Posted on 04/24/2017 5:49:29 AM PDT by rktman
So what if they did? How would it affect the independence of those seceded states? It would have secured it. Davis' own adviser cautioned him against it. Doing nothing would have better played into his hands than what he ended up doing.
Certainly VA and the others would not have joined the rebellion without the attack on Fort Sumter.
Virginia was content to remain in the Union while the other states seceded until they recognized that the Union was going to go to war with the seceded states. Lincoln was going to give up Fort Sumter if Virginia agreed to stay in the Union, which makes Lincoln's position like the old joke. "We've already figured out what kind of girl you are, now we are just haggling over the price."
Given that Virginia was the home of Washington and Jefferson, it's a fair bet that they understood the right of states to leave the Union.
On a side not calling it the civil war is not correct.
No it isn't. It is more accurately described as the Second American war of Independence.
The official U.S. Army term is the war of rebellion which is much more accurate in my opinion.
The US Army does what it's commander in chief tells it to do. It doesn't have an honest opinion of it's own, it is merely a ventriloquist dummy for whatever the President says.
It is a weapon, not a philosopher.
What you claim was, in fact, never true -- not true in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified, not true in 1790 when President Washington respected Pennsylvania's abolition laws and not true even after the 1857 Supreme Court concocted its absurd Dred-Scott decision.
However fear of similar Supreme Court rulings made many Northerners realize that slavery could now be imposed on them, by Supreme Court fiat, whether they wanted it or not.
And that, precisely, is what turned majority Democrat states like Pennsylvania, Indiana & Illinois (the first "Blue Wall") from 1856 Democrats to 1860 Republicans.
And that's it for me for today, must run for now...
By Jupiter General I do declare you would try the patience of Job himself! I would strongly advise that you would seek the comfort of The Good Book.
Bro Joe, take a look at post #184. The General( central va) has gone so far off his nut he’s posting to himself!
I can read the facts myself, and I don't need your spin on what is the demonstrable truth.
The British Kingdom was over a thousand years old at the time the United States seceded from it. If the principles avowed by the Declaration could break that compact, no lesser bond of a mere "four score and seven years" could morally hold them.
They had a right to secede, and AMERICANS would have recognized their right to live their lives in peace and without interference. Horace Greeley did, ("let the erring sisters depart in peace") as did many others of that time.
Americans cheered the independence of France when it started. Lincoln himself cheered the independence of Texas from Mexico. Massachusetts threatened to seceded in the 1830s. This way of seeing things was the norm of that era until it upset the rice bowls of the rich and powerful.
Thereafter they created the false claim that people did not have a right to independence from their control, and we have been fighting these people ever since.
They rule in Washington this very day. They are the power brokers we call "The Establishment", which is a coalition of Government and monied interests in a "crony capitalist" cartel.
And it started around 1860.
You should stop running down the founders. We owe our nation to them. There would be no America if they hadn't done what they did.
Very well put. The thing that these lost causers either ignore or fail to realize is that the confederates attempted to tear apart the greatest country the world has ever seen. A country that the monarchs and lords of Europe did not think could last. The south almost proved them right.
I see you assert that it isn't true, but I have yet to see you prove the words don't mean what they say. How about you parse the words and show me how you can interpret Article IV section II as allowing a state to violate it's clearly worded meaning?
However fear of similar Supreme Court rulings made many Northerners realize that slavery could now be imposed on them, by Supreme Court fiat, whether they wanted it or not.
By Constitutional compact to which their ancestors had agreed. Someone finally got them to notice the fine print. It was always there since 1781, and it always legally bound them. They had just been ignoring it like they do the Second Amendment nowadays.
California and New Jersey are *STILL* ignoring the second amendment, so don't tell me it can't happen.
And you should shut the f**k up because calling you out any more might be considered abuse of the mentally ill. Tell me something stupid, just who ever elects a monarchy? That being the English Crown which is your sub rosa here.
The United States didn’t seccede from Great Britain they rebelled. They rebelled after a long string of abuses of which they issued a declaration to the world on what those were.
Now why did South Carolina and the rest of the southern states rebel? Because they didn’t like the outcome of an election!! And why didn’t they like the outcome of the election? Can you answer me that? I’ll give you a hint, it’s in their declaration of succession. Here’s another hint, they called the republicans “black republicans”. Now why was that?
As was England when the Founders tore it apart. That a country is great does not give them the right to deny independence to people who wish to be free of them.
That is the essence of our Founding.
Who in the South elected Lincoln's monarchy?
No one.
What about the people who were slaves, who wanted to be free of the people who were forming the CSA?
Presume for the sake of argument that the CSA was similarly "great". Per your thesis above, they didn't have the right to deny independence to people (slaves) who wished to be free of them.
Mentioning freedom in the context of acting as an apologist for the Confederacy is never a good idea...
You. Are. F**King. Certifiably. Nuts. Crazy. Out.To. Lunch.
That is a quibble. They effected a separation, based on the then popular "natural law" theory that people had a God given right to self determination. They said so.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
See? Rights derived from Nature and Nature's God. They went on to add.
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 of 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 effect their Safety and Happiness.
They rebelled after a long string of abuses of which they issued a declaration to the world on what those were.
So you are saying that rebelling is okay if you have good reasons? Who gets to decide if your reasons are good or not? You or the King? Cause I don't believe the King thought their reasons were very good. In fact, I think he disagreed completely that they were abused at all.
Now why did South Carolina and the rest of the southern states rebel?
They didn't "rebel", they voted to leave the Union, they recalled their congressional delegations, and they set themselves up to handle their own affairs without paying money to New York and Washington D.C. It was relatively peaceful (especially compared to the American Revolution) until their unwanted guests refused to leave.
Because they didn’t like the outcome of an election!! And why didn’t they like the outcome of the election? Can you answer me that?
Because Liberal Northern states elected a race obsessed liberal lawyer from Illinois like Barack Obama? One who would use his "Pen and Telegraph" to write executive orders undermining their economy and their rights?
I don't think their reasons really matter. What matters is they wanted to be independent, and according to our founding document they had a right to gain it.
I’ll give you a hint, it’s in their declaration of succession.
You mean this declaration made at their secession convention? Seems to be mostly about economics. It goes on and on about how the North had rigged the laws against them and wrecked their industries and taxed them mercilessly with the vast bulk of the money going to the North. It happens to be true that the 4 million citizens who lived in the South were paying 75% of all Federal income while the 20 million in the North were only paying 25%.
You should read it. It makes a clear economic argument that independence would serve them far better than remaining subjugated to the Washington/New York/Boston power block.
Here’s another hint, they called the republicans “black republicans”. Now why was that?
I assume it was because it was the worst name you could call a white man back in those days. Certainly the Northern states hated black people and had passed laws prohibiting them from living in their states. Hatred of blacks was Universal in the Union at that time. In the New York riots, they lynched 11 black men and caused hundreds of black people to flee the city. Lincoln wanted all the black people deported.
They called them that because to most people in America at that time, it was an offensive name.
Your point only has merit if you can claim that they would be free if they remained in the Union. If the Union would not give them freedom, what does it matter that the CSA would not give them freedom either?
Yes, they had a moral right to be free, but no one in power in the North or the South had any intention of granting them this right. It was unfair to them, but in 1861, both sides would have been equally unfair in this regard.
Presume for the sake of argument that the CSA was similarly "great". Per your thesis above, they didn't have the right to deny independence to people (slaves) who wished to be free of them.
I have always said this. Freedom is a fundamental right which all people deserve both as a people and as individuals. (Except in punishment of a crime.) The South would have eventually come to realize the error of it's ways and it would have eventually abolished slavery anyways. Much of the North abolished slavery slowly over many decades, and slaves represented a far less economic value to them. In the South it was their economic engine, and in questions between morality and pocketbooks, pocketbooks almost always win. (This is why many Northerners sold their slaves "down the river." They could feel morally superior while keeping their money.)
The social pressure was still building though, and eventually the economic forces would have succumbed to the social pressure which was constant and increasing. The Wealthy in the South would have eventually decided that they didn't need slaves, and that the ownership of slaves was becoming gauche.
I have long argued that Liberalism is a consistent manifestation of wealth, and that over time, the wealthy and their children automatically become liberal.
Mentioning freedom in the context of acting as an apologist for the Confederacy is never a good idea...
I'm in favor of freedom for everybody, but teaching the lesson of "freedom" by enslaving others is not a very good approach. It is also morally bankrupt.
It justifies slavery in principle. It establishes Slavery as an acceptable institution provided you have the power to enforce it.
Put more simply, two wrongs don't make a right.
A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes; and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures. An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power.
for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.
They had the Lincoln sort of despotism identified three score and fourteen years before he appeared.
But they didn't interfere with shipping into and out of Charleston at all. Not once.
Further, he believes that these were the intentions of The Founders when they conceived this great nation of ours.
Yea, I know - crazy ain't it?!
What I meant by cooler heads is that the movement for secession would lose steam and the states would voluntarily start returning to the union. In many of the states the vote for secession was close and in some states there is evidence that the fire-breathers fixed the vote for succession. The leaders of the slaveocracy knew this and knew they needed the upper south to give their a rebellion a chance of succeeding.
This is why Abraham Lincoln said that there would be no war unless the south started it. He was hoping that with time cooler heads would prevail and the union would be preserved.
I do agree that with you on one thing, there is a natural right to rebellion. But there is no right to win a rebellion. When you appeal to force of arms you better hope you win. Also every rebellion isn’t necessarily a good thing. The Bolshevik’s won their revolution but the people were clearly better off under the czar then they were the reds. I would argue that the United States, and the world, is better off because the U.S crushed the southern rebellion.
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.