southern Democrat aggressors in the years before the Civil War.

“I suppose it was because the republicans loved small government that Lincoln’s war stripped the states of much of their rights and left the United states not as a republic of republics as the founders had created, but one in which the Federal government was supreme and you had better not disagree with it.”

You are living in your own fantasyland with that comment, because the Founding Fathers created and wrote the Constitution specifically to make the Federal government the supreme law of the land with respect to those limited enumerated powers delegated by the state governments and by individual U.S. Citizens to the Federal Government.

“I guess it was because the Democrat party loved big government so much that they were always fighting for lower taxes and tariffs and less Federal intervention in state matters.”

Of course that is a false statement and misrepresentation of reality. The Antebellum Democrat administrations came to power with Andrew Jackson and his administration just in time to benefit from the final payments of the long-term debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. The Republicans and their presidential administrations, by contrast, did not yet exist in this time period, so they naturally had nothing they could do about such taxation. Even before President-Elect Abraham Lincoln could be inaugurated, the Democrats tried to assassinate and murder him on his way to being inaugurated as President, so the Republicans had no opportunity to formulate and administer tariff policies before the Democrat rebels caused the U.S. Government and the Confederate Government to incur vast debts requiring the heaviest tariffs and other taxation measures. These debts incurred by the Democrat rebels were not repaid until 1916, so every President until President Woodrow Wilson was obligated to maintain higher tariffs and other taxes until those civil War debts could be retired. Once those Civil War debts were retired, Republican President Warren G. Harding and President Calvin Coolidge were able to complete their administrations with budgetary surpluses while also lowering the income tax rates initiated by President Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats.

So, your accusations are based on misleading omissions of the actual taxations and their causes and are therefore false deceptions.

In reference to Kansas, I was just pointing out that you can't exactly act like one side had all the blame and the other was clean as the driven snow. You were trying to use it to blame one side, when it can be used to blame both.

Regarding tariffs...Yes Lincoln was the first republican president and the republican party had not actually passed any tariff laws yet. But they were big supporters of higher tariffs. Just look at the republican platform. Lincoln even campaigned on the tariff issue in Pennsylvania, which stood to benefit from the protectionist nature of the tariffs. And one of the first things they did when Lincoln was elected was pass tariff laws.

Don't cite the Constitution as a reason for Lincoln to go to war. The Southern states were doing the same thing that the American colonies did. They seceded and formed their own new government, just like the Declaration of Independence declares is a right of mankind. Constitutionally, Lincoln could do nothing about it. After all, it was the States that created the Constitution and the Union. In creating it they were all parties to the compact. The Federal government was not a party to this compact, being created by it. In cases regarding compact where there is no common judge the parties are all free to judge for themselves whether the compact is being held to and whether such union remains beneficial tot hem or not. And regards your claim that the Southern states did not leave in a constitutional way, it is clear that you do not understand the constitutional ratification process. The Constitution and the Union created by it was ratified by the various legislatures of the various states at various times over the course of a few years. The State legislatures, having brought their states into the Union in this manner, were free to leave it in the exact same manner, which is what they did.

Your ignorance of history is showing. The attack on fort Sumter was the result of broken promises by Lincoln. Lincoln had promised to relieve the garrison and turn over the fort to South Carolina by a certain time. South Carolina took him at his word and kept the men in the fort supplied with fresh food. Lincoln meanwhile kept saying he would relieve the fort by a certain time and then failing to do so. This made South Carolina annoyed. And when finally they heard that Lincoln was at last sending ships to the fort, but not with the intention of relieving the fort but rather with men and arms to resupply it, the bubble burst and they fired on the fort and took it before the ships could arrive. The patience they showed in this case before attacking the fort shows they were hardly war-mongering like you suggest. In fact many southern generals at the time of hearing of the attack wished that more time had been given Lincoln to keep his promises (which "Honest" Abe had clearly no intention of keeping however).

Founding Fathers created and wrote the Constitution specifically to make the Federal government the supreme law of the land with respect to those limited enumerated powers delegated by the state governments and by individual U.S. Citizens to the Federal Government.

They did no such thing! Make the Federal Government supreme in the land?!?! BS! They made the Constitution the supreme law of the land, and if you actually read the constitution, you will see that the rights delegated by the states to the federal government are actually very few, in comparison to those reserved by the states (which are practically unlimited). The States, having created the Federal government and delegated rights to it, are superior to it. You don't delegate rights to your superiors, only to your inferiors. But the Civil War made the Federal government superior to the states, and showed what big government with no respect for limited self government looks like.

By the way, if the Republican party is so conservative like you are trying to paint it, then please explain to me why so many socialists were members of it? Why did nearly all the refugees from the socialist revolutions of 1848 that came to American join the Republican party (one of whom started a newspaper called the Red Republican? Why did Horace Greely (a republican and good friend of Lincoln) have Karl Marx writing articles for his paper the New York Tribune? Why did Lincoln have many socialists in his armies, including one general who published the first American version of the Communist Manifesto? Why did Engels say the civil war provided the preliminaries for a communist revolution? Why did Karl Marx write Lincoln congratulatory letters upon his election? Seriously, if the communists ere for it, it is NOT conservative.

I'd like to add some facts to this debate:

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "In reference to Kansas, I was just pointing out that you can't exactly act like one side had all the blame and the other was clean as the driven snow.
You were trying to use it to blame one side, when it can be used to blame both."

The blame is totally clear when you remember the fact that in 1858, legitimate Kansas voters rejected the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution by a margin of six to one.
Real citizens of Kansas did not want slavery, no how, no way, regardless of how many Border Ruffians came up from the South.

In 1859 Kansas voters approved the anti-slavery Wyandotte Constitution by a margin of two-to-one.
So, by law and by rights, Kansas was a free state, and pro-slavery thugs had no business trying to intimidate voters there.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Lincoln was the first republican president and the republican party had not actually passed any tariff laws yet.
But they were big supporters of higher tariffs.
Just look at the republican platform."

By 1860 US tariffs had fallen from the 1830 high of 35% under Southern President Jackson and Vice President Calhoun to just 15%, the same rate as in 1792, under President Washington.
The original Morrill Tariff raised them back to 25%, or roughly the levels of 1845.
It was generally supported by Republicans, opposed by Democrats, but some Republicans voted "no", and some Democrats voted "yes", including a good number from the Border States.

Neither the Morrill Tariff, nor any other tax, is mentioned in any Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Don't cite the Constitution as a reason for Lincoln to go to war.
The Southern states were doing the same thing that the American colonies did."

But there is no legitimate comparison -- zero, zip, nada -- between our Founders' Declaration of Independence and the Slave-Powers' declarations of secession.
For starters, the Declaration of Independence came only after the British king formally declared the colonies to be in rebellion -- a formal declaration of war on Americans.
By stark contrast the Slave-Power first declared it's secession, then provoked, started and formally declared war on the United States, then sent military aid to Confederate forces fighting in Union states.

So all your complicated logical "justification" is just rubbish, because it makes no difference.
When the Confederacy started and declared war on the United States, it sealed its own destruction, period.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Your ignorance of history is showing."

No, it's your mis-information about history that's showing.
Regardless of what excuse you concoct, the Confederate military assault on Union troops in Fort Sumter was an act of war, just as certainly as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
And just like Pearl Harbor with the Japanese, Fort Sumter was the attack which ultimately destroyed the Confederacy, and the slavery it fought to the last to preserve.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...the Civil War made the Federal government superior to the states, and showed what big government with no respect for limited self government looks like."

But 100% of the blame for every change brought by the Civil War lies with the Slave-Power which first provoked, then started, then formally declared war on the United States, while sending military forces to invade Union states.
That made the Confederacy an existential threat to the United States, which could only be defeated, unconditionally.

Remember tariffs were such an important issue that South Carolina almost seceded over one in the 1830s. And they were just as important in the 1860s as well. Robert Rhett, for example railed against them in the South Carolina legislature and the convention adopted to accompany its secession ordinance in 1860. He said that

"And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures."

Charles Dickens published an article saying

"If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."

So it appears that you believe that people can only exercise their right to choose their own form of government after somebody attacks them? Sad logic there.

If the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter was an act of war, then what was not-so-honest-Abe Lincoln's breach of his promise in sending arms and reinforcements after he promised to relieve the garrison?

Also, I love how you skirted the whole issue about the Marxists. Remember this discussion started in regards to the republican party. You claim the republican party of the 1860s was conservative, yet it wasn't. The famous republican Greeley was a socialist and had Marx writing articles for his paper. Lincoln got congratulation letters from Marx on his election. Communists simply flocked to the Republican party and Lincoln promoted many to high positions. Let me just mention a few....

Carl Schurz: A participant in the 1848 socialists revolutions in Europe, fled to America after the revolutions failed. Was appointed by Lincoln (who knew his revolutionary history, as minister to Spain. Came back the next year and served in the Union army and was promoted to Major General.

George Harney: A communist journalist who propagandized for Marx and Engels. Was a big supporter of the republican party and started a paper called the Red Republican.

Franz Sigel: Played a large part in the socialist revolutions in Germany in 1848, was made minister of war of the short lived socialist government, upon the revolution's failure fled to America. Served in the Union Army as a Corp commander.

Louis Blenker: Another Forty-Eighter who fled to America and served as a General in the Union army. Was such a big fan of the war that he organized an infantry regiment (8th New York).

August Willich: Known as the "Reddest of the Red", this fellow was another Forty-Eighter and friend of Marx. Fleeing after the revolutions failed he went to America. When the war started, he raised a regiment (9th Ohio) and became a general.

Alexander Schimmelfennig: Another Forty-Eighter who fled to America. Was appointed a Brigadier General during the war.

Frederick Salomon: Another Forty-Eighter who became a General.

Charles Salomon: Another Forty-Eighter who became a General.

Joseph Weydemeyer: A forty-Eighter and close friend of Marx and Engels. Published the Communist Manifesto in America, organized the New York Communist Club, founded the Proletarian League, , and published a German language paper Die Revolution. Was a strong supporter of Lincoln and the republican party and volunteered his services when the war broke out. Was made a general.

Peter Osterhaus: Another Forty-Eighter who became a General and served with Sherman during his slash and burn jaunt through Georgia.

Max Weber: Another Forty-Eighter who became a general in the Union army.

Julius Stahel: Another Forty-Eighter who became a general in the Union army. Frederick Hassaurek: A Forty-Eighter and a strong supporter of the Republican party. Stumped for Fremont, the republican nominee in the 1856 election. Was a strong supporter of Lincoln.

Alexander Asboth: Another Forty-Eighter who became a Union general. After the war he was awarded a ministerial post.

Albin Schoepf: Another Forty-Eighter who became a Union general and later became the camp commandant of a cruel prison camp.

This is just a sampling. There were many others.

Many historians have noted Lincoln's political alliance with the Forty-eighters. Historian Carl Wittke, in an article published in 1959 noted that "Lincoln was fully aware of the political influence of the Forty-Eighters in the campaighn of 1860."

Think about it logically. If Marx and his followers supported the republican party and Lincoln as president, then the republican party could not be a conservative small-government party. Communists don't flock to parties that are all about small-government. They flock to liberal big-government parties. Which is just what the republican party was.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Remember tariffs were such an important issue that South Carolina almost seceded over one in the 1830s.
And they were just as important in the 1860s as well."

Sure, but that is very instructive, because it was the 1828 "tariff of abominations" proposed by, and enacted under Southerner President Andrew Jackson and Vice President from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun.
It raised tariffs to the highest rates they ever were, or would be again, generally supported by Northerners and opposed by Southerners.
However, more New Englanders voted against it than for, and some Southern representatives did vote for it.
That tariff proved so unpopular, it was soon reduced substantially, and tariffs then rose and fell over the years, depending on how the political winds were blowing.

In 1860, at 15% overall, tariffs had seldom been lower, and Morrill proposed to raise them, to 25%.
But there was no way that increase could pass Congress, given Southern Democrat opposition, until, until...
Until the Southern Democrats walked out of Congress after declaring their secession.

In other words, the Morrill Tariff had nothing to do with their original reasons for secession, which were 100% in defense of slavery.
Yes, later some people began thinking maybe slavery wasn't such a great cause, and so they started looking around for some other excuse to justify secession, and in that, tariffs came to mind.
But the fact remains that in 1860, tariffs were the same as in 1792, and could not be raised given united Southern opposition.
Only when the South abandoned Congress could it be passed.

Again: no tariff, or any other tax, is mentioned in any official "Reason for secession" document.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "So it appears that you believe that people can only exercise their right to choose their own form of government after somebody attacks them? Sad logic there."

Rubbish.
My opinion on this precisely corresponds to those of our Founders, particularly as articulated by James Madison:

"...the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

In short: secession was not authorized "at pleasure", but only with mutual consent, or a material breech of compact.
But no such consent or breech happened in November 1860, when the Slave Power began organizing to declare secession.
That means, they seceded "at pleasure", which was not according to our Founders original intent.

Regardless, their declarations of secession did not cause Civil War, nor did their forming a new Confederacy.
Indeed, had the Confederacy been determined to preserve the peace, it might well have succeeded.
But they didn't want peace, they wanted war, similar to the American Revolution against Britain.
So, unlike our Founders, who continued to work for peace until the Brits officially declared war, the Slave Power worked to provoke war, then started war (Ft. Sumter), then formally declared war (May 6, 1861), and sent its forces into every Union state & territory they could reach.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "If the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter was an act of war, then what was not-so-honest-Abe Lincoln's breach of his promise in sending arms and reinforcements after he promised to relieve the garrison?"

You obviously don't know the details of those days.
In fact, Lincoln promised nobody anything regarding Fort Sumter, and did officially notify the South Carolina governor of his intention to resupply US troops in Fort Sumter.
But long before that resupply mission, the South Carolina governor had continuously urged Confederate President Davis to launch a military assault, which Davis finally agreed to on learning of the resupply mission.

For a detailed, day-by-day explanation of events, I recommend:
William Cooper, "We Have the War Upon Us"
and Russell McClintock, "Lincoln and the Decision for War"

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, I love how you skirted the whole issue about the Marxists.
Remember this discussion started in regards to the republican party.
You claim the republican party of the 1860s was conservative, yet it wasn't."

But I "skirted" nothing, because there is no "issue" about Marxists, period, and your claims with their vague guilt-by-remote-association are ludicrous.
In fact, neither Lincoln nor any high Republican official was a socialists, much less "communist."
Of course, Unionists welcomed former 1848 revolutionaries who were willing to risk their lives in defense of the United States, but I can't think of a single US law which was changed in order to accommodate European "socialist" views.

Yes, Lincoln did favor the Transcontinental Railroad, but then, so did Senator Jefferson Davis, though of course they disagreed on the best route.
Does that make them both "socialists"?
No, because such infrastructure projects have been part of the US republic from the very beginning.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Think about it logically.
If Marx and his followers supported the republican party and Lincoln as president, then the republican party could not be a conservative small-government party.
Communists don't flock to parties that are all about small-government.
They flock to liberal big-government parties.
Which is just what the republican party was."

More nonsense.
In fact, Republicans were the party of "free labor", opposed to slavery, and that was the reason Europe's revolutionaries supported them.
And it wasn't only the revolutionaries -- in Britain & France, despite some sympathy for the South, and its cotton, the vast majority of ordinary citizens were repulsed by slavery, and so supported the Union.

So you claim the Founders were against secession? Well you are wrong. Here you go:

In response to the Alien and sedition acts passed under Adams, Thomas Jefferson, while sitting as Vice President of the United States in 1799, wrote to James Madison of his conviction in "a reservation of th[ose] rights resulting to us from these palpable violations [the Alien and Sedition Acts]" and, if the federal government did not return to "the true principles of our federal compact", [he was determined to] "sever ourselves from that 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."

Jefferson also said that "if any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in Union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.'" (1816)

Madison said that "the use of force against a state [in order to keep it in the Union] would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

John Quincy Adams: "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 way to cold indifference, or collision 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."

Alexander Hamilton said “to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. Can any reasonable man be well-disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself that can only exist by the sword?" (constitutional convention

Lincoln even agree on this, before he did and Mitt Romney style flip flop and changed his mind: "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,-- 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."

De Toqueville also noted that “By uniting together, they have not forfeited their nationality nor been reduced to a condition of one and the same people.” He went on to say that “if one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it will be difficult to disprove their right of doing so, and the federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims either directly or by force.”

By the way I love how you conveniently glossed over the issue of the Marxists again. So you say they joined the republican party because they cared about slavery? Please remember that communists may claim to care about things like liberty but they really seek the opposite. Communism is opposite world where war is peace, freedom is slavery and lies are truth. They really joined the Republican party because they saw that it tended more to big government, higher taxes, nationalization and getting the Fed government involved in "internal improvements".

It’s interesting that the opinions of Madison and Adams regarding secession both evolved - and in opposite directions. Adams opposed entertainment of secession when northern interests hinted at it. And then reversed himself and appeared to hedge his bet when it came to the annexation of Texas.

Madison also said, “...I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-’99 as countenancing the doctrine that a state may at will secede from its Constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it.” — James Madison to Alexander Rives, 1832

“I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes “nullification” and must hasten the abandonment of “Secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.” — James Madison to Daniel Webster, 1833

“The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired against their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?” — James Madison to William Rives, 1833

Hamilton was no advocate of secession. He implored John Trumbull to intercede in Aaron Burr’s agitation to secession:

“You are going to Boston. You will see the principal men there. Tell them from me, at my request, for God’s sake, to cease these conversations and threatenings about a separation of the Union. It must hang together as long as it can be made to.”

Your use of Lincoln’s quote is patently dishonest. Lincoln spoke in the same voice as the founders when he articulated the God-given right of rebellion when circumstances warranted it and the lack of viable alternatives dictated it. He wasn’t alluding to unilateral secession at pleasure.

The insinuation of republican/marxist “hearts of a feather” is stupid and offensive. You really should refrain from doing that.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "So you claim the Founders were against secession? Well you are wrong.
Here you go:
In response to the Alien and sedition acts passed under Adams, Thomas Jefferson, while sitting as Vice President of the United States in 1799, wrote to James Madison..."

The first thing we need to remember is: when the Alien & Sedition acts were first proposed in 1798, there was a genuine threat & fear of war with France, the proposed acts were considered legitimate, and were not opposed by Vice President Jefferson.
Only later, when the threat of war disappeared, and the acts no longer seemed necessary, did Jefferson see political advantage in opposing them.

Second, scour all the Founders' quotes you wish, but you will not find any which support secession "at pleasure".
Instead, all imply the existence of one or both of two conditions:

Secession with mutual consent, or
In Madison's words, "usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effet."

Indeed, when President Jefferson suspected his own Vice President, Aaron Burr, of plotting to have Louisiana secede, Jefferson sent troops to have Burr arrested and tried for treason!
So we know for certain what Jefferson believed about secession "at pleasure".

But in November 1860, when the Slave Power began organizing for secession, there was no mutual consent, and no material breech of contract, only the 100% constitutional election of "Black Republicans" and "Ape" Lincoln.

Yes, your quote from De Toqueville applies here -- so there was no war started by the Union against Confederates, no battles, no invasions, not one Confederate soldier killed, until, until,..
Until the Confederacy provoked war, started war, formally declared war on the United States, and sent its forces to support secessionists in Union states.

Bottom line: secession did not cause Civil War, nor did forming the Confederacy.
Civil War began because the Confederacy started & declared it, period.

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.