Posted on 04/23/2006 10:32:45 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside
Practice what you preach boyo. Here are two reads that will educate you on why the South withdrew from the Union. "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" and "A Constitutional History of Secession". Both were recently written (within the past 5 years) and by Northerners. One is a lawyer from Minnesota, and the other author a PHD, both educated and both schooled with the canned Yankee version of events of the War of Northern Aggression. Also read the Constitutional Debates and "The Federalist Papers" - Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. Please go read then come back and discuss the Issues.
Also when you speak of the Declaration of Independence, then don't forget the rest of the first two paragraphs that state "governments are created by consent of the governed with just (meaning LIMITED) powers given by the people. When a government becomes abusive of these ends, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT and lay the foundations of new government which with secure these ends (meaning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
So I guess you figure it was okay for the government to institute protective tariffs that favored Northern industry and were oppressive to Southern economy. And it was okay for Northern papers and radical Abolitionists to talk about secession from the Southern States and try to foment rebellion among the slaves prior to 1860. Before you deny it remember John Brown, and the Nat Turner rebellion? Guess who put down that one? Col. Robert E. Lee USA prior to his resignation of his commission a few years later. Also Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri and one other staate seceeded from the Union over Lincoln's illegal invasion where he called up 75,000 troops to try to force the original seceeding states back into the Union. So the bottom line is that the war wasn't fought over slavery, it was fought over the right of secession. It wasn't a war of rebellion as the Southern States weren't trying to take over Washington DC and form a new government for every state. You are the one who needs to study up on your history!
"What I stated is that they did not list any grievances, slavery included.
Now, only four of the States did list their reasons, which leaves most (7) of the States without any formal declaration of why they were leaving the Union, slavery included."
Then, some of them did list grievances. Thanks for proving my point. And the vice-president of the Confederacy did list grievances in a speech that you posted. Your belief that they must write a declaration of independence to list grievances is flat wrong.
"And what it objectively represents does not change because one thinks differently."
It objectively represents the Confederate States of America. No slavery, democrats, jim crow, et al.
"The Chinese Communist flag represents evil, no matter what any particular individual 'thinks' about it.
As does the Nazi flag.
You have quite a case of relativism going there."
Your assertion that the Confederate Flag objectively represents anything other than the Confederacy is an opinion. Opinions are relative. Relativism is a theory that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them. Truth and moral values have nothing to do with opinion. It is my opinion that the Detriot Pistons are the best NBA basketball team. If you disagree, that does not mean you are applying a theory of relativism.
"Saying that no grievances were noted by the Confederate States as a new nation, is not the same as saying only slavery was stated.
The Confederate States did not issue a Declaration like the Colonists did, defending their actions."
And why would they have to? Your requirement is stupid at best.
"No, because Jefferson was right.
If people are going to disband their government, their ought to be just cause for doing so, and that is defending the individual rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Anything less is not legitimate."
Oh really? The pursuit of happiness is a broad concept, at best just rhetoric. So a country can be split for the pursuit of happiness? I guess the confederacy was just pursuing thier own happiness. I don't think the war was legitimate, but it fits your criterion for legitimacy. The South has not able to pursue their own happiness. (Hint: You criterion can be contradictory.)
"And if you had not read into what I said instead of what I actually wrote, we would not be arguing."
If you were not so interesting in insisting your opinion is objective fact, this argument would already be over.
"Agreed, that his actions did not match his words, but his words are nevertheless true, and most of the Founding Fathers believed that they did include all men, not just white men."
I disagree. The 3/5 of a man compromise and allowing slavery to exist negate that argument. The founders were flawed, their main flaw was incorporated into the constitution, and the country almost fell apart over it.
"Jefferson is not the issue, the issue is the philosophy that is stated in the Declaration."
Jefferson was a hypocrit.
"As Alexander Stephens himself acknowledged, the Constitution was set up with the view that slavery would eventually be ended because it was immoral."
Why do today what you can put off for 100 or so years.
"The Declaration is the Soul, the Constitution is the Body."
The Declaration is the rhetoric, the Constitution is the law.
"The Bill of Rights comes from the principles of the Declaration and limits the Constitution."
Yeah, so.
"Well, that is why they need to be educated on the meaning of what the Confederate flag really stood for."
Don't you mean they need to be indocrinated into your viewpoint but your perception of what the confederate flag represents is objective fact?
"You should have the right to do so."
Then you believe in the declaration, but the first amendment is trash?
"If you look at the Declaration, you will see that is what Jefferson does, he lists the Colonists grievances,
The signers then list 27 grievances against the British Crown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_(United_States)"
Yeah, and I listed the groceries I wished to buy today (hope you are out shopping on today, btw). That does not mean in order to list something you have to write down what you are going to buy at the grocery store. They did not have to list their grievances as Jefferson did.
"Which is what would make it an American view.
It is unique to America, since no other nation holds to the idea that the individual has rights that are God-given (natural) and cannot be taken away by the State."
A lot of philosophers put that view forward before our nation was founded. John Locke, who influenced the draftors, was one.
"No, I explicitly stated that the South did not do what the Colonists did in listing their grievances.
With the exception of the four states noted, that is true."
Correct, however, you said they did not list grievances, not that they did not write a declaration of independence, big difference.
"I do not see that.
What might have been intertwined was the election of the Republican Party which was both anti-slavery and for high tariffs.
However, the Democrat Party split over the slavery issue, allowing Lincoln to be elected easily.
The slaver owners would not support the Northerner Stephen Douglas since he was against unconditional slave expansion.
Thus, no matter how the Southerners might rail against Federal interference, it was they who split their own political Party before the 1860 election on the issue of slavery, not tarriffs (which cut across party lines)"
The political issues were intertwined. Slavery and tariffs both affected cotton. States rights and slavery were inseperable at the time, unfortunately. Our system failed.
"Yes, it does work, and property rights also work and the man hiring as the right to not have that flag represented on his property for what it does represent.
If someone wants to get a Nazi swastika on his car, I do not care what he thinks it represents, I as the employer do not have to his auto on my property."
The law does not agree with you. Your "property rights" do not extend to the infringement of a person free speech. Nice of you to think that it does though. Your comparison of the swastika with the confederate flag shows your emotion with regard to this issue precludes rational thought.
"Earlier versions of the American flag were not pro-slavery because they represent the principles of the Declaration of Independence, of which slavery was a aberration that needed to be corrected."
Bullsh*t. Pre-Civil War America was complacent in allowing the institution of slavery to survive in both the North and the South.
"In fact, Jefferson wanted to list slavery as one of the grievances against King George, but the Southern slave states would not allow it."
But he didn't list it. Keep making excuses for him though, he could do no wrong.
"As for State flags, just because the majority vote for it doesn't make it right."
And just because you are too stubborn to let people have their own opinions does not make you right.
"Sure it does.
The same racist view applied for the Confederacy as did with Jim Crow."
The public skewls did a number on you if you think the states of the former Confederacy were the only states that had racist laws and views, even after the civil war.
"Well, since the truck is his property he does have a right to have it on his truck.
And I as an employer have a right not to have his truck on my property with that flag."
And you will get sued, and lose.
"So, it was you who was accusing my high regard for those men as being 'worship'"
I said that I DO NOT WORSHIP THEM. I DID NOT SAY THAT YOU WORSHIP THEM.
"Puerto Rico has the right to cease to be a commonwealth and become independent."
Then replace Puerto Rico with Guam.
"If they did not have that right, they would have a more legitimate grievance, not having fair representation which Hawaii does have."
Your distinction of legitimate only if without representation is not valid. A state could never have a valid grievance under your view.
"No, what follows is that a grievance can be resolved through political means and not military ones."
No. A grievance can be resolved either way.
"If there is no representation, and the grievances are serious enough, threatening individual freedom, then, as the Declaration states, it is the obligation of the individual to resist that tyranny."
Irrelevant.
"But for the sake of social stability, that abuse must be real and with no other way of resolving then with armed resistance."
There will always be another way to resolved ti without armed resistance, you could always just capitulate.
This thread is getting too long. See you around.
Actually, the man has every right to be a biggot and/or a flaming racist. As long as he doesn't act in accordance with his beliefs, the City has no business whatsoever sticking its nose into the man's personal life - in this case, a license plate holder.
No, it is not my belief, it is the belief of the founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence.
Hence, the need of at least four states to at least state their reasons for secession.
Yet, they notwithstanding, the Confederacy, as such, did not issue any formal reasons, as did the Colonists when they broke ties with England.
The 'Cornerstone' speech by Vice President Alexander Stephens, an informal speech, reveals the central issue for the secession, to keep slavery.
Moreover, despite the citing of other grievances, the mainissue was over slavery, as you have yourself agreed.
"And what it objectively represents does not change because one thinks differently." It objectively represents the Confederate States of America. No slavery, democrats, jim crow, et al. "The Chinese Communist flag represents evil, no matter what any particular individual 'thinks' about it. As does the Nazi flag. You have quite a case of relativism going there." Your assertion that the Confederate Flag objectively represents anything other than the Confederacy is an opinion. Opinions are relative. Relativism is a theory that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them. Truth and moral values have nothing to do with opinion. It is my opinion that the Detriot Pistons are the best NBA basketball team. If you disagree, that does not mean you are applying a theory of relativism.
No, because there objective truths that entail right or wrong.
My opinion on the Confederacy is not what makes them wrong, it is their own stance on slavery and their rejection of the universal truths of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal.
That every man has a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That is an objective reality, not subject to anyone's opinion.
The Confederates were fighting for the opposite view, that one's race dictated the amount of freedom one should have.
"Saying that no grievances were noted by the Confederate States as a new nation, is not the same as saying only slavery was stated. The Confederate States did not issue a Declaration like the Colonists did, defending their actions." And why would they have to? Your requirement is stupid at best.
No, as Jefferson stated, if one is going to tear the social order, one ought to at least give the reasons why and explain why it is legitimate to do so.
"No, because Jefferson was right. If people are going to disband their government, their ought to be just cause for doing so, and that is defending the individual rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Anything less is not legitimate." Oh really? The pursuit of happiness is a broad concept, at best just rhetoric. So a country can be split for the pursuit of happiness? I guess the confederacy was just pursuing thier own happiness. I don't think the war was legitimate, but it fits your criterion for legitimacy. The South has not able to pursue their own happiness. (Hint: You criterion can be contradictory.)
Governments are formed to protect the individual so he can pursue happiness.
The Confederacy was formed to make sure a particular race could not pursue their happiness, hence was not a legitimate govt.
The Declaration protects the individual, not governments, which are formed to protect the individual.
That is why the Declaration is so unique in world history.
"And if you had not read into what I said instead of what I actually wrote, we would not be arguing." If you were not so interesting in insisting your opinion is objective fact, this argument would already be over.
But it is an objective fact, the Confederate flag is an anti-American flag, rejecting the principles of the American Declaration of Independence.
"Agreed, that his actions did not match his words, but his words are nevertheless true, and most of the Founding Fathers believed that they did include all men, not just white men." I disagree. The 3/5 of a man compromise and allowing slavery to exist negate that argument. The founders were flawed, their main flaw was incorporated into the constitution, and the country almost fell apart over it.
That was a compromise with the Southern slave states to have them accept the Constitution.
It was expected that slavery would be ended (hence it not being named as such in the Constitution). Even Stephens admitted as much in his Cornerstone speech
"Jefferson is not the issue, the issue is the philosophy that is stated in the Declaration." Jefferson was a hypocrit.
Maybe so, but the words he wrote in the Declaration are true, nevertheless.
"As Alexander Stephens himself acknowledged, the Constitution was set up with the view that slavery would eventually be ended because it was immoral." Why do today what you can put off for 100 or so years.
Not all men did put it off.
Most of the Northern States outlawed slavery very quickly after the Constitution.
The catalyst for this movement was the Declaration.
"The Declaration is the Soul, the Constitution is the Body." The Declaration is the rhetoric, the Constitution is the law.
No, the Declaration is what the Constitution is suppose to uphold with the law.
If the Law is not objective, it is mere force under the guise of law.
Not unlike Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or China.
"The Bill of Rights comes from the principles of the Declaration and limits the Constitution." Yeah, so.
Well, that is what makes America unique, objective law based on universal true principles, that no gov't has a right to take away, since it doesn't give them.
That is why the United States is the only nation that has the right to bear arms, since self-defense is a natural right, self-defense even against ones own gov't.
"Well, that is why they need to be educated on the meaning of what the Confederate flag really stood for." Don't you mean they need to be indocrinated into your viewpoint but your perception of what the confederate flag represents is objective fact?
Well, you have four States listing slavery as the central issue for their reasons for secession and the Vice President, informally also stating that the basis for the Confederacy was the 'freedom' to keep other men slaves.
That is why the Confederacy had no Declaration of Independence, stating all men were created equal, because they rejected that concept.
So, either the Declaration is correct or the Confederacy is.
"You should have the right to do so." Then you believe in the declaration, but the first amendment is trash?
I also believe in ones right to property and freedom of speech doesn't supersede that.
"If you look at the Declaration, you will see that is what Jefferson does, he lists the Colonists grievances, The signers then list 27 grievances against the British Crown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_(United_States)" Yeah, and I listed the groceries I wished to buy today (hope you are out shopping on today, btw). That does not mean in order to list something you have to write down what you are going to buy at the grocery store. They did not have to list their grievances as Jefferson did.
Well, that is why our Revolution was unique and successful, we, unlike the French and Russians, were fighting for freedom, to protect individual, not just to overthrow the governing power.
Our listing of the grievances show that our cause was just and taken only after there was not other alternative.
"Which is what would make it an American view. It is unique to America, since no other nation holds to the idea that the individual has rights that are God-given (natural) and cannot be taken away by the State." A lot of philosophers put that view forward before our nation was founded. John Locke, who influenced the draftors, was one.
Yes, but only the United States adopted it.
"No, I explicitly stated that the South did not do what the Colonists did in listing their grievances. With the exception of the four states noted, that is true." Correct, however, you said they did not list grievances, not that they did not write a declaration of independence, big difference.
Once again, the Confederacy as such, did not list its grievances.
The listing of the four individual states does not change the fact that the Confederacy did not do what the United States did when it ended its relationship with England, explain why it was doing so and justify it.
"I do not see that. What might have been intertwined was the election of the Republican Party which was both anti-slavery and for high tariffs. However, the Democrat Party split over the slavery issue, allowing Lincoln to be elected easily. The slaver owners would not support the Northerner Stephen Douglas since he was against unconditional slave expansion. Thus, no matter how the Southerners might rail against Federal interference, it was they who split their own political Party before the 1860 election on the issue of slavery, not tarriffs (which cut across party lines)" The political issues were intertwined. Slavery and tariffs both affected cotton. States rights and slavery were inseperable at the time, unfortunately. Our system failed.
No, it was the men who failed the system, by viewing slavery as a positive good to be expanded as opposed to an evil that had to be ended.
"Yes, it does work, and property rights also work and the man hiring as the right to not have that flag represented on his property for what it does represent. If someone wants to get a Nazi swastika on his car, I do not care what he thinks it represents, I as the employer do not have to his auto on my property." The law does not agree with you. Your "property rights" do not extend to the infringement of a person free speech. Nice of you to think that it does though. Your comparison of the swastika with the confederate flag shows your emotion with regard to this issue precludes rational thought.
And when has the decisions of the Courts been the final say so on what the Constitution says.
Having just finished discussing Dred Scott, bad rulings are quite the norm since most judges are legal positivists, including the ones considered conservative.
They upheld the Feingold-McCain gag rule did they not?
Funny, how free speech is limited for politicians , but not for business owners.
The example of the swastika was just an extreme example to make the point.
"Earlier versions of the American flag were not pro-slavery because they represent the principles of the Declaration of Independence, of which slavery was a aberration that needed to be corrected." Bullsh*t. Pre-Civil War America was complacent in allowing the institution of slavery to survive in both the North and the South.
Slavery did not survive in the North, it was outlawed very quickly in most States.
It was banned in the Northwest territory.
It only survived in the South do the desire to keep the Union intact, hoping to find an eventual solution.
That solution was stopping its expansion, as the Founders had originally intended to do.
"In fact, Jefferson wanted to list slavery as one of the grievances against King George, but the Southern slave states would not allow it." But he didn't list it. Keep making excuses for him though, he could do no wrong.
Oh, he could do wrong, but the Declaration has stood the test of time.
His omission of the issue of slavery came at the insistence of the a couple of Southern slave states.
They would not sign the Declaration if slavery was listed as a grievance.
"As for State flags, just because the majority vote for it doesn't make it right." And just because you are too stubborn to let people have their own opinions does not make you right.
People can have any opinion they want, they just cannot ignore the facts that surround them.
Slavery is wrong, no matter what one thinks of it.
"Sure it does. The same racist view applied for the Confederacy as did with Jim Crow." The public skewls did a number on you if you think the states of the former Confederacy were the only states that had racist laws and views, even after the civil war.
Not at all.
Many Northern states had racist laws, and they were as wrong as the Southern ones.
The point is that the former Confederate States pushed that racism to the Jim Crow laws that made the black man an inferior.
"Well, since the truck is his property he does have a right to have it on his truck. And I as an employer have a right not to have his truck on my property with that flag." And you will get sued, and lose.
And that means what?
It only means that the courts thought I was wrong, not that the principle was.
Many people defend themselves and are wrongfully sued for doing so.
"So, it was you who was accusing my high regard for those men as being 'worship'" I said that I DO NOT WORSHIP THEM. I DID NOT SAY THAT YOU WORSHIP THEM.
Very well, no one said that you did or ought to, so why bring it up?
"Puerto Rico has the right to cease to be a commonwealth and become independent." Then replace Puerto Rico with Guam.
I do not see Guam crying for Independence.
If they did, I would say, give it to them.
"If they did not have that right, they would have a more legitimate grievance, not having fair representation which Hawaii does have." Your distinction of legitimate only if without representation is not valid. A state could never have a valid grievance under your view.
Only if that State was not being fairly represented.
That is why each State gets two senators, no matter how small it is.
The balance between small and large states was one of the brilliant aspects of the Constitution.
"No, what follows is that a grievance can be resolved through political means and not military ones." No. A grievance can be resolved either way.
If one resorts to military use for any kind of grievance, then you have anarchy.
Military use is for a grievance which cannot be resolved by any other means, since it is the most drastic solution to a problem.
"If there is no representation, and the grievances are serious enough, threatening individual freedom, then, as the Declaration states, it is the obligation of the individual to resist that tyranny." Irrelevant.
Not irrelevant, the very basis for a legitimate resistance to tyranny is the abuse of government and no other recourse but armed resistance.
Only America has a right to revolution built into its system.
"But for the sake of social stability, that abuse must be real and with no other way of resolving then with armed resistance." There will always be another way to resolved ti without armed resistance, you could always just capitulate.
No, that would be tyranny.
The balance is always between anarchy and tyranny.
Lincoln went to war against the Confederates because he stated that if allowed to secede no Republic would survive disagreements.
It is either bullets or ballots.
Lincoln did not disagree that there was a right to revolt against a tyrannical gov't.
This thread is getting too long. See you around.
This thread was too long two posts ago.
So long.
The South was not represented in Congress?
Those issues cut across Party lines.
There were Southern whigs who voted for Tariffs, and Nothern Democrats who voted against them.
And it was okay for Northern papers and radical Abolitionists to talk about secession from the Southern States and try to foment rebellion among the slaves prior to 1860.
And who said that was correct?
Before you deny it remember John Brown, and the Nat Turner rebellion? Guess who put down that one? Col. Robert E. Lee USA prior to his resignation of his commission a few years later.
First, those 'rebellions' were put down and those involved executed.
Second, Robert E. Lee, did not believe the States did have a right to secession.
He only fought for the South since he could not fight against his native State.
Also Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri and one other staate seceeded from the Union over Lincoln's illegal invasion where he called up 75,000 troops to try to force the original seceeding states back into the Union.
How is that call up of troops illegal when the Constitution has the right to suppress an armed rebellion.
Even Washington sent troops against the Whisky Rebellion.
So the bottom line is that the war wasn't fought over slavery, it was fought over the right of secession. It wasn't a war of rebellion as the Southern States weren't trying to take over Washington DC and form a new government for every state. You are the one who needs to study up on your history!
No, the bottom line is that the war was fought over slavery.
The South broke up the Democrat Party over it.
Most of the States succeded over it.
The South had no right to break its commitment to the Union because it did not like the results of an election.
As for citing books, here is one.
Despite thirty years of philosphizing, denials, obfusciation, scriptural revision, and constitutional sophistries, it all came down to this: the South was terrified of large number of freed blacks, slave or free. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Civil War was about slavery, and in the long run only about slavery....In contradiction to libertarian references to 'states rights and liberty' made by many modern neo-Confederates, the Rebel leadership made clear its views that not only were blacks not people, but that ultimately all blacks-including then-free Negros-should be enslaved. In his response to the Emancipation Prclamation, Jefferson Davis stated, 'On and after Febrary 22, 1863, all free negros within the limits of the Southern Confederacy shall be placed on slave status, and be deemed chattels, they and their issue forever.' Not only blacks of the Stats in which slavery does not now exist, in the progress of our arms, ahall be adjudged to...occupy the slave status....(A Patriot's History of the United States, Larry Schweikart and MIchael Allen, pg 302)
Rebellion is defined as a war to usurp the government and establish something different. The South wanted to break away from the Union, which under the 9th and 10th Amendments it had the RIGHT to do. No rebellion there Bubba Gump. Lincoln was supposed to get the authority from Congress for declaring war, and THAT HE DID NOT DO! Its called enumerated powers!
"Second, Robert E. Lee, did not believe the States did have a right to secession."
Once again the Founding Fathers disagree with you, Read up on the Virginia articles of ratification pertaining to the Constitution, Virginia by the way was Robert E. Lee's home state. You seem to think that when the States ratified the Constitution they gave up their sovereignty/power and were amassed into this national entity called America. Wrong again, they only ceeded certain distinct enumerated limited powers to the Federal Government. They never gave up sovereignty and the major portion of power was to remain the domain of the States, once again the 9th and 10th Amendments show you're wrong.
" No, the bottom line is that the war was fought over slavery."
The North went to war to "preserve the Union". So what does that have to do with freeing slaves? Lincoln himself said "If I could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it..." Lincoln was a centralist, he wanted to centralise all power in the Federal Government. The seceeding States wanted no government interference in their internal affairs. Slavery was considered a domestic institution (internal affair) and therefore the government had no right to stick its nose into it at that time. Not to mention the admission of the territories to the union as free states. Therefore the South felt the balance of power in Congress would shift to the North. And the North didn't want the Southern States to enact free trade as it was believed that this would hurt the protective tariffs that the Northern economy was prospering under at the expense of the Southern States. So your assertion that it was about slavery is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base. Slavery was only a side bar issue, and once the war was going badly in public opinion for the Federal Government, Lincoln being a consummate politician enacted the Emancipation Proclamation as a way of getting more popularity for his views. So now what? You still believe it was about only slavery? Virginia and Arkansas, and Missouri didn't seceed until Lincoln ordered the invasion of the original seceeding States. Slavery was NOT, REPEAT NOT why they seceeded, it was about federal interference in each case!
First, those amendments give no one the right to disband the Union.
Second, the question of who had a right to call out troops was a debated one.
The returning Republican Congress supported what the President did.
Ofcourse, traitors always want to use the law against those who are trying to uphold it.
"Second, Robert E. Lee, did not believe the States did have a right to secession." Once again the Founding Fathers disagree with you, Read up on the Virginia articles of ratification pertaining to the Constitution, Virginia by the way was Robert E. Lee's home state. You seem to think that when the States ratified the Constitution they gave up their sovereignty/power and were amassed into this national entity called America. Wrong again, they only ceeded certain distinct enumerated limited powers to the Federal Government. They never gave up sovereignty and the major portion of power was to remain the domain of the States, once again the 9th and 10th Amendments show you're wrong.
Well, along with Robert E. Lee, Andrew Jackson disagreed with that view.
As for the Founding Fathers Madison did not accept the idea that a State could leave the Union.
Nor, did most of the Founders.
Do not confuse the right of revolution (stated in the Declaration of Independence) with the right of secession.
The Constitution was made to make the Union between the States stronger, not weaker then the Articles of Confederation. The states were never sovereign nations (with the exception of Texas, which gave up that sovereignty when she entered into the union).
Secession was never considered a right.
Once again the 9th and 10 Amendments do not give any State the right to break up the Union.
" No, the bottom line is that the war was fought over slavery." The North went to war to "preserve the Union". So what does that have to do with freeing slaves? Lincoln himself said "If I could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it..." Lincoln was a centralist, he wanted to centralise all power in the Federal Government. The seceeding States wanted no government interference in their internal affairs. Slavery was considered a domestic institution (internal affair) and therefore the government had no right to stick its nose into it at that time. Not to mention the admission of the territories to the union as free states. Therefore the South felt the balance of power in Congress would shift to the North. And the North didn't want the Southern States to enact free trade as it was believed that this would hurt the protective tariffs that the Northern economy was prospering under at the expense of the Southern States. So your assertion that it was about slavery is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base. Slavery was only a side bar issue, and once the war was going badly in public opinion for the Federal Government, Lincoln being a consummate politician enacted the Emancipation Proclamation as a way of getting more popularity for his views. So now what? You still believe it was about only slavery? Virginia and Arkansas, and Missouri didn't seceed until Lincoln ordered the invasion of the original seceeding States. Slavery was NOT, REPEAT NOT why they seceeded, it was about federal interference in each case!
The Southern Confederacy attempted to secede over slavery.
Read the Cornerstone speech by the Confederate Vice President, Andrew Stephens, http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html
Lincoln promised not to interfere with any 'domestic institution' protected by the Constitution.
Yet that was not enough for the pro-slaver's, who wanted slavery to expand into the new terrorities.
They even busted up the Democratic Party over it, refusing to endorse the nomination of Stephen Douglas because he would not support unconditional slave expansion.
Now the fact is, that the Confederacy represented the expansion of slavery and should have been crushed.
And it's former flag should be rejected by any American who loves freedom.
(Those that are incited to violence by the sight of OUR flag are the enemies of this nation.)
That goes for our flag too!
Hell, so did Jefferson Davis, at least in 1845.
Resistance to the laws it was his duty to suppress by all the means at his command, and when loud and deep were heard threats of disunion, the destruction of that confederacy, the establishment of which had cost him all except his honor and his life, he resolved, cost what it might, to save it.The agony with which he viewed the prospect of fraternal strife, and on the land where lay the bones of all his kindred, speaks forth in these few word[s], "The Union, it must be preserved." Long live that maxim, and may our Union ever be preserved by justice conciliation and brotherhood, without a spot, without a stain of blood that flowed in civil war.
(...)He heard the harvest horn of Union, and had the just pride of seeing his administration set in greater brightnes than it rose.
If I have not spoken fully of President Jackson's course in office, it is becaue we have assembled not to discuss any particular creed, not to defend or to criticise any policy or measure, but with a higher and nobler purpose, as Americans, to stand together on the ground made holy by the tread of a votary to the cause of liberty, of him who so gallantly bore, to the close of his life, the ark of our covenant, the constitution of the U. States.
"Eulogy on the Life and Character of Andrew Jackson"
You couldn't be further from the truth if you tried. Read up on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. See whom the Founders viewed as the real seat of power for government. And the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of secession from England. You really are quite ignorant of American History aren't you. Don't reply as anything you would try to say now is moot. You need to study up a heck of a lot more to try and discuss politics and early American government.
Your flag would be the flag the democrats created, used by the Klu Klux Klan to rally support for lynching of republicans and blacks, as well asd the modern symbol of racism according to the same democrats that created it?
I guess that means that your nation is the same one that lost in it's bid to create a permanent slaveholding society where only anglo saxon white men could vote, and everyone else was chattel property.
"Your flag would be the flag the democrats created, used by the Klu Klux Klan to rally support for lynching of republicans and blacks, as well asd the modern symbol of racism according to the same democrats that created it?"
Nope, my flag was created by people that wanted to stop an invading army. I have no control over idiots that use it.
Democrats now hold the positions that republicans once had and visa versa.
Regarding Madison,
Alarmed at this reasoning, Madison argued, as he was to do again in 1830, opposing Calhoun, that 'we should never think of separation except for repeated and enormous violations,' which if committed, would put an end to the Constitution and leave the people,as they were in 1776,in a natural state of revolution. But such a state, in Madison's view, dissolved the Constitution, and therefore it was wrong to speak of nullification and secssion as legimate process within the frame of Government. Jefferson readily accepted this vital revision. (James Madison, A Biography by Ralph Ketcham, p.399)
As for the Declaration, it was a statement of universal principles, applicatible to all men.
It defended the right of the individual to resist the State when those rights are abused, since the State did not give those rights to the individual in the first place.
Hence, the only ones who had a right to 'revolt' were the slaves who were being denied those rights by the 'noble' Confederacy, not the Confederates who were leaving the Union to keep other men enslaved.
The war of 1861065 was a revolution, which is why one name for the war was "the War for Southern Independence." Pointless to talk about rights under the Constutution when the Confederates were breaking away from it. The matter was not to be settled by argument but by force of arms, just as in 1776. Despite union victories, the South came close to independence. If John Hood had made a more intelligent defense of Atlanta and held the Union forces off for another six week's Lincoln would have been defeated for re-election, and McClellan led a party that accepted disunion.
Well, if the South was in Revolution, then it needed to justify that revolt with an appeal to an attack on its individual rights.
The Federal gov't was not abusing anyone's individual rights in the South.
As for the war being settled by force of arms, if the Colonists had lost the war that would not negated the rightness of their cause, just as if the South had won, it would not have justified their cause.
Fortunatly, the winners in both were those who were defending the just cause.
If Washington had not waged a brilliabnt campaign in New Jersey in December and January, 1776-77, the British would in all likelihood have defeated what they called the "Rebellion." Right cause of not, we would have remained British subjects.
And that would not have made our cause any less just, nor the British one more just.
The military defeat of the Confederacy does not mean they were wrong, they were wrong because secession is wrong.
Secession is not ipso facto wrong, and it is neither allowed nor prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. As to the Union cause, there was a godd reason why Lincoln adopted a policy against slavery. "World Opinion,"--that is the powers of Europe, until then saw it simply as a power struggle. Shortly before Lincoln announed the Emancipation Proclamation, the liberal British statesman Gladstone was in favor of recognizing Southern Independence. After it, public opinion in Britain went to the side of the Union.
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.