Posted on 12/02/2008 6:57:32 AM PST by prplhze2000
came across an article from an old issue of U.S. News & World Report commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Civil War. What was interesting was that it compared the treatment of the South for decades after the war's end to the millions of dollars and additional support given to Germany and other European countries through the Marshall plan and concluded the South's fate was a drag on the rest of the country as it remained the poorest section of America by far.....
U.S Treasury agents streamed through the South in 1865 grabbing cotton, land, anything that they claimed to have been the property of the Confederacy. They took cotton valued at $30 million. Behind them came hordes of carpetbaggers (With the Wall Street Journal's blessing I'm sure. They'll invent some economic theory to justify it while professing to hate the looters in Atlas Shrugged) from the North to drain away any Southern Capital they could lay hands on..."
The Southern steel industry, doing a booming business in 1900, was virtually stopped in its track, Southerners said, by a rate structure imposed by the North. The rates required payment of price differentials so sharp that it became cheaper for an industry in New Orleans to buy steel from Pittsburgh than from Birmingham. Not until World War II were changes made in this system."
Such policies created a region so poor and under-educated that FDR called the South the "nations number one economic problem" in 1938...
(Excerpt) Read more at kingfish1935.blogspot.com ...
West Virginia did not thus it is unconstitutional.
But that just a historic curiosity that no longer matters.
Lincoln tore up that piece of paper long ago.....
If I did as much talking with as little research as you do then I wouldn't be accusing other's of embarassing themselves.
According to the U.S. Constitution, no state can be divided unless the new state has the permission of its parent state before it can achieve statehood.
It had that. Read and learn.
On April 17, 1861, the Virginia Secession Commission voted to submit a secession bill to the people. When this was approved, the delegates from the western counties walked out of the Secession Convention, vowing to form a state government loyal to the Union. These delegates gathered in Clarksburg on April 22, calling for a pro-Union convention, which met in Wheeling from May 13 to 15. On May 23, Virginia voters approved the Ordinance of Secession.
Following the Union victory at the Battle of Philippi, a Second Wheeling Convention met between June 11 and June 25, 1861. Delegates formed the Restored, or Reorganized, Government of Virginia, and chose Francis H. Pierpont as governor. Congress recognized the Restored Government as the legitimate government of Virginia. John Carlile and Waitman T. Willey became United States Senators and Jacob B. Blair, William G. Brown, and Kellian V. Whaley became Congressmen representing pro-Union Virginia.
On October 24, 1861, residents of thirty-nine counties in western Virginia approved the formation of a new Unionist state. At the Constitutional Convention in Wheeling, which met from November 1861 to February 1862, delegates selected fifty counties for inclusion in the new state of West Virginia. Some of the counties that did not support statehood were included for political, economic, and military purposes. One of the more controversial decisions involved the Eastern Panhandle counties, which supported the Confederacy. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, which ran through the Eastern Panhandle, was extremely important for the economy and troop movements. Inclusion of these counties removed all of the railroad from the Confederacy.
You are correct that the Constitution says a new state cannot be created from another state without the approval of the state legislature. Since the Restored Government was considered the legal government of Virginia, it granted permission to itself on May 13, 1862, to form the state of West Virginia. To the Constitutional requirement was met.
The United States Senate on July 14, 1862, approved statehood for West Virginia. On December 10, 1862, the House of Representatives passed the enabling act as well and on December 31, President Lincoln signed the bill into law, approving the creation of West Virginia as a state loyal to the Union. On March 26, 1863, the citizens of the fifty counties approved the statehood bill and on June 20, the state of West Virginia was officially created.
See. Nothing illegal or unconstitutional at all. In fact the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the creation when they agreed to hear the case of Virginia v. West Virginia after the rebellion. Had West Virginia not been a state then they would not have the right to be heard.
Quite the contrary. The constitutionality of the acts was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Given a murderously brutal civil war and the assassination of Lincoln, no Southern slave owner in his right mind would dared petition the courts and expect to remain unmolested by the mobs of Lincolnites or coloured Federal troops. The lawful misrule between 1865 and 1877 when no white man could vote or serve jury duty, precluded any hope of real justice as recognized by the Constitution under the tender mercies of Northern overlords.
Yeah, y'all really hated those coloured Federal troops, didn't you? Bottom rail on top now, massa, and all the rest.
And get you dates right. Reconstruction ran from 1867 to 1876.
Nor any rebel state already under Union control.(another contradiction by the Great Emancipator)
Because those areas were no longer in rebellion either. Duh.
For slavery to be constitutionally abolished and prevent any possible appeals by former owners, the Thirteenth Amendment was necessary.
And what president pushed through that 13th Amendment?
The E. P didn't cover the Union Slave states because it could politically scare the border states to support the Confederacy despite having no legal standing to free any slave.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not cover the Union Slave states because legally Lincoln couldn't free their slaves, what with them not being in rebellion and all. It took a constitutional amendment to do that, which Lincoln also did.
The war itself did that. Image Federal Marshals crossing battle lines to return slaves to their rightful owners.
No, imagine Southern slave owners in areas liberated by the Union forces demanding their chattel back. It happened early in the war. The Emancipation Proclamation settled that.
Good to see you back and Godsed on getting well.
Red.
[You, brazenly] Means nothing. Supreme Court judges frequently find things beyond the what the Constitution says.
Oh, so you want to be a strict constructionist, now? I'm going to hold you to that one. Remember you said that, so that we don't have to remind you.
A state can "secede". ... But after a state has ....put together an "ordinance of secession", this section of the Constitution [Article I Section 10] still stands to prevent the seceded state from entering into a confederation, treaty, engage in war etc.
No, it doesn't. After secession, the Constitution no longer applies within the borders of the seceded State, or to its citizens.
Secession operates at the same level as, and has the same sort of effect and force as, ratification of the Constitution in the first place, or ratificiation of an article of amendment. It's a sovereign act, not a legislative one, and it is tantamount to an amendment to the Constitution whereby the Constitution itself is abrogated.
And just as ratification acts apply only to one State (Ohio can't ratify for Indiana, e.g.), so do secession acts -- but they apply completely and thoroughly nevertheless to the whole State, just as ratification of the Constitution did for the original 13 States.
So both are entitled to bombard the respective bases if they want posession back? Is that what you're saying?
Unions by their nature are by consent of both parties to freely join and just as freely dissolved.
Try again. States join when the other states give their permission and not before. Leaving should be the same.
The colonies freely abided by the Constitution.
If only the Southern states had. You'd be living in a different country now.
But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union.
Andrew Jackson is just dead wrong, and here betrays a complete unfamiliarity with Hamilton's and Madison's expoosition of the nature of the Union as a federated republic and constitutionally-constrained representative democracy. The document to consult is the often-quoted Federalist 39, which you have seen so many times now, that I will not let you get away with trying to hide behind other people who either misunderstood it, ignored it, or didn't know about it at all.
The United States of America is, are, not a "nation". The Icelanders are a "nation", the Mongols are a "nation". The United States is, and areii, not like either of those communities.
You are assigning "homework" in order to try to be as big a pain as possible. You have absolutely no intention of abiding by any "proof" anyone offers to contradict your own preconceived ideas about the sainthood of Abraham Lincoln and the whitened purity of all of his acts.
Nevertheless, your syllogism applies only to States in the Union. The Constitution likewise contains no clause prohibiting, forswearing, or forbidding secession.
The limitations the States imposed on themselves in Article I, esp. Section 10 (there are others scattered passim, e.g. w/ regards to the Militia, addressed in Articles I, II and IIA) are enumerated and limited by their own specificity. Each of the limitations is quite specific, such as that by which the States agree not to "emit Bills of Credit", i.e. paper currency, which is followed immediately by the further injunction that they shall not "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". The fact that the Philadelphia Convention authors felt it necessary to make this condition of confederation crystal-clear in this way shows that these self-limitations are in fact highly specific, and not general. The Constitution says nowhere that "States universally give up their sovereignty and their competence to make and unmake Law, except as and when such power and competence may be retroceded by the Congress and the Union for specific purposes, or as authorized by this Constitution."
Had the cession of State powers been intended to be general, the Framers would have had to write, perforce, a long list of retroceded powers and competences which the Constitution would bestow on the self-abjuring, self-castrating States.
Instead, the federalized activities are enumerated and described closely, and the Tenth Amendment makes it clear -- the assurances of Hamilton availing nothing against Antifederalist skepticism -- that all other powers and freedoms not mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to the States, or to the People.
And the "general Welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses of Article I, Section 8, while giving Congress leeway to legislate, do not either explicitly or implicitly constitute a general warrant to overrule, limit, supplant, abolish, or enslave the States and their own powers and sovereignty.
That statement is absolutely, ontologically, metaphysically untrue and you know it!
The granite-monolith Untruth of that statement has been proven to you so many times before, you can no longer even pretend ignorance. Your "imagineering" of the Union is explicitly Hitlerite, totalitarian, mendacious, and anti-human.
It was especially, factually, literally untrue of South Carolina and the other Seaboard States that left the Union in 1860 and 1861. It is a completely false rendering of their experience of ratification of the Constitution. NOBODY gave them "permission" to enter the Union -- they created it!
STOP IT.
And your litmus test for discerning the difference between "fact" (such as your Hitlerite theory about the States) and "opinion masquerading as fact" is ...... what?
Agreement with the guy you shave every morning?
LOL.
Oh, and by the way, I'm fresh out of "bile" for Lincoln. I'm just ready for everybody to scrape the white marble off (as some Southerners have done for e.g. Bobby Lee) and start looking at what the man actually did, and why, and what his political goals cost the nation. My current theory is that a recension of what Lincoln did has always been so painful and costly in self-esteem ("you mean, we let him do that to us?!") that people have not yet been able to face up to the grisly chore of damage assessment. It's always been easier to pretend he was the marble saint, the great-hearted, far-seeing pater patriae who saved his country from the evil old slavers and their dark, octopoid powers.
People in China idolize Mao for the same reasons -- it's too painful, still, for the Chinese to contemplate what Mao cost China in body counts, missed opportunities, wasted lives, and wasted economic resources. And wasted time, as China has tried to fulfil his crackpot theories about economies and people-management. Mao-worship is a countrywide case of Stockholm syndrome, I think.
So if America isn't ready for a measured reconsideration of the Civil War and who actually did what, then that's a matter for historians of good will, and of waiting for the public eventually to catch up to reality. If they aren't interfered with too much by the Columbia University little Red political myth-makers.
But bile? Nah. Disappointment, maybe.
Reading you and watching you recycle useful old Nazi lies to buttress your loathing of the South and its people is another matter, however.
I most certainly do not. Regardless of how many adjectives and adverbs you care to string together.
The granite-monolith Untruth of that statement has been proven to you so many times before, you can no longer even pretend ignorance. Your "imagineering" of the Union is explicitly Hitlerite, totalitarian, mendacious, and anti-human.
Complete nonsense, like almost all of your posts.
It was especially, factually, literally untrue of South Carolina and the other Seaboard States that left the Union in 1860 and 1861. It is a completely false rendering of their experience of ratification of the Constitution. NOBODY gave them "permission" to enter the Union -- they created it!
The Southern seaboard states never left the Union. Their rebellion was unsuccessful.
There was no "rebellion" -- but then you knew that. Repeatedly.
Sovereign acts are by definition the actions of a Sovereign. The People of the States are the Sovereign. "Rebellion by the Sovereign" is oxymoronic.
You would be closer to correct if you said that the administration of Abraham Lincoln, the servant of the People, rebelled against the People of the several States and attacked them, for dismissing their servant for cause.
You're on the record as stating, however, that the federal government, tarted up in the robes of the State (which it is not, in America) is in fact the Sovereign -- and that is the central tenet of fascism.
The United States is/are not now and never has/have been, a fascist state. This is not a fascist society, pace you.
Or perhaps you would like to argue the other way, that Madison and Hamilton were just a couple of naive little schoolboys, and that all government is fascist, all states and societies are and ought to be fascist -- so that doxologists of the omnipotent nation-state and altar-boys of fascism can exult in the strength of their principal and vicariously participate in its injustices and cruelties toward the People?
The root of the matter is simple. The sovereign power is not the states nor the general government. Again, we can limit ourselves to the document itself. it is in the preamble, "WE THE PEOPLE". That's why the rebelling slaveowners mad sure to change that in their confederate document. Lincoln did not act in behalf of the general government, he acted in behalf of the duties he was bequeathed by his political masters, the people of the United States.
We the people of the United States agreed to the compact, and we the people of the United States can amend or dissolve it. The provision for amendment is within the document itself. The provision for dissolving is not yet there.
A funny thing happened in Gen. Forrest Winter campaign of 62. He and his sons helped capture some Yankee Cav. and while disarming them found his son and nephew in amongst the prisoners.
Both gave there Paroles and went home to North Alabama and never again took up arms against the CSA. (They were both Lt's at the time)
Southron Patriot
Veo Vindice
Noni:
Are you trying the same old bullsh*t again? You know that the legitimate, elected, Government of the State of Virginia seceded. The secession was approved by the voters overwhelmingly. It doesn’t matter whether the US Government approved the “Rump” legislature or not.
West Virginia’s Secession was ILLEGAL.
I never take the Southern side of the issue, you know that.
Are you trying the same old bullsh*t again? You know that the legitimate, elected, Government of the State of Virginia seceded.
They rebelled.
West Virginia’s Secession was ILLEGAL.
No it was not.
Yes there were.
You would be closer to correct if you said that the administration of Abraham Lincoln, the servant of the People, rebelled against the People of the several States and attacked them, for dismissing their servant for cause.
I wouldn't be anywhere near to correct if I said that.
What cause? Lincoln was months away from taking office when the secessionists acted. They certainly failed to give Lincoln a fair chance.
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.