Posted on 10/09/2016 9:03:50 PM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet
Even if you hyper-simplistic statement is true, how does that change the fact that it’s still rebellion?
The R and the L are too far apart on the keyboard for that to be a typo which leads to the possibility of a Freudian slip.
“Well, those in Britain who supported the American cause, like Edmund Burke, stated it was the English who were in rebellion, by denying the Americans their natural rights as Englishmen.”
....A ridiculous stretch of what it actually means to be in rebellion against a sovereign government.
“The South had no just cause to attempt to leave the Union.”
The South could leave because northern states were not agreeing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act....an act which was deemed Constitutional. Now I realize that today slavery (in any form) may shock your sensitive conscience, but it was far from a settled issue at the founding of the nation and during the mid 19th century. Even if you argue that South Carolina was wrong to secede, do you think that states like Tennessee were wrong to secede when Lincoln demanded that the state levy 75,000 troops to attack South Carolina?
” The South had no just cause to attempt to leave the Union.”
It’s not a convincing argument since the ruling government always believes that. George III believed that. Brezhnev believed that. Putin believes it. Who exactly are you awarding the ability to confer this “just cause” ruling?
“The Constitution is very clear that there is no secession “
That would have been news to Timothy Pickering and the Essex Junto in 1800. And to the Federalists with their 1814 Hartford Convention. And to the abolitionists angry about annexing Texas.
If the Constitution clearly denied secession then Buchanan’s critics could have demanded he enforce it when seven states seceded. They didn’t, and he didn’t, because it isn’t clear.
Had it been clear then Lincoln wouldn’t have been appealing to the Continental Association of 1773 to make his argument that the Union was permanent- he could have appealed directly to the Constitution.
” The fact that Buchanan did nothing is not relevant. “
Buchanan’s actions are every bit as relevant as Lincoln’s, both were President.
” When Calhoun started making noise about SC seceding, Andrew Jackson said he would hang him. “
Illustrating that Presidents can seek to exercise dictatorial powers and are dangerous.
Lincoln’s friend and bodyguard Ward Lamon wrote that Lincoln ordered the arrest of Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney for finding Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus to be unConstitutional, but the plan was never carried out. Taney wrote of his fear that Lincoln would arrest him over this ruling. Lincoln had a DC federal court judge arrested for insisting on habeus corpus and then dissolved the court entirely so that no more such rulings could be made.
” New England did threaten secession, and the Federalist Party never recovered from that act of treason. “
That was 1814. The Federalist Party lost its power 14 years earlier when Jefferson defeated them in 1800. They never elected another President. By 1820 the majority of them became Whigs, which eventually led to the Republican Party.
He was pro-South as well.
The Constitution is permanent since there is no legal appeal for secession in it.
It was formed to create a more perfect union then the Articles of Confederation, which were permanent!
The Constitution, is not a union like the EU, which does have a mechanism for withdrawal of a nation from it.
Madison rejected the notion of secession.
So, Buchanan inaction was due to his own Southern prejudice, and he neglected his duty as President.
The South had no legal or moral basis for secession and were in violation of their responsibilities to the Federal Union.
Even the Confederate Constitution doesn't allow secession from it!
That basis was not in the South's rebellion.
They simply didn't like the fact that slavery was not going to be allowed to spread into the new States.
The one's who had a right to rebel with the slaves, who were being denied human rights.
Of course, the South would crush such a rebellion and went after fleeing slaves into the North to drag them back into captivity.
This is the wickedness you guys defend!
So here you are defending the right over secession because the South wanted to go into Northern States to drag back into slavery, escaped slaves!
As for the rebellion of the Colonies, it was based on the view of human rights, rights which Americans were being denied by the British Parliament and Monarchy.
Yes, a State must supply troops to put down a rebellion!
South Carolina fired on a U.S. fort and was in a state of war with the Union.
The ones who had a right to rebel in the South were the slaves themselves, who were denied human freedoms according to the Declaration of Independence.
So, you Neo-Confederates are a disgrace to the United States and freedom itself.
Oh, my relatives were responsible for starting the civil war. Historic trouble makers as far as slave owners were concerned.
The British government was not doing what it was suppose to do, protect individual liberty of Englishmen.
So, the Americans had a right to throw off that government and establish another one that would protect those rights.
That is why the Southern secessionists hated the Declaration of Independence, because it said all men have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, while they lived off the sweat and misery of other human beings.
Oh, what a noble cause you Neo-Confederates defend!
Of course, then you will deny the war was never about defending slavery, when that is exactly what it was for the South!
Yes, I am against slavery, if you are for it, I guess you wouldn’t mind being a slave yourself.
It was put in to make sure that the Bill of Rights wasn't considered the only limitation on the Federal government.
The Constitution is a permanent union among States.
There were slaves in virtually all of the original States, not just in the south. The southern States wanted slaves counted for apportionment purposes. The north didn't, resulting in slaves only being regarded as 3/5 human.
Would you have supported a slave rebellion in all the original States? Or, would you only have supported it in the south after secession? The Emancipation Proclamation was a military document that did just that, attempting to foment a slave revolt in the south only. It didn't apply outside of States that did not secede.
“Buchanan didn’t believe that secession was legal, but he didn’t believe the Gov’t had a right to stop it!”
And those who wanted him to halt the secession would have sued him to do so if they could have pointed to something in the Constitution prohibiting it.
” The Constitution is permanent since there is no legal appeal for secession in it.”
That’s a fine opinion but it’s simply an ‘argument from silence’, a common logical fallacy. A stronger case can be made that secession is permitted since the Bill of Rights reserves unspecified powers to the states and/or the people:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
“It was formed to create a more perfect union then the Articles of Confederation, which were permanent! “
Your premise is that the Union was permanent. Rather than proving that the premise is true you are simply asserting it as if it were fact. That doesn’t fly.
The Constitution itself only came into existence once the states had ratified it, a sequence of events illustrating that the States predated and were independent of the Constitution. Lincoln and Salmon Chase argued that the Union predated the Constitution without explaining how the states had the power to create or refuse the Constitution.
“Madison rejected the notion of secession. “
Let’s look at what Madison did say:
“...we are not to consider the Federal Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for, if it were so, a majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a new constitution for the whole...If we consider the Federal Union as analogous, not to the social compacts among individual men, but to the conventions among individual states, what is the doctrine resulting from these conventions? Clearly, according to the expositors of the law of nations, that a breach of any one article, by any one party, leaves all the other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention as dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach.”
All that the seceding states had to do to satisfy Madison’s argument is show that the national government had breached one article of the original agreement and then the contract is dissolved. Hardly an argument for compulsory permanent union. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798 authored by Madison and Jefferson also give an insight to the power that the Founders believed resided in the States versus the national government.
“So, Buchanan inaction was due to his own Southern prejudice, and he neglected his duty as President.”
You would have us believe that you have the power to divine his motivation. A Magic 8 Ball can make a similar claim.
“That basis was not in the South’s rebellion.”
According to what authority? You?
“They simply didn’t like the fact that slavery was not going to be allowed to spread into the new States. “
After secession that argument was no longer a problem for the United States and its territories. The CSA states had no say over what the new US states would be. In fact with seven fewer slave states Congress and the Lincoln administration had the political power to outlaw slavery outright if that was their overriding interest.
“The one’s who had a right to rebel with the slaves, who were being denied human rights. “
Then are you consistent enough to take the position that the Crown should have won the Revolutionary War since London issued two emancipation proclamations and slavery would have ended in the 1780s? Or are you the sort who wants to have it both ways where ending slavery is the deciding factor in the 1860s but somehow is of no importance 80 years earlier?
” This is the wickedness you guys defend!”
You might want to help Hillary write her material, she likes that sort of arrogant moralizing. Most leftists do.
Unfortunately, the date of release of the film was in November of 2012. She made the comments in April of 2013.
Good try. I looked. :D
“It isn’t an over simplistic explanation, it is an exact one.”
Yes it is. As is what follows in the rest of your post here.
“The British government was not doing what it was suppose to do, protect individual liberty of Englishmen. So, the Americans had a right to throw off that government and establish another one that would protect those rights.”
If the British government was supposed to protect these “individual liberties”, then why did the U.S. Constitution not protect those supposed rights upon its creation (slavery still existed)?
“That is why the Southern secessionists hated the Declaration of Independence, because it said all men have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, while they lived off the sweat and misery of other human beings.”
They, like most Americans, did not even consider black Americans to be “human beings” in the fullest sense of the word. If the opinion that black Americans were fully “human” was predominant, then slavery would have manifestly been stricken from 18th century American society. Stop absolving your northern brethren of culpability. Also, quit pretending they are such great lovers of the Constitution. The one of the greatest power-grabs by the Federal government in U.S. history will occur just after the Civil War.
“Oh, what a noble cause you Neo-Confederates defend!”
Funny, FR often defends leaving issues to state and local government without the Feds suddenly making up new “Rights” which they can now step in and defend. It also supports a greatly reduced role of the Federal government over states. But I suppose that could only result in tyranny for you, right? You’d rather see tyranny at the federal level (as long as it pushes your cultural opinions on others, of course).
“Of course, then you will deny the war was never about defending slavery, when that is exactly what it was for the South!”
No. professor, no one would deny that. But there were EQUALLY important issues at stake. Like rule of law and especially the authority of states to make their own laws. Slavery was legal. Ya don’t like it...then Amend the Constitution legally. South Carolina overreacted by seceding, but the presidential response to the secession was equally absurd. Some states did not want to leave at all, but only later left after the Federal government’s authoritarianism became apparent. Of course, you could argue that an imperialistic streak had already began to develop around the time of the Mexican War, but the influence of the New England financial and industrial factions were clearly on display by the mid-1860s. From this point onward, the history of the U.S is one one of territorial expansion/influence and ever centralizing Federal authority....without exception.
The South wasn't fighting for individual rights, as were the Colonists, they were fighting to keep other men enslaved!
No, Many Americans did consider blacks human beings, worthy of human rights, as was seen in the election of Abraham Lincoln.
Slavery was legal, but it was going to be limited by the election of Lincoln and that was constitutionally permissible, and that is why the South attempted to leave the Union.
The Southern leaders knew slavery couldn't survive being limited.
Free States would soon out number the slave states and it would be eliminated from the Constitution.
So, take your pro-slavery sentiments somewhere else.
The right side won the Civil War and those who defend the Southern Confederacy are simply defending an evil system.
“The right side won the Civil War and those who defend the Southern Confederacy are simply defending an evil system.”
I don’t think Native Americans, Hawaiians, Filipinos, Iraqis, Vietnamese, Chinese, Afghans, and well lots of other people would view you as the “right side”. I wonder if many of these people view U.S. imperialistic Capitalism as an “evil system”. There’s a whole lot of self-righteous ignorance (coupled with arrogance) in your statements, but that seems to be the American Way these days. If you want to be a propagandist for imperialism and statism, don’t whine when people call you out on it. Thumping your chest and shouting “racist!” (especially to someone who doesn’t support chattel slavery) doesn’t make you part of the “right side”.
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.