Posted on 08/11/2015 1:11:21 PM PDT by iowamark
I agree. Dhimmicrats being dhimmicrats they just couldn’t leave well enough alone. Not to trivialize it but northern attitudes regarding slavery were like smoking - I don’t care if someone indulges in it as long as they stay the heck away from me with that disgusting habit. That (small “l”) libertarian attitude hardened as the south continually insisted on forcing the north to be more complicit in their peculiar institution.
That is bogus to the max, pal.
In fact, deeds of property are unaffected by changes in administration or government, period, end of that discussion.
Today Cuba claims our forces at Gitmo are no longer legit and must be removed -- just as the Confederacy said about Fort Sumter.
But neither claim is recognized in law, and any assault by Cuba on Gitmo is just as much an act of war as was Jefferson Davis' assault on Sumter.
But of course they had no "rightful and legal guarantee" to provoke, start and declare war on the United States without suffering the consequences of such stupidity.
You people always fanaticize about a "right to secede", "RIGHT TO SECEDE" you claim.
But secession alone did not start Civil War, nor did forming a new Confederacy.
What started Civil War were the Confederacy's numerous provocations culminating in its assault on Fort Sumter, followed soon after by a formal declaration of war on the United States.
"Right to Secede" or "no Right to Secede", when you declare war on the United States, you will get your soft end whooped.
So don't do it. Just don't, FRiend.
What started Civil War were the Confederacy’s numerous provocations culminating in its assault on Fort Sumter,
......................................................
Seward repeatedly assured South Carolina that Fort Sumpter was going to be abandoned. How then, I ask you, can the North then legitimately “resupply” a fort which they had promised would be closed? The EXCUSE of” merely” resupplying Fort Sumpter was a deliberate ruse. Les Ruses de Guerre are played everywhere and Lincoln lied deliberately, forcing the south into war.
Unfortunately, “WINNING” has gone out of the vocabulary of presidents since Truman dropped the bomb. Our soldiers might have won the battles, but America’s politicians lost the war. Kerry, among others, should be hung for treason.
Not refuted!
You didn't read the posts, did you?
Of course I read the posts and made several of my own scattered throughout the several hundred.. It is obvious, however, that you have jumped in at the eleventh hour with unsubstantiated statements. I would suggest you do some reading.
I've been here off and on since the start. And your stance, which is Lincoln bad, Davis good; the North tricked the South into starting the war; and every ill that has befallen this coutry for the last 150 years is directly attributable to Abraham Lincoln, is not new. It's basically the stance Diogenese Lamp has been taking. So I could probably scroll back over the 500-plus posts and refute any position you care to make by linking to a apecific reply rather than type out all the words.
The Declaration announces that it is the right of the people to abolish their government. It doesn’t say that they People must first clear it with a court of competent jurisdiction.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 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 to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.”
The Declaration gave the colonies a reason to fight the Revolutionary War for their independence. The Declaration gave the States a reason to form a limited and federal government. It is the reason why our Founders and the States placed such an emphasis on the Compact Theory.
Back in 1860, the states still remembered why they fought for their independence from Britain and why they joined together in a Union (as Ben Franklin advised, for mutual benefit – “Join or Die”). They joined for security and on the basis that each state would be on equal footing. They would enjoy the protections and benefits of the Constitution – EQUALLY. The issue of slavery aside, the Southern States dissolved their association with the Northern States because the association had become hostile and had become destructive of the very reasons they joined together in the first place. They seceded for the same right of self-determination and self-government that our earlier Americans asserted for our independence from Great Britain”.
Nor does it guarantee success, and it also doesn't make the rebelling side right and the remaining side wrong.
The Declaration gave the colonies a reason to fight the Revolutionary War for their independence.
I imagine the Southern Declarations of the Causes of Secession were meant to do the same for the Confederate cause.
The Declaration gave the States a reason to form a limited and federal government.
Which the Southern states certainly did not do in 1861.
It is the reason why our Founders and the States placed such an emphasis on the Compact Theory.
There were multiple parties, but two basic sides to the Compact. Why did those leaving the compact have all the rights and those remaining have none?
The issue of slavery aside, the Southern States dissolved their association with the Northern States because the association had become hostile and had become destructive of the very reasons they joined together in the first place.
In what way?
They seceded for the same right of self-determination and self-government that our earlier Americans asserted for our independence from Great Britain”.
And they promptly lost their rebellion. Are we supposed to feel sorry for them?
Well I will try to end by saying this. Jefferson was never brought to trial because union lawyers knew that the South would have been vindicated in court. Secession was legal then and it’s legal now. The form of government, a limited form of government, with power resting in the states, like Jefferson and the other Founders envisioned for this nation, not Washington DC, ended when Lincoln invaded the Southern States and brought them back into the Union at a cost of a million American dead. All because of the revenue the Southern States provided, and for no other reason. If the South had won Lincoln would have been hanged from the nearest tree, with the murdering psychopath Sherman hanging beside him.
Keep telling yourself that.
Secession was legal then and it’s legal now.
Not the way the South chose to pursue it. The Supreme Court ruled on that.
The form of government, a limited form of government, with power resting in the states, like Jefferson and the other Founders envisioned for this nation, not Washington DC, ended when Lincoln invaded the Southern States and brought them back into the Union at a cost of a million American dead.
Sure it did.
All because of the revenue the Southern States provided, and for no other reason.
Of course it was.
If the South had won Lincoln would have been hanged from the nearest tree, with the murdering psychopath Sherman hanging beside him.
And if flies carried shotguns then frogs wouldn't mess with them.
That is wrong.
Lincoln was elected Nov. 6, 1860.
The Morrill bill was passed out of committee in the US House and brought up for a floor vote near the end of first session of the Congress on May 10, 1860; the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/36-1/h151
Ooooooof! What is that, a joke?
Do you realize that, yet again, your intended audience didn't "get" it?
I see where they've been caterwauling and dancing around in their own end-zones, just as if they had scored a game-winning touchdown.
So tell me you meant that as a joke.
If not, and if you were simply mistaken, then allow me to give you some advice: be careful what you post here, don't trust your own memory, it will deceive you sometimes, so you need to check frequently to make certain you remember it right.
Also remember how, basically, our Lost Causers operate: they throw out endless falsehoods, deceits, deceptions, obfuscations, etc., and as soon as you refute one, they go right on changing the subject to the next item on their list.
And they will keep changing the subject until they find one you don't know very well, so you trip up and make some mistake (i.e., the one above).
And now you will see post after post of them whooping it up, dancing around their own end zone fire, just as if every falsehood they posted doesn't matter, but your one mistake makes them victorious.
It doesn't, but why give them the satisfaction?
Double check your work, and if you really intended it to be a joke, make certain everybody, even a Lost Causer, "gets" it, FRiend.
As it was, the North won and Lincoln was shot in the back of the head.
None of us are at all pleased about our "strong central government". It is quickly growing stronger by the day. I blame that on the guy who shot Lincoln.
In the case of Lincoln's announcement of a blockade, it was an act of war...your opinion not withstanding.
After the war, the Supreme Court issued an opinion fixing the exact dates on which the war began and ended.
It held: “...The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second.''
Thus, according to the Supreme Court, Lincoln’s signature on this order sealing the imposition of the blockade marked the official beginning of the Civil War.
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:4oC7LRG1GSMJ:www.raabcollection.com/presidential/abraham-lincoln-autograph/abraham-lincoln-autograph-7590.aspx+supreme+court+%22beginning+of+the+civil+war%22&cd=78&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
It would not be a sticking point for honest men four score and seven years after the principle was established.
Perhaps someone wasn't so "honest" after all?
No, it is enumerated in a document of far greater power. One which threw back English law, and established a principle which they claimed to be given by "the laws of nature and of nature's God"; The Document which actually CREATED the United States, and under the authority of which all the other documents were drafted. To disavow the Declaration is to disavow the legitimacy of anything created through it.
The Declaration is the Mother of American's Authority to rule themselves, and no document in contradiction with it can be regarded as legal or moral.
Besides that, the Constitution does not prohibit separation.
If King George did not have the right to rule us against our will, than neither does congress. Law of Nature and of Nature's God.
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.