Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;”
Nice try. That applies to states WHILE STILL IN THE UNION entering into treaties, alliances, or confederations with foreign states. That was clearly implied, because, for example, treaties are between nations; there can’t be a treaty between, say, New York and California.
That’s not the accepted definition of the term “Unilateral Secession”. No legal scholars, no historians, and no one with any sense defines it they way you are twisting it.
That’s OK though - because we know you’re “special”.
That’s right - they were subject to the terms of the confederation they joined before their pretend secession, during their pretend secession, and after their pretend secession. The terms of their confederation prohibited them from forming separate alliances or confederations outside of congress.
“Thank goodness the last of the (black) slaves were freed in the North. Took y’all another hundred years or so to free the white kids while you scoffed at Dickensian London. Oh, bold, brave Union!”
The union, like the confederacy, no longer exists.....this is the United States of America now and the year is 2015.
And I still wonder why any conservative would feel the need to uphold the honor of southern Democrat slave holders.
Spare me the parties switched side LIBERAL MYTH....The parties never switched sides.
Ah...so you go from citing Karl Marx to calling me a Nazi.....LOL.
Flail fail.
It’s not that I haven’t noticed your reply but rather that it’s still trickling through my consideration.
They kicked them out of a fortress on their own territory. While it certainly merited a forceful response, sending a 35,000 man invasion force was not it.
It certainly wasn't worth the loss of life it eventually caused.
Of course it was. If you were a true American wouldn’t be so squishy about putting terrorists in their place.
What does that matter if they have a right to do so? Even if you assume their primary reason is to protect slavery, was slavery not legal at the time?
Applying an ex post facto morality to a previous zeitgeist is bad cricket.
The main, and virtually, only reason given is the defense of slavery.
As was pointed out by ought-six , "In those eleven Articles of Secession, only four specifically mentioned slavery as a cause..." and "So, of thirteen Articles of Secession; only four expressly mentioned slavery as a reason. But they ALL cited self-determination as a reason."
So, if the people that actually seceded stated, very clearly and publicly, that the reason to secede was the defense of slavery, how can you say that it was something else?
Because Most of them did not say such a thing. The other seven states did not mention slavery, but they all mentioned "Self Determination."
Apart from that, I will once more point out that slavery was legal in the Union at the time, so how do you make something the Union considered legal an issue for why people wanted to leave? Had they stayed, slavery would have remained legal anyway.
This idea that you are going to justify an invasion on the basis of an Abolition that hadn't even been suggested yet is simply dishonest. You are trying to justify what the Union did in invading by what they did 2 years later.
This is Ex Post Facto.
They do it all the time. You don't notice it because you aren't arguing with them.
I try to match my argument to the level of the person I'm debating.
You are coming up short at the moment.
I truly will never understand the Southern mindset.
I'm not Southern. My family didn't arrive until after 1900, and we didn't settle in a Southern state. I simply learned that History is not quite what they have been trying to convince us.
A wife doesn't have to have a good reason for leaving, it is enough that she wants to do so. Perhaps she no longer loves him. Do you think a husband should force his wife to remain with him against her will?
and others argue that leaving was permitted with the consent of both sides.
Sounds like the Mafia. What sort of organization would you belong to that wouldn't let you leave if you decided you wanted to leave? I personally think free association is a component of "freedom", and that people can associate or not associate as they choose.
Some people believe that every single word of Baldwin's article is absolute fact.
People tend to believe what they want to believe and they often don't really care if it's actually true or not. I see the same problem occurring on both sides of the issue.
Is it too much to ask that you provide some sort of an example?
Do you think the wife should run up the credit cards before leaving and leave the entire debt to the husband? Take evey bit of community property she can get her hands? Fire shots at him as she's leaving?
Sounds like the Mafia. What sort of organization would you belong to that wouldn't let you leave if you decided you wanted to leave?
Sounds more like a union of co-equal partners to me. What organization do you belong to that allows one part to leave despite the consequences to the other partners, and those other partners have no say in the matter and have to sit back and accept everything that is done to them?
People tend to believe what they want to believe and they often don't really care if it's actually true or not.
I've seen a lot of that from the Confederate supporter, yes.
I believe I covered most if not all of these things in my previous post. But it you missed it, here it goes again.
What does that matter if they have a right to do so? Even if you assume their primary reason is to protect slavery, was slavery not legal at the time? The thought that the reason for secession is unimportant so long as they had the right to do so only works if you assume the elite of the South were feckless sociopaths who one day woke up and said “let’s just secede from the union and cause the deaths of 600,000+ people for no particular reason at all – just because we feel like it” Now, while they might have been feckless sociopaths, they didn’t do what they did without a reason. This reason was very clear, and it was outlined in EVERY ONE OF THE ARTICLES OF SECSSION THAT GAVE A REASON FOR SECEDING!!! As I stated previously, most of the Articles of Secession did not give a reason.
You mentioned that the reasons given by all was “Self-Determination”. The problem with this is back to the whole “feckless sociopath” thing. It was recognized by all that Secession was an extremely serious affair. So, your position is that each state entered this extremely serious affair for no reason other than self-determination? There wasn’t a triggering event at all? They just decided one day to (simultaneously) secede from the Union for no particular reason at all, just because they felt like it? Doesn’t come close to passing the sense test. They had a reason, what was it (I know! I know! Pick me!)?
As far as your last point involving the fact that Slavery was legal, and that the North invaded on the basis of Abolition is wrong on so many levels. First off, as far as the United States was concerned, slavery WAS NOT the reason they fought (the South on the other hand…). It was to maintain the Union. Secondly, as far as the “invasion” trope is concerned, the South started the war with the unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter in April 1961. The Battle of Bull Run in June 1861 (the “invasion” I presume you are referencing) was merely the next step in the war THAT THE SOUTH STARTED. Hard to claim that you’re the victim when you started the fight.
You talk about me missing something you wrote, and then you write this?
This reason was very clear, and it was outlined in EVERY ONE OF THE ARTICLES OF SECSSION THAT GAVE A REASON FOR SECEDING!!!
You obviously didn't read my rebuttal. Only four states cited slavery as their reasons for leaving, and my second point is that it is NONE OF YOUR D@MNED BUSINESS why they chose to leave.
So, your position is that each state entered this extremely serious affair for no reason other than self-determination?
They do not need a reason to exercise a right. Do you need a reason to exercise your rights? If you have to have a reason, then it isn't a right because someone else has veto power over you if they don't like your reason.
First off, as far as the United States was concerned, slavery WAS NOT the reason they fought (the South on the other hand…). It was to maintain the Union.
There is nor moral or legal imperative to "preserve the union." There certainly was not any moral imperative to preserve the British Union, and there was no moral imperative to preserve the US Union.
This is no different than a man denying his wife a divorce. It's none of his D@mned business what are her reasons for leaving, and he doesn't have a right to stop her.
Hard to claim that you’re the victim when you started the fight.
In the manner of a woman removing someone else's hand off her knee, and the masher trying to deck the woman.
The woman may have consented to the hand at one time, but once she no longer consents, it's time to remove the hand. The Hand belongs to you. The Knee doesn't.
I guess you are unaware of Virginia's contribution to Independence from the English Union.
And what are the debts to which you are referring? If your analogy is to hold true, you are going to have to support it with some numbers and breakdown of contributions.
Take evey bit of community property she can get her hands?
She took her own property. You know, the stuff that was hers before the marriage.
Fire shots at him as she's leaving?
Keep your analogy straight. "Firing Shots" is lethal force directed at the Husband. It would be the equivalent of sending an invasion army into Washington D.C. What she did was slap his hand because it was still on her knee after she told him to remove it. It was never close to being a threat to his life.
Sounds more like a union of co-equal partners to me. What organization do you belong to that allows one part to leave despite the consequences to the other partners, and those other partners have no say in the matter and have to sit back and accept everything that is done to them?
Until you provide some support for your claim that something was owed to them, you don't have an analogy worth discussing.
I've seen a lot of that from the Confederate supporter, yes.
And that is something you wish to believe.
And Abraham Lincoln. If you are going to make the Nazi analogy with the confederates, you have got to mention how Abraham Lincoln was a blatant racist and considered blacks completely inferior.
Since we are being objective and everything, your omission of blatant racist Abraham Lincoln is obviously an oversight.
And what did the Republicans want to do with them once they were free? Send them to Liberia? And Why did they want to do this?
He keeps saying he doesn't bring it up, but it looks like he always brings it up. Well the Union Slaverocrasy was going to keep it going anyways. The only question was whether it would be ruled from Washington D.C. or not.
Which Lincoln promised to keep. Even introduced a constitutional amendment to keep it.
What's this got to do with their right to leave?
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.