Posted on 07/30/2013 7:15:08 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
Declaration of Independence refers to revolution, and gives reasons why revolution was morally justified.
After the problem of justifying secession for slavery morally, there is the problem that secession by a single state at pleasure is not constitutional, as the controversy would be required to be resolved by Article III, at the supreme court.
My understanding is that Lincoln’s letter notified the local officials that the supply ship would be unarmed.
People were free to leave anytime they wanted to leave. Many Southerners moved to Brazil and became Confederados. Many of their descendants are still down there waving Confederate flags. Many of them still speak some English.
Everyone who lived in the South was an American citizen. As American citizens, each of them had rights under the Constitution. The secessionists tried to deprive those American citizens of their rights under the U.S. Constitution and tried to deprive them of their American citizenship.
Like many of the bigwigs of his day, George Washington was very dissatisfied with the Articles of Confederation because it left the nation weak and indefensible. He pushed for the creation of an indissoluble Union of the States. Our Constitution makes it clear that it was a bond by and between "We the People of the United States" and not just another league of states. In fact, it was for that very important reason that Patrick Henry was opposed to ratifying the Constitution - "Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states?"
The secessionists had the right to leave the plantation. They had no right to try to break the constitutional bonds between the American people or to deprive any Americans of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.
No, Fascists always want the people to leave the USA. That is the rub, the USA is a construct of the states-not the other way around. Seceding states need not worry what little Hitlers think.....
You do realize that every state that seceded put secession to the people as referendum, and they OVERWHELMINGLY voted for it? Maybe you don't, you could be that ignorant.
Apparently not. What rule of law transferred title of Sumter from its lawful owners to the Confederacy? It's a pretty simple question that should, hopefully, require a simple answer.
No, they are responsible for some of it, but it is dishonest to place all the blame on one side. Had Lincoln evacuated Fort Sumter, there would have been no war. It's also Northern Pride and stubbornness that is to blame.
Yes, had Lincoln arbitrarily surrendered immediately after Davis started his war then the deaths would not have occurred. But when faced with aggression surrender usually leads to further aggression. So Lincoln can hardly be blamed for fighting the war the Confederacy forced on him.
The Issue of Slavery was the dominant issue which motivated them to secede. I'm not sure where you count the start of "Rebellion" at the point where they seceded, or at the point where they fired on Fort Sumter.
It's simpler than that. Take away every other cause you care to mention and leave slavery and the South still rebels. Take away slavery and leave all the other causes and the South does not. It's really just that simple.
So you don't count the secession as part of the "Rebellion"? Only the bombardment? Fine, the war was over revenge, not "Preserving the Union" or "Slavery", it was revenge, plain and simple.
(*sigh*) I might as well have written nothing since you clearly do not understand anything I wrote. The South started the war and it was to further their secession, which was motivated by slavery. Therefore, clearly, for the South the war was over slavery. For the North, it was fighting the war forced upon them.
I stand corrected. Do you have a link?
March 6, 1861 - Confederate Congress passed act for establishment of a army of 100,000 men for 12 months service. Link
How is it accurate to keep linking Fort Sumter with Slavery? How? How do you even believe stuff like that?
Because you cannot divorce the Confederate cause from the war that they started.
If your position is that secession is illegal, and it is your duty to stop it, and it is required that you use deadly force to do so, then yes, the War should have started immediately.
That's like saying that if you believe hostage taking is illegal and it is the duty of the police to stop it then rather that negotiate with the hostage taker you should bring in a tank and blow their location away.
This is pure comedy.
I don't think a whole lot of people were laughing at the time.
South Carolina didn't. Their secession was decided by a convention. Kentucky didn't, they went the convention route, too. As did Mississippi. And Alabama. In fact only four states - Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and North Carolina - submitted secession to a referendum. In North Carolina the referendum was defeated, but later the legislature took them into rebellion anyway. In Virginia the referendum actually was held a few weeks after the state was admitted to the Confederacy.
Maybe you don't, you could be that ignorant.
Or maybe just smarter than you.
I guess the best way to test that claim is to begin at the beginning.
On December 20, 1860, a "convention" of South Carolina bigshot "delegates" approved a secession declaration. When did South Carolina hold this "referendum" that you describe?
There are 12 homes and about 19 adults living on my cul-de-sac. If 15 of us want our cul-de-sac to secede from the United States so we won't have to pay U.S. taxes anymore, we can vote to create our own nation, I guess? And, the 4 who vote no are just going to have to accept our decision as binding on them? What shall we tell the mailman?
As you will learn if you try it, no cul-de-sac, no homeowners' association, no town, no city, no county, no state can declare a "secession" and thereby deprive any other American citizen of his/her citizenship or his/her rights under the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution creates political bonds between "we, the people of the United States" and we, the people of the United States, are committed to protecting one another's rights as American citizens.
No, there is no such thing as a legal "secession" even if it's to protect something as important as the institution of slavery. "Secession" is just a parlor word for revolution.
A childish argument to say the least. States are defined in the USC. Entire states can move to secede. This infantile argument that you espouse shows how little you really understand of US history . It also show contempt for the lives lost in a serious struggle and the honor and integrity of Southerners everywhere.
You are neophyte compared to other Lincoln apologists. You should keep quiet and read these posts and try to learn something, you're not ready for prime time. Please stop; this is embarrassing - to you. You are unworthy of my time.
What should we tell the mailman? ;-)
I admit I read your posts primarily for amusement but I'm beginning to suspect you don't read your posts at all. Your claim was, and I quote, "...every state that seceded put secession to the people as referendum..." and I merely pointed out that not only were you wrong, you were badly wrong. Only about a quarter of the claimed rebel states submitted it to a referendum. Now if you're trying to change your claim to "...every state that seceded put secession to the people as a referendum OR through elected delegates at a convention..." then even that is incorrect. Many used elected conventions, but certainly not all. South Carolina's convention was appointed by the legislature. Kentucky's delegates were pretty much self-appointed. Missouri didn't bother with anything; a rump section of the legislature and an impeached governor decided that.
So...are you planning any other inaccurate claims?
And how exactly does that differ from the "might makes right" argument you were so loudly decrying earlier?
Really? Which clause is that?
Your refusal to seriously answer the question isn't unexpected. Lost Causers seem to have this persistent notion that the state is the fundamental particle of sovereignty, and nothing below is valid and nothing above is more than an matter of convenience, to be renounced at the slightest whim.
Not unilaterally. It was tried before and found to be illegal.
cva: “You are neophyte compared to other Lincoln apologists. You should keep quiet and read these posts and try to learn something, you’re not ready for prime time.”
C’mon Tau - don’t you know that your opinion is only valid in direct proportion to your logon date?!
“South Carolina’s convention was appointed by the legislature.”
Wrong.
South Carolinians voted for their convention delegates on December 6, 1860.
So, are you planning any more inaccurate claims?
” In North Carolina the referendum was defeated, but later the legislature took them into rebellion anyway.”
Forgot about the May 13, 1861 elections for convention delegates by the citizens of North Carolina, did ya? The convention voted to secede on May 20, 1861.
So, any further inaccuracies you wish to share?
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.