After 150 years, Confederate submarine's hull again revealed

AP via Yahoo News ^ | 1/30/15 | BRUCE SMITH

[Kartographer]

A century and a half after it sank and a decade and a half after it was raised, scientists are finally getting a look at the hull of the Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley, the first sub in history to sink an enemy warship.

What they find may finally solve the mystery of why the hand-cranked submarine sank during the Civil War.

"It's like unwrapping a Christmas gift after 15 years. We have been wanting to do this for many years now," said Paul Mardikian, senior conservator on the Hunley project.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Of course not because the colonies didn't declare independence until after Britain declared war, so until then they just contented themselves with seizing and dumping tea.

Of course the Confederate government called for troops. It was the part of the duty of the Confederate congress (and any new country really) to provide an army for the public defense. The Confederate Constitution reads pretty much like the United States Constitution on this. It is the duty of Congress to "provide for the common Defense", to"To raise and support Armies," and to "provide and maintain a Navy." Lincoln's call for troops, on the other hand was "in order to suppress" the will of the sovereign States.

The South had the right to seize all the Federal forts in its property that it wanted to. After all, The states joined the union voluntarily and they could leave the same way. And all the rights they had delegated to the Federal government they rescinded in their secession. Included in this rescinding of rights was the right of the Federal government to place federal forts on state land. The Federal government was no longer their government and had no business in having forts in a foreign country.

Yes, it may have supposedly "freed" some during the war, but Lincoln himself was concerned that it would be found to be invalid after the war. After the war the status of these "freed" slaves was uncertain, since the South had rejoined the Union and Lincoln had had no Constitutional or legal right to free anybody. That is why the 13th amendment was needed. After the War was over the South ratified this amendment with pretty much no fuss. But when the North Tried to push the Fourteenth amendment through, the South kicked up a big fuss because the Fourteenth amendment deals with serious Constitutional issues. Which raises the question....If the war was as much about slavery as people like to paint it, then why did the South easily and quickly pass the 13th amendment, but dig their heels in on the one that changed the nature of the Constitution? The North eventually forced the passage of the 14th amendment by kicking the South back out of the union and declaring them to be conquered territories, and stated that they could only re-enter the union if they ratified the 14th amendment. Sounds like coercion to me. Also, do the votes of "conquered territories" count towards ratification? By the war, this kind of activity shows what we really lost in the war. The States lost their sovereign rights reserved in the 10th amendment, the Federal government became supreme. It used to be that the States stood between the Federal government and the people, but now the people are naked before the might of the federal government.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Gonna have to respond to this long one on a day I have more time.

[rockrr]

By the war, this kind of activity shows what we really lost in the war. The States lost their sovereign rights reserved in the 10th amendment, the Federal government became supreme.

Do a web search on "dual sovereignty" - you'll gain a greater understanding of how our republic is put together. Hint: the federal has held supremacy since the United States Constitution was ratified.

[BroJoeK]

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Of course not because the colonies didn't declare independence until after Britain declared war, so until then they just contented themselves with seizing and dumping tea."

A few chests of tea, 45 tons, worth $1.7 million today, later offered to be fully paid for by a New York merchant.
That's maybe 10% of total costs of recent Ferguson, Missouri riots, and just one tenth of one percent of the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
"Tea Party": a mere dramatic protest, by a few non-violent extremists... ;-)
Every other colony resolved that tax issue without serious incidents, and even the Boston Tea Party itself never rose anywhere near the levels of dozens of seizures of Federal properties by Confederate forces, before launching full-scale war at Fort Sumter.

So there is no comparison -- zero, zip, nada -- between our Founders in 1776, and Slave-Power secessionists of 1861.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Of course the Confederate government called for troops.
It was the part of the duty of the Confederate congress (and any new country really) to provide an army for the public defense."

At a time when the entire Unites States Army totaled 16,000 troops, over half scattered in small forts out west...
The Confederacy's raising up a 100,000 man army -- on March 6, 1861, two days after Lincoln's inaugural -- could well be called an aggressive act of war against the United States, in and of itself.
Especially when we remember that pro-Confederate newspapers called Lincoln's Inaugural a "declaration of war", the instantaneous Confederate response must be viewed as a major step towards war.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Lincoln's call for troops, on the other hand was "in order to suppress" the will of the sovereign States."

The Confederate assault on US troops in Fort Sumter was an unequivocal act of war against the United States, period.
In response, Lincoln's proclamation requested forces to:

"...re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country."

Read the entire proclamation, it's not a "declaration of war" regardless of Slave-Power hyperbole.
It's a highly limited law enforcement action.

But the Confederacy's response was to formally declare war on the United States, raise up another 400,000 troops for their army (now 500,000 total), and send military aid to Confederate forces fighting in Union states.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The South had the right to seize all the Federal forts in its property that it wanted to.
After all, The states joined the union voluntarily and they could leave the same way.
And all the rights they had delegated to the Federal government they rescinded in their secession.
Included in this rescinding of rights was the right of the Federal government to place federal forts on state land.
The Federal government was no longer their government and had no business in having forts in a foreign country."

So, by that same ridiculous logic, do you support Communist Cuba's "right" to assault US forces in Guantanamo Bay?
And just what do you suggest US response to such an assault should be?

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Which raises the question....

If the war was as much about slavery as people like to paint it, then why did the South easily and quickly pass the 13th amendment, but dig their heels in on the one that changed the nature of the Constitution?

The North eventually forced the passage of the 14th amendment by kicking the South back out of the union and declaring them to be conquered territories, and stated that they could only re-enter the union if they ratified the 14th amendment.
Sounds like coercion to me."

As usual, your knowledge of events is highly distorted & inaccurate.
So here's what really happened:

1. In early 1861 every Confederate state Congressman & Senator walked out of Congress (with one exception, Tennessee Senator Johnson), and few or none of those individuals ever returned.

2. After Lincoln's assassination in 1865, former Democrat Senator Johnson from Tennessee, now Vice-President, became President.
   Johnson fully supported the 13th Amendment, and led the effort to persuade Republican dominated Southern legislatures to ratify it, which they soon did.

3. But Southern Democrat Johnson opposed the 14th Amendment, because it granted blacks citizenship status far above anything most Southerners could imagine, so Johnson vetoed a bill which would have accomplished the same thing.

4. Even though Johnson's veto was overridden (the 1st such override in history) it still drove Congress to pass a civil rights law as the 14th Amendment (June 1866), which could not be easily repealed.

5. "Freedom" for slaves was one thing to Southerners, but full civil rights was something else entirely, and along with President Johnson, they opposed it.

6. But in March 1867, Congress made passing the 14th a condition for readmission of Confederate state representatives, and so...
   One by one, the old Confederacy passed the 14th and then sent largely Republicans, some Black Republicans, back to Congress.

7. It wasn't until 1881 that the last of these Black Republicans was replaced in Congress by solid racist Democrats:

   Mississippi Senator Blanch Bruce:
   

   

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...this kind of activity shows what we really lost in the war.
The States lost their sovereign rights reserved in the 10th amendment, the Federal government became supreme."

Of course, you and your racist pro-Confederate buddies "lost the war", and don't you ever forget it!
You will never again have the "rights" your ancestors enjoyed under the original Constitution, to "own" people, or suppress their God-given civil rights as human beings.

It ain't goin' to happen, not now, not ever, so quit your whining, quit your crying over it and quit slobbering in your beer.
Man-up and get on with your life, dear FRiend.

As for "states' rights", the states will have no rights they don't consistently assert, promote and defend.
And, near as I can tell, 100% of states today are 100% happy & content being toady-lackeys sucking at the Federal sow's te*ts.

Yes, I agree that's a sad state of affairs, but it's a separate discussion, and imho, your post-Civil War Southern-Socialist-Racist-Democrat ancestors had as much to do with it as anybody.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

When referring to the sovereign states, I am referring to the citizens of the state collectively. John Calhoun described the state as the "sovereign community." The state, as the agent of the people, exercises sovereign authority by the consent of those who created it (i.e., the people of the state). There are numerous examples of the states acting with sovereign authority. A state, as the agent of the sovereign community, may delegate a portion of its powers to another government, but it can not delegate a portion of sovereignty. Sovereignty, like chastity, is not transferable or divisible.

The Federal government was never meant to be “supreme” over the states. The states after leaving Britain had had their fill of large oppressive and supreme government, and wanted a government that was limited. So they delegated express powers to it. You don’t delegate powers to a superior, only to inferiors or equals. At best the Federal government is the equal of the states, not the master of the states. It may be said to be “supreme” in the areas of power delegated to it, but only in those, and only so long as it is governing at the consent of the governed. The states also hold supreme power in all the numerous areas in which they reserved power.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

By 1860, every Northern state had gradually abolished slavery, and so, in that sense every Northerner was an abolitionists, and cared deeply about blacks in their own states.

Yeah sure they did. Which was why De Tocqueville noted that:

“The Prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the States where slavery still exists. White carpenters, white bricklayers and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North but do it in almost every Southern State….”

William Lloyd Garrison pointed out that in the Northern states, “free colored people were looked upon as an inferior caste to whom their liberty was a curse, and their lot worse than that of the slaves…”

The Northern states had emancipated their slaves all right, but not because they cared for blacks. They sought rather to protect “free white labor.” For instance, when Rhode Island passed a law providing for gradual emancipation, the law was very carefully written to preclude any interference with the ongoing slave trade that was enriching the state.

Many Northern States also passed laws prohibiting blacks from entering and settling there. New Jersey passed one of the first of these laws. Massachusetts passed a similar one. Oregon’s 1857 constitution provided that “nor free negro or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of adoption [of the constitution of the state of Oregon]…shall come, reside, or be within this state…” Illinois, Lincoln’s home state, passed by overwhelming popular vote an amendment to the state’s constitution declaring that “No negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state.” John Sherman, William Tecumseh Sherman’s brother, declared in 1862 that

“We do not like the negroes. We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana [a Mr. Wright] said yesterday: ‘They whole people of the Northwestern States are opposed to having many negroes among them and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all the Northwestern States.”

Perhaps you don't remember, but nearly half of all Northerners were "Dough-Faced" Democrats who supported the Slave-Power in all things except some technicalities relating to slavery's expansion. Those Northern Democrats did not want to stop secession in the first place, and when war eventually came, did not want to win it. They wanted a negotiated settlement, where everyone would "go in peace".

Yeah so you claim that these Northern democrats supported the South on the issue of slavery except for the expansion of slavery. Then how did they support slavery? By saying that the Federal government doesn’t have the right to legislate concerning it? Because if that was how they “supported” it, then they were Constitutionally correct. The Federal government doesn’t have the power to legislate on it. But that hardly makes them “slaves” to the “slave power.” These Northern Democrats, being from a party that were for keeping the federal government within the bounds of the Constitution of course would not support Lincoln. Does that prove that they were “slaves” to the South? Of course not. The very idea is ridiculous. In holding that the Federal government had no constitutional power or right to prevent states from leaving the Union they were constitutionally correct. They knew the Federal government’s war on self-determination was wrong, just like some Englishmen (Edmund Burke as an example) in the days of the American Revolution knew that their government was in the wrong and supported the colonists.

On the question of 3/5 tax liabilities: to my knowledge, there was never taxation -- none -- based on a state's census counts.

On the contrary, the States paid taxes to the Federal government based on population. In fact, regarding the 3/5 compromise, Hamilton said that “representation and taxation go together.... Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?”

So they passed a gag-rule eliminating all such debates within Congress

For good reason. Since the Federal government has no right to ban slavery (it being a state issue), why should there be debates about it in Congress? Simply a waste of time and a way to increase sectional strife.

So the answer to all such questions is: Northern Dough-faced Democrats. Without them, the South was a powerless minority

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Democrat party at that time was a national party. You make it seem that the large number of Northerners who were democrats were simply toadys to the South, controlled by a “slave-power”, rather than free-thinking people. If you had said that to the faces of those people they would undoubtedly have been fighting words.

there was no "heavier share",

LOLOL love how you just ignored all those quotes. Too inconvenient I suppose. I suggest you go back and read them again. Btw, from the very beginning of the Union the South was paying a heavier share. For instance, after the Revolution, the South soon paid off all its debts. However, when Congress assumed the war debts, the Southern states had to pitch in on paying off the debts of their northern neighbors after having paid off their own.

So we must assume New England felt as badly then as the Deep South felt in 1860. And yet, in the end, New England did not declare secession.

They would have had every right to if they wanted that. However if you examine history, those who participated in the secessionist Harford Convention and their supporters were relatively small in number, and did represent anywhere near a majority.

President Buchanan was a Pennsylvania Dough-faced Democrat, dedicated to giving the Slave-Power whatever it wanted, up to and including a peaceful secession

By letting the South go peacefully, Buchannan wasn’t “dedicated to giving the Slave-power whatever it wanted.” Rather, he was simply abiding by the Constitution, which gave him no power to deny self-determination.

Both Lincoln's election and the resulting alarm were totally engineered by Southern Fire-Eaters who had been for many years campaigning for declarations of secession. So in 1860 they first split their majority Democrat party, thus engineering Republican victory, then used that victory as excuse to declare secession.

I have to admit that has got to be about the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I have ever heard.

About Lincoln being a liberal…

High tariffs are a liberal thing. “oh but he did that because of the war” Uh huh. That was why he supported them BEFORE the war and campaigned on them, right? And national banking? Been a thing liberals have always loved. Most of the Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to the formation of a central banking system; the fact that England tried to place the colonies under the monetary control of the Bank of England as seen by many as the "last straw"[ of oppression which led directly to the Revolutionary War. Yes, a few, like Hamilton, supported a national bank, but remember that men like Hamilton were far from conservative. Hamilton was a monarchist. Liberals of all stripes seem to support national banks. For instance, Marx supported a “centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” The Lincoln administration also gave us the Morril Land Grant Act, that authorized federal aid to establish government-controlled (public) colleges. With the aid came increased government accountability and regulations. As we see today, it really is NOT a good thing for the government to be controlling public education. Author John Chodes noted that “the true objective [of the Morill Act] was to bring Northern perspective to the re-conquered areas of the South, to teach the rebel’s children ‘respect for national authority’—to break their rebellious spirit forever. The three R’s had absolutely nothing to do with this landmark bill.” James Henley Thornwell (1812-1862) perceived the liberal forces at work in the War for Southern Independence. He wrote that “the parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and Slaveholders; they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on one side and friends of ordered and regulated freedom on the other.” As I pointed out earlier, the fact that Lincoln won the support of the communists and socialists in the country and promoted so many of them to high ranks proves that Lincoln was far from being a conservative. Of course the main proof that Lincoln was not a conservative and a supporter of Constitutionally limited government was the fact that he waged a bloody war to ensure that government of the people, by the people and for the people not be allowed to exist in the South.

Aw, I see you are still trying to cling to the idea that the South seceded for its own pleasure. They just did it for the fun of it. The pure sport of the idea I suppose. No real reason, just felt like doing it on a whim one day, did they? You go ahead and think that if it makes you happy. But the fact is, they had seen enough of Federal abuses and were not going to put up with any more. The election of big-guv-lovin’ Lincoln was simply the last straw.

All such quotes are ludicrous, and most likely fake

Of course. Because if it doesn’t fit with your worldview it has to be fake.

on imports well over 90% of which came into the USA through such Northern ports as Boston, New York and Philadelphia. Those are the merchants who paid the tariffs, before shipping their goods throughout the rest of the country

What utter rot. For the thirty years from 1831 to 1860 the tariffs amounted to about eighty-four percent of federal revenues, but during the 1850s tariffs amounted to ninety percent of federal revenue. As the ports in the South had the most traffic, they paid seventy-five percent of all tariffs in 1859. The Northern banner of "Preserve the Union," might have more accurately read "Preserve the Taxes". Later on, as the crisis between the North and the South reached the critical stage at Ft Sumter in April, Lincoln could have avoided war by abandoning the fort to the South Carolina government and allowing the seven seceding states to keep their ports. True, the federal government would have had to find sources of revenue, other than tariffs, to avoid bankruptcy (something the war forced them to do anyway), but certainly a less costly option than the devastating war that followed.

Again about the bank. I think you are forgetting the biggest problem with it. The Constitution does not give the Federal government the right to create a National Bank. Period.

On the Income tax: Yes it was later repealed, but when Lincoln passed it he had no idea of it being temporary, which was why there was nothing to that effect in the wording of the act. Also, you seem to forget that the Constitution says that Congress shall levy no direct tax. Oh but the country was at war so it was ok to break the constitution now. Uh-huh.

All you pro-Confederates like to make the ridiculous claim that Lincoln "declared war" on the South, while denying that the Confederacy "declared war" on the United States

Hogwash. If Lincoln had turned the Federal forts over to the Confederacy there would have been no war. After all, the forts were not “union property” as you try to claim. The forts were on state land, land which the Federal government had permission to use only while the states were in the Union and had granted such permission. Upon withdrawing this permission the Federal government had no legal right to maintain forts on land belonging to another country against said country’s permission. By insisting on maintaining these forts against said foreign country’s permission, he was declaring himself to be hostile. And btw, nobody is denying that the Confederacy declared war. They did. But not until after sending several peace delegations up north to negotiate (Lincoln refused to meet with them). Even after Lincoln showed his hostile intentions by attempting to resupply fort Sumter with arms and men they didn’t declare war. It was only after he called up troops to suppress secession that the South finally declared war, and even then they waited two weeks after Lincoln’s call for troops.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

A few chests of tea, 45 tons, worth $1.7 million today, later offered to be fully paid for by a New York merchant

South Carolina offered to pay for Fort Sumter. Unlike the colonists however, they offered to pay for it before they acted, not as an afterthought. Lincoln however wasn’t interested. He only wanted to resupply it (which South Carolina said they would not allow), and so thus force the South to act.

The Confederacy's raising up a 100,000 man army

Almost sounds like they anticipated that Lincoln would try and deny their right to self-government. It seems they were right.

Confederate assault on US troops in Fort Sumter was an unequivocal act of war against the United States

In that case, what is it when one nation sends troops, ammo and supplies into another nation when the other nation has specifically stated that doing such is NOT allowed? Do that kind of thing and you are liable to start a war.

do you support Communist Cuba's "right" to assault US forces in Guantanamo Bay

That is a terrible comparison. Cuba has leased that land to the Federal government. If, however, in the future they decide that the US has breached the treaty, it would be difficult to deny their right to reclaim their own land.

I think you are missing the big problem that the South had with the 14th amendment. Their big problem was that it denied Confederate veterans the right to vote or hold office, thereby ensuring that the state governments of the South after the war would never be truly representative governments (just what the North wanted). It also made everyone born in the United States a United States citizen, and thus changed the nature of the Federal Government. Before that, people were citizens of their sovereign states only, not citizens of the Federal government.

Of course, you and your racist pro-Confederate buddies "lost the war”

You must be losing the argument if you have to resort to calling your opponent a racist. If you want to look at historical racism however, you will find that it was much higher in the Northern states than in the Southern ones, which was why so many Northern states passed laws forbidding blacks from entering and living there.

You will never again have the "rights" your ancestors enjoyed under the original Constitution, to "own" people, or suppress their God-given civil rights as human beings.

I really hope you don’t think that the rights reserved by the states in the 10th amendment simply equals slavery. The right to determine whether slavery would exist within a state was the right of the state but it was only one of many rights reserved in the 10th amendment. According to the 10th amendment, states would also have the right to ban abortion and homosexual marriage within their boundaries. Tis a pity the Federal government has run roughshod over these rights or things today just might be more conservative.

quit your crying over it and quit slobbering in your beer. Man-up and get on with your life, dear FRiend.

I don’t drink. And I am not a man. You, however sound like you have really gotten your ire up and need to calm down a bit and breath.

As for "states' rights", the states will have no rights they don't consistently assert, promote and defend. And, near as I can tell, 100% of states today are 100% happy & content being toady-lackeys sucking at the Federal sow's te*ts

You are right, the States stopped defending most of their rights after the War for Southern Independence, in which the Federal government showed forcefully what it does to those who try and stand up for their rights. And yes, some states are happy with their situation (mostly the liberal northern ones). Many of the Southern and Midwestern ones are not, however in case you have not noticed many conservatives nowadays are somewhat lacking in spine. But you can still see some standing against federal overreach. For instance, several states sued the Federal government in 2005 when BRAC recommended that Congress implement sweeping changes to the national guard without the permission of the governors of the States. Also, more recently, Judge Roy More in Alabama has stood against the overreach of federal government judges and ordered Alabama judges to refuse gay marriage licenses.

As fun as our discussion have been, I’m gonna have to bring it to a close. I am currently working three jobs and don’t really have the time to spend writing any more long responses. So we can just agree to disagree. You can go on defending the Federal government in its war against self-determination and keep on supporting people who implemented big-government policies. I on the other hand will keep on supporting those who fought to limit Federal government power.

Hope you have a nice weekend. :-)

[rockrr]

So you didn't bother to research dual sovereignty then. Pity that.

When referring to the sovereign states, I am referring to the citizens of the state collectively.

That definition applies equally well to the concept of the federal "state".

The Framers instituted the concept of dual sovereignty as a system of shared authority between federal and state governments with each sovereign checking the other. As with the concept of shared powers between the three branches of federal government it was designed to provide balance between the interests of the state sovereigns and the federal sovereign.

Here's a simple test. Let's see who is subordinate and who is supreme:

Suppose the state of Arizona wants to declare war on Mexico (I can't that I would blame them). Do they have an unfettered right to proceed?

Let's say that the state of Tennessee has gotten tired of mitigating flood damage from the Mississippi River and starts building embankments that ensures that any flood waters will drain into Arkansas instead. Who would be the final arbiter of that dispute?

The state of Illinois decides that they want to aggregate more power so they devise a scheme to subdivide their state into three pieces. Can they of their own volition complete this action?

In each of these examples there is an authority that is superior to that of the individual states. The agents of that authority are divided between the President, Congress, and the Judicial branch of the federal government. I recognize that it is problematic, especially with the chronic desire of leftists toward overreach. And you are correct that the intent was for balance between the sovereigns, but with the power of the federal sovereign being divided among the representatives of the individual states.

The Federal government was never meant to be “supreme” over the states

The United States Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2 says otherwise:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

The federal government is an agent created by the states. It is not itself a state (although today it is treated like one). The Fourteenth Amendment granted it powers akin to a state, however when it gave it authority to police the actions of the sovereign states as well as declaring all people born within the United States to be citizens of the Federal government as well as their states, when before they had only been citizens of their respective states. This is kind of like the United Nations declaring individuals born in member nations to be United Nations citizens.

Shared powers is not the same as shared sovereignty. Sovereignty will always reside in the people as represented by their sovereign states. States can delegate power but not sovereignty. You can see an example of this with the European Union. The member states have delegated certain powers to the Union, but they cannot delegate their sovereignty (Although certain big-government liberals would like to persuade people that this is possible).

Can Arizona declare war? While a member of the Union it cannot, as it has delegated this particular power to Congress. However if Arizona were ever to leave the Union, it would reassume its power to do so.

Disputes between states is another issue in which power has been delegated to Congress. You are trying to claim that this makes the Federal government superior, but I beg to disagree. Remember the states delegated powers to the Federal government, and you don't delegate to superiors, only to inferiors or equals. The Federal government in the aforementioned cases is acting as an agent of the states and at times an equal, but not a master.

Btw, as I told BroJoeK, I don't really have time for further discussions on these matters (my discussions with him have been especially long) due to working several jobs and if there is any further disagreement on this thread we will just have to agree to disagree. Hope you understand. :-) Have a nice rest of your weekend.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr quoting: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The federal government is an agent created by the states. It is not itself a state (although today it is treated like one). "

Our FRiend DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis wants us to believe that even though the Constitution, laws & treaties of the United States are "supreme", the various states remain "sovereign."
In fact, that's a distinction -- regardless of how elaborately presented -- without a meaning.
In practical terms: with authority goes sovereignty, and so the US Constitution transfers some "sovereignty" from states to the Federal Government.
The only real issue is: "how much sovereignty?"
On a scale of one to ten, our Founders intended perhaps a two or a three, while today's sad condition is eight or nine.

Our pro-Confederates like to claim "this was all Lincoln's fault", or better yet, such "big government" Federalists as wicked Alexander Hamilton.
And their attack on Hamilton -- I think -- gives away their game, because those "Founders" who most strongly opposed Hamilton, also voted "no" for ratifying the Constitution in the first place.
They were, literally, "anti-Federalists", meaning opposed to the Constitution, meaning they were not actual Founders.
They were the anti-Founders, who eventually became Southern Fire-Eaters, Confederates and today's pro-Confederates.
They never liked the Constitution to begin with, and still don't.

Which is fine, in a sense, whatever floats their boats, let them make their case.
But it's key for us to understand that they are not "conservatives", because they don't want to "conserve" the Constitution.
Instead, they are radical anti-Constitution-ists who wish to overthrow what the Constitution was intended to mean, even by our actual Founders.

[BroJoeK]

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Yeah sure they did.
Which was why De Tocqueville noted that: 'The Prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the States where slavery still exists...' "

I'll grant you that freedom has a price, sometimes a very high price, which is why so many people don't actually wish to be free.
Slaves were under the "protection" of their owners, and only competed with whites when some whites agree it's appropriate.
If a white worker didn't like a slave's competition, he talked to the white owner, and resolved their issue.
But if the former slave is now free to compete on his own, who does the white worker now talk to... a black man?
And how, in say, 1860, does a white man talk to, or about, a black man, slave or free?

But... if you fantasize that free blacks in the North were generally mistreated & abused, compared to Southern slaves, then just ask yourself: where was the Underground Railroad taking freed blacks voluntarily back South to slavery?
So the whole idea is preposterous, mere propaganda.
In fact, freed blacks decisively expressed their preferences: once freed, they did not want to leave freedom for slavery.
Nor did they wish to leave the United States for some African country as Liberia.

Indeed, if you imagine Northerners treated blacks poorly, then ask yourself this question: of the 500,000 freed blacks living north of the Mason-Dixon line in 1860, how many returned to Southern states after slavery was abolished there?
To my knowledge, the answer is: none.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Northern states had emancipated their slaves all right, but not because they cared for blacks.
They sought rather to protect “free white labor.' "

Well... one by one, over eighty years, northern states gradually abolished slavery, for reasons and motives that doubtless varied with each state.
But to claim that no Northerners "cared for blacks" is ludicrous, since many clearly did.
Obviously, many Northerners cared more about themselves than the fate of slaves, and so, with them it was necessary to point out that freedom for blacks would prevent unfair work-place competition from slaves.

Finally, we should remember that America was settled in the overwhelming majority, not by individuals "doing their own thing", but rather by communities of settlers who moved and established themselves together, helping and looking out for each other.
These communities were self-contained and often self-absorbed, meaning they had little or no concern for others from other communities -- let each take care of their own.
Among those many communities -- from England, Germany, Holland, Scotland, Ireland, Scandanavia, France, Switzerland, etc., etc., communities of freed-blacks were just one more, expected to take care of themselves and look after their own.

Sure, propagandists might claim, "northerners don't care about blacks", but again: how many freed blacks voluntarily returned to slavery?
You know as well as anybody, the answer is: zero.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Illinois, Lincoln’s home state, passed by overwhelming popular vote an amendment to the state’s constitution declaring that “No negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state.”

Well, your facts are wrong, but the idea is correct -- northern states like Indiana & Illinois had many southern-sympathizers, and did not wish to be targets of slave-catchers roaming their states looking for "escaped slaves" they could grab and return south.
Easier to ban new blacks altogether.
At the same time, there were many both sympathetic and helpful to blacks, whether officially freed or not.

Now I'm out of time again, must run, more later...

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "nearly half of all Northerners were 'Dough-Faced' Democrats who supported the Slave-Power in all things "

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Then how did they support slavery?
By saying that the Federal government doesn’t have the right to legislate concerning it?
Because if that was how they “supported” it, then they were Constitutionally correct."

Rubbish, since you seem to know little or nothing about the history of Federal actions regarding free-states versus slave-states, here's a short summary:

1. Northwest Territories (Ohio through Minnesota) were designated by the general government in 1787 to be 100% free-states, no slavery allowed.

2. Missouri Compromise of 1820 permitted slavery in territories with latitudes below Missouri's southern border, and in Missouri itself.

3. Slave & free-state admission pairs were practiced until 1850.

4. Then, the Compromise of 1850 allowed California to enter the Union as a free-state, provided one of its senators was always pro-slavery.

5. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 for the first time allowed territory voters to decide if a state was to be admitted free or slave.
   The act was voted in by all Southern representatives plus Dough-faced Northern Democrats.
   Northerners feared slavery would overrun Kansas, but that proved to be not the case, as new free-soil settlers overwhelmed the numbers of slave-holders.
   So Kansas territory citizens overturned the bogus pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution in favor of free-soil Wyandotte Constitution by a vote of 2:1.

6. Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott ruling in effect declared slavery lawful in all territories, and by implication in all states, a decision which drove many outraged Northerners to the "abolitionist" Black Republican party.

7. 1857's Dred-Scott, plus the 1857 failure of the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution in Kansas drove Southern Fire-Eaters to change sides, from pro-popular sovereignty to anti.
   By 1860 Fire-Eaters made slavery in the territories their political casus belli in splitting their majority Democrat party, thus guaranteeing Black Republican political victory.

So my first point here is simple: since Day One of the Republic, and really since before Day One, the Federal Government wrote & enforced laws determining which territories would be free and which slave, and under what conditions they are admitted to the Union.
Therefore, your efforts to declare such actions "unconstitutional" are hereby declared: bogus to the max.

And my second point:

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Federal government doesn’t have the power to legislate on it.
But that hardly makes them 'slaves' to the 'slave power.' "

First, the word I used is "supporters" not "slaves".
So, what is that, a Freudian slip?

Second, of course the Federal government always did have from Day One, and it exercised: authority to determine "free versus slave" territories and new states.
Indeed, that 1854 novel idea of allowing territories to vote themselves slave or free was precisely the issue on which Southern Fire-Eaters objected and broke up their 1860 Democrat conventions.
Fire Eaters argued that, regardless of Kansas-Nebraska (which they had supported) and Senator Douglas's "popular sovereignty" proposal, Dred-Scott was the final word on slavery in territories, and so there could be no more "popular sovereignty" voting by territory citizens.
So, Fire Eaters broke up the Democrat conventions, split their party and effectively engineered victory for Black Republicans & Abraham Lincoln.
Then they used Lincoln's victory as their excuse to declare secession.

"James M. McPherson suggested in Battle Cry of Freedom that the "Fire-eater" program of breaking up the convention and running a rival ticket was deliberately intended to bring about the election of a Republican as President, and thus trigger secession declarations by the slave-owning states.
Whatever the "intent" of the fire-eaters may have been, doubtless many of them favored secession, and the logical, probable, and actual consequence of their actions was to fragment the Democratic party and thereby virtually ensure a Republican victory.[4]"

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "These Northern Democrats, being from a party that were for keeping the federal government within the bounds of the Constitution of course would not support Lincoln.
Does that prove that they were “slaves” to the South?
Of course not.
The very idea is ridiculous.
In holding that the Federal government had no constitutional power or right to prevent states from leaving the Union they were constitutionally correct.
They knew the Federal government’s war on self-determination was wrong, just like some Englishmen (Edmund Burke as an example) in the days of the American Revolution knew that their government was in the wrong and supported the colonists."

First of all, your phrase "slaves to the South" is just that, yours, not mine.
Northern Dough-faced Democrats were not political "slaves" to anybody, but they did love the Southern institution of slavery, and usually supported it in Congress.
So, it's extraordinarily important for us to notice the times when they split from their Southern Democrat Slave-Power brethren.

Second, to repeat: northern Dough-faced Democrats like out-going President Buchanan did not believe Fire-Eating secessionists had lawful or constitutional cause to declare independence, but he also believed the Federal Government could do nothing to stop them.
And that was also Lincoln's belief, at the time.
But Lincoln did oppose Confederate seizures of dozens of Federal properties, and wanted to maintain basic services.
This lead the Confederacy to first launch a military assault on Union troops in Fort Sumter, a clear, unequivocal act of war, and then a formal declaration of war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

Once the Confederacy had launched and declared war, then all debate -- all debate -- over the "legitimacy of secession" is null, void, mute & irrelevant.
At that point, the only thing which mattered was unconditional surrender and destruction of the Southern Slave-Power.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "On the contrary, the States paid taxes to the Federal government based on population.
In fact, regarding the 3/5 compromise, Hamilton said that 'representation and taxation go together.... Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?' "

But it never actually happened -- never -- and for you to claim such is a lie, a Big Lie, so stop it.
The fact is that well over 90% of Federal Revenues came from tariffs on imports, of which over 90% went through such large Northern cities as Boston, New York and Philadelphia.
There was never direct a head-tax based on census counts.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis regarding congressional "gag rule" on slavery debates: "Since the Federal government has no right to ban slavery (it being a state issue), why should there be debates about it in Congress?
Simply a waste of time and a way to increase sectional strife."

No, since Day One, the Federal Government both had and exercised its right to allow or forbid slavery in the territories and the District of Columbia.
Yes, abolishing slavery in states would require a constitutional amendment (i.e., the 13th amendment), which could begin in Congress and would require debate, and that is what the Slave-Power's gag-rule was intended to prevent.

So the gag-rule demonstrates the Slave-Power's political prowess in Congress, preventing actions it didn't want.
And, it lasted just so long as their Northern Dough-faced allies supported the South.
But when northerners grew sick and tired of Southern arrogance & belligerence, they switched votes, and the gag-rule disappeared, in 1844.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Democrat party at that time was a national party.
You make it seem that the large number of Northerners who were democrats were simply toadys to the South, controlled by a “slave-power”, rather than free-thinking people.
If you had said that to the faces of those people they would undoubtedly have been fighting words."

Sorry, but you totally misunderstand the situation.
First of all, of course they were, in your word, "toadies", they knew it, and so did the Slave-Power.
Indeed, it was a Southerner, Virginia Representative John Randolf, circa 1820, who coined the words "Dough-face" as a term of disparagement, insulting those Northerners so eager to support him and his Slave-Power agenda.
And from the perspective of those Dough-facers, their objectives were to 1) preserve their majority political alliance and 2) in so doing, preserve the Union.

Second, your whole idea of "fighting words" is almost entirely a Southern construct, certainly in this political sense.
Thus, Abraham Lincoln called his Democrat rival, Stephen Douglas as "the worst doughface of them all", and both Democrat Presidents Pierce and Buchanan were often referred to, at the time, as "dough-faced".
None of these were considered "fighting words", or resulted in challenges for duels.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Btw, from the very beginning of the Union the South was paying a heavier share.
For instance, after the Revolution, the South soon paid off all its debts.
However, when Congress assumed the war debts, the Southern states had to pitch in on paying off the debts of their northern neighbors after having paid off their own."

Nonsense, in fact, under Jefferson's 1790 Compromise, Virginia paid $3.4 million to the Federal Government and received that same $3.4 million to finish paying off its war debts.
Virginia paid nothing for Northern war debts.
Further, all other debts were paid from import tariff revenues, of which over 90% came from northern ports like Boston, New York and Philadelphia.

Point is: the whole suggestion that the South paid more than it's "fair share" is strictly nonsensical propaganda.

And proof of it is: you can cite no independent sources to verify your ridiculous claims.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "They would have had every right to if they wanted that.
However if you examine history, those who participated in the secessionist Harford Convention and their supporters were relatively small in number, and did represent anywhere near a majority."

And yet President Madison was prepared to use military force to prevent Northern secession:

"In preparing for a worst-case scenario, Madison moved troops from the New York–Canadian border to Albany where they could quickly be sent to Massachusetts or Connecticut if needed to preserve federal authority.
Several New England regiments that had participated in the Niagara campaign were returned home where it was hoped that they could serve as a focal point for New Englanders opposed to disunion.[14]"

So, your suggestion that our Founders had a nonchalant "let 'em go" attitude towards secession is totally bogus to max, FRiend.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "By letting the South go peacefully, Buchannan wasn’t “dedicated to giving the Slave-power whatever it wanted.”
Rather, he was simply abiding by the Constitution, which gave him no power to deny self-determination."

No, it was much more, because Buchanan consistently ignored the Confederacy's unlawful seizures of dozens of Union properties, from Forts and ships to arsenals and mints.
Just like our current President O, President B refused to enforce Federal laws he didn't like.

Nor did President Lincoln use any military force against the Confederacy, until after it launched their military assault on Union troops in Fort Sumter, a clear, unequivocal act of war, and then formally declared war on the United States.
Therefore, the cause of Civil War was not secession, but rather the Confederacy's declared War of Aggression against the United States.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis on Slave-Power Fire-Eaters engineering Lincoln's election: "I have to admit that has got to be about the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I have ever heard."

No, it's a fact, as reported in James McPhearson's 1988 book, "Battle Cry of Freedom"

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "High tariffs are a liberal thing. “oh but he did that because of the war” Uh huh.
That was why he supported them BEFORE the war and campaigned on them, right?"

Once yet again: northern manufacturing (not "liberals", there warn't no sucha thang in 1860) historically supported higher protective tariffs, while Southern and Western agriculturalists generally (but not always) opposed them.
So the resulting tariffs were always a compromise amongst the interests, and by 1860 tariffs had reached a historical low of roughly 15%.
And through 1860, proposals to raise tariffs were effectively defeated by the Southern Slave-Power and its Northern Dough-faced Democrat allies.

But by splitting their majority Democrat party in half, Slave-Power Fire Eaters rendered themselves utterly impotent politically in Washington, creating the excuse they desired for secession, upon which Southern Representatives & Senators walked out of Congress.
Then, and only then, could the higher Morrill Tariff pass Congress, to be signed by Democrat President Buchanan -- not Lincoln!

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Most of the Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to the formation of a central banking system..."

No, not "most", only some, and those not strongly.
Hamilton's compromise creating the First Bank of the United States was supported by George Washington, John Adams and other Federalists.
After the First Bank's charter expired in 1812, a Second National Bank was chartered in 1816, thanks to the key support from South Carolina's Senator Calhoun, Kentucky Senator Henry Clay and Virginian President Madison.

So, once again, your ridiculous claims are ruled: bogus to the max.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Lincoln administration also gave us the Morril Land Grant Act, that authorized federal aid to establish government-controlled (public) colleges.
With the aid came increased government accountability and regulations."

Certainly not when first passed, in 1862 -- all that came later, much later.
Also, this is another case of bills which went nowhere as long as Southern representatives in Congress stopped them, or their Dough-faced President vetoed them.
Further, just as with the Morrill Tariff in 1860, the Land Grant Act of 1859 could not have passed without significant Northern Dough-face or Border-State Democrat support.
Finally, the act was constitutional based on Article 4 Section 3, giving the Federal Government power to "dispose of Federal lands".

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "As we see today, it really is NOT a good thing for the government to be controlling public education.
Author John Chodes noted that “the true objective [of the Morill Act] was to bring Northern perspective to the re-conquered areas of the South, to teach the rebel’s children ‘respect for national authority’—to break their rebellious spirit forever."

So here is proof that such words are utter nonsense:

1. The basic idea of state supported agricultural colleges came from the 1850 Michigan state constitution.

2. The first proposal for a national support of colleges came from Illinois' state legislature in 1853.

3. Morrill Land Grant act first passed Congress in 1859, but was vetoed by Dough-faced Democrat President Buchanan.

None of this had anything to do with suppression of "Southern Rebellious Spriit" (!!), but was simply a constitutional method to promote higher education.
Yes, of course, once the Confederacy had provoked, started and formally declared war on the United States, then Congress added that Land Grant colleges must also teach military tactics.

But those same "military tactics" -- today's ROTC -- are taught in Southern State Universities as in Northern, and indeed today there are likely proportionately more US military officers from the South than from any other region.

So, yet again, your ridiculous opinions are ruled: bogus to the max.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "As I pointed out earlier, the fact that Lincoln won the support of the communists and socialists in the country and promoted so many of them to high ranks proves that Lincoln was far from being a conservative.
Of course the main proof that Lincoln was not a conservative and a supporter of Constitutionally limited government was the fact that he waged a bloody war to ensure that government of the people, by the people and for the people not be allowed to exist in the South."

Sorry, FRiend, but the positive proof that you are no conservative is your constant stream of outrageous lies, fabricated, fantastical revisions to history, and constant projections of your own faults onto others.
Those all prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are, perhaps secretly, but certainly deep-down to the core, a lying Democrat.
Indeed, "lying for political effect" is a core-definition of what it means to be a Democrat, and nobody can begin to qualify as "conservative" until you begin to understand and tell the truth about all-things political.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...the fact is, they had seen enough of Federal abuses and were not going to put up with any more.
The election of big-guv-lovin’ Lincoln was simply the last straw."

But the only "abusers" of Federal Power in 1860 were the Southern Democrat Slave-Power, which had forced the unconstitutional Compromise of 1850, requiring Federal officials to hunt down and return Fugitive Slaves in Northern States, as well as the 1857 Dred-Scott decision making slavery lawful in all territories, regardless of voters' intent.

But in 1860 the Slave Power had no real reasons to declare secession, because their own people still controlled the Federal Government -- neither Lincoln nor his Black Republicans had yet taken office.
So the Slave Power, lacking actual facts on which to declare secession, did so "at pleasure", in the same way that you might fire your employee who had done nothing wrong, but you suspected might do something wrong, in the future.
And that is the very definition of the term "at pleasure".

And "at pleasure" secession was not considered constitutional by any Founder.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Because if it doesn’t fit with your worldview it has to be fake."

Cite a source and full context.
Otherwise, it's fake.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "What utter rot.
For the thirty years from 1831 to 1860 the tariffs amounted to about eighty-four percent of federal revenues, but during the 1850s tariffs amounted to ninety percent of federal revenue."

Tariff income averaged over 90% of Federal revenues during the thirty years from 1792 to 1812, and again from 1840 to 1862.
The small balance of Federal revenues came from low excise taxes, essentially sales taxes, on such commodities as whiskey -- hence the 1792 "Whiskey Rebellion" in western Pennsylvania, suppressed under the military leadership of Virginia General "Light-Horse" Harry Lee, whose son Robert would also make a name for himself in military matters, though not, of course, by suppressing rebellion.
Those excise taxes produced so little revenue, and at such high political costs, that Congress eliminated them whenever fiscally possible.

My point here is: there never were taxes -- none, zero, nada -- levied "per capita" or by state under the new Constitution.

So, yet again, your ridiculous claims are ruled: bogus to the max.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "As the ports in the South had the most traffic, they paid seventy-five percent of all tariffs in 1859.
The Northern banner of "Preserve the Union," might have more accurately read "Preserve the Taxes"."

"75% of all tariffs paid by Southerners" is an utterly fantastic, unsourced, "pull it out of your b*tt" number with no proximity to actual truth.

Here is a 2013 article showing that 75% figure is totally bogus to the max.
In fact, two thirds of Federal Revenues came from just once city: New York.
Based on relative populations, another 20% came through Boston & Philadelphia.
Yes, perhaps 10% came through ports like Baltimore and New Orleans, but much or most of that was transshipped via rail or steamboat to Northern customers in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.
That leaves maybe 5% to arrive directly through such Southern cities as Savannah, Charleston and Norfolk.

And proof of it is: the Federal Government had no trouble raising funds for the Civil War, despite receiving none from the Confederacy.

So, once yet again, your ridiculous claims are ruled: bogus to the max.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Lincoln could have avoided war by abandoning the fort to the South Carolina government..."

But the Confederacy's ultimatum to abandon Federal Fort Sumter was, by itself, another provocation for war, and their assault on Federal troops an act of war, soon followed by formal declaration of war.
So, obviously, the Confederacy wanted war, provoked war, started war, declared war and finally received war, which they doubtless expected to win, easily.
But they misjudged.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Again about the bank.
I think you are forgetting the biggest problem with it.
The Constitution does not give the Federal government the right to create a National Bank. Period."

And yet, no Founder had a particular problem with it -- George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists strongly supported it, while Southern politicians like Thomas Jefferson were willing to bargain for it, to have the District of Columbia in the South.
And, when it came time to renew the charter in 1816, renewal was promoted by South Carolinian Calhoun, Kentucky's Clay and Virginian President Monroe.

Therefore, clearly a National Bank was considered by our Founders as being a normal, natural part of their intended government, and so, yet again, your ridiculous claims are ruled: bogus to the max.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "On the Income tax: Yes it was later repealed, but when Lincoln passed it he had no idea of it being temporary, which was why there was nothing to that effect in the wording of the act.
Also, you seem to forget that the Constitution says that Congress shall levy no direct tax.
Oh but the country was at war so it was ok to break the constitution now. Uh-huh."

Several points need to be made here:

1. First, Lincoln neither proposed, nor amended the Revenue Act of 1861.
   Instead, it was strictly the work of Congress, which Lincoln agreed to and signed.
   And, about that income tax portion of it, Pennsylvanian:
   "Thaddeus Stevens, chairman of the House Committee of Ways and Means, declared that, 'This bill is a most unpleasant one.
   But we perceive no way in which we can avoid it and sustain the government.
   The rebels, who are now destroying or attempting to destroy this Government, have thrust upon the country many disagreeable things.' [9]
   His sentiment reflected the view that the income and property taxes levied by the bill were necessary evils."

2. Second, when the income tax was first proposed under President Madison, during the War of 1812, it was not considered a "direct tax", nor did Republicans in 1861 consider it a "direct tax".
   So the designation as a "direct tax" came from the Supreme Court in 1895 responding to the Democrats Wilson-Gorman tariff & peace-time income tax.

3. Third, that 1861 Revenue Act imposing a war-time income tax actually collected no income taxes -- none, zero, nada.
   The reason is, it was poorly written and soon repealed and replaced by the 1862 Revenue Act, which did explicitly expire, in 1866, also approved and signed by President Lincoln.

And so, yet again, your ridiculous claims are ruled: bogus to the max.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "If Lincoln had turned the Federal forts over to the Confederacy there would have been no war.
After all, the forts were not “union property” as you try to claim.
The forts were on state land, land which the Federal government had permission to use only while the states were in the Union and had granted such permission.
Upon withdrawing this permission the Federal government had no legal right to maintain forts on land belonging to another country against said country’s permission."

The Confederacy had no more lawful claim on those forts & other properties than, for example, Communist Cuba has on the US Guantanamo Bay Naval Facility, period.
A change of government in no way changes property ownership within its territories, especially land belonging to another government, unless, of course the new government is eager for war, as indeed the Confederacy was.

Indeed, as I've mentioned several times on other threads, the British government maintained & resupplied several forts on United States Northwest territory from 1783 until the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 -- over thirty years, without it ever becoming a causus belli between Britain & US.
So the choice to rush into war was strictly the Confederacy's.
Lincoln merely responded as any President should.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "And btw, nobody is denying that the Confederacy declared war.
They did.
But not until after sending several peace delegations up north to negotiate (Lincoln refused to meet with them)."

First of all, there is no law, national, international or natural, which says that if "A" refuses to meet with "B", then "B" has legal justification to declare war on "A".

Second, Lincoln as President had no constitutional authority to meet with emissaries from states in rebellion.
Instead, they needed to meet with Congress, request Congress to pass laws authorizing their secession, and resolving any property, debt and other issues.
This those emissaries refused to do.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "It was only after he called up troops to suppress secession that the South finally declared war, and even then they waited two weeks after Lincoln’s call for troops."

In fact, before formally declaring war the Confederacy:

1. Unlawfully seized dozens of Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.

2. Unlawfully threatened and fired on Federal officials, especially in and around Fort Sumter.

3. Totally unprovoked, called up a 100,000 man army to confront 16,000 total US Army troops, most scattered in small forts out west.

4. Launched a military assault on Fort Sumter, forcing its surrender.

5. Sent military aid to Confederate forces in Union states, especially Missouri.

All this happened before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate State.

So, clearly and obviously: the Confederacy wanted war, provoked war, started war and formally declared war, all without a shred of sufficient justification.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

As I had let you know before, I am currently working 3 jobs and don’t have the time to write any more long responses. I will not be responding to any more posts on this thread.

[BroJoeK]

I see where our FRiend DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis has signed off, but there are still some of her claims unanswered.
So, just for the sake of being thorough, here goes:

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "South Carolina offered to pay for Fort Sumter.
Unlike the colonists however, they offered to pay for it before they acted, not as an afterthought.
Lincoln however wasn’t interested.
He only wanted to resupply it (which South Carolina said they would not allow), and so thus force the South to act."

In fact, there was never an offer to pay for anything, and one reason was: neither outgoing President Buchanan, nor incoming President Lincoln, nor Lincoln's Secretary of State ever officially met with emissaries or commissioners from the Confederacy.
Yes, they did meet frequently with intermediaries such as South Carolina congressmen (before secession), a Supreme Court justice and Virginia unionists (before the assault on Fort Sumter).

These intermediaries sometimes misunderstood the Presidents' diplomatic language to mean he would agree to their demands.
That happened when President Buchanan first met with South Carolina congressmen, in early December 1860, and again when Secretary Seward met with Supreme Court Justice Campbell.
In fairness, Seward himself may have been unclear as to the President's intentions, but what's 100% certain is that Seward wanted to buy time, and so told Justice Campbell what Campbell wanted to hear: that Lincoln would surrender Fort Sumter.

And indeed, Lincoln's original intention was to withdraw Union troops from Fort Sumter, but only as part of a grand-bargain: a fort for a state, and not just any state, but Virginia.
Lincoln wanted the Virginia secession convention to adjourn and go home, not to return.
In exchange, Lincoln would withdraw troops from Fort Sumter.
But the Virginians would have none of that...

Delegates to the Virginia secession convention were, roughly, 1/3 strong unionists (Western Virginians), 1/3 strong secessionists (the Slave Power) and 1/3 weak unionists who could be easily turned in the event of any military action, regardless of who was the aggressor.
In short, the weak unionists were waiting for, and looking for, an excuse -- any excuse -- to turn and vote for secession.
Lincoln's proposed grand-bargain did not interest them in the least, they refused to adjourn, and so Lincoln reluctantly ordered necessary supplies sent to Fort Sumter.

It's important to emphasize that all discussions between Buchanan, Lincoln or Seward on one side and intermediaries on the other involved one question only: secessionists demand that Fort Sumter be surrendered, or there would be war (not payment!).

Finally, we need to note again that the US Constitution (Article 4, section 3) is explicit and clear on this matter:

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"

Both President Buchanan and Lincoln insisted that secessionist commissioners must talk to Congress about Federal property, and that the Confederates refused to do.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Cuba has leased that land to the Federal government.
If, however, in the future they decide that the US has breached the treaty, it would be difficult to deny their right to reclaim their own land."

In fact, Communist Cuba has demanded for years that the US surrender Guantanamo Bay, and has refused to accept US lease payments.
But if the Communists were to assault Guantanamo, force its surrender and seize it, that would be an act of war, as certainly as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter.

So, should I take DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis's claim here to be an expression of sympathy with the Cuban Communists?

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I think you are missing the big problem that the South had with the 14th amendment.
Their big problem was that it denied Confederate veterans the right to vote or hold office, thereby ensuring that the state governments of the South after the war would never be truly representative governments (just what the North wanted)."

You really should read it someday.
In fact nobody was restricted from voting, and the only people restricted from holding public office were those who had previously left their government positions to join the Confederacy.
Yes, in effect it required a new generation of Southern leaders, which seems to me entirely appropriate.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "It also made everyone born in the United States a United States citizen, and thus changed the nature of the Federal Government. Before that, people were citizens of their sovereign states only, not citizens of the Federal government."

In fact, what it says is simply:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Sorry, but I fail to see how that language can be a problem for any reasonable person.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "You must be losing the argument if you have to resort to calling your opponent a racist."

I was commenting not on you, personally, but on your choice of friends -- buddies -- since you claimed, "we lost the war".
So who is that "we" Kemosabe?
The simple fact is that you cannot honestly defend the Confederacy without defending the First Principle it stood for: slavery.
Those who try end up making ridiculous, unhistorical claims, such as those you've posted here.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...so many Northern states passed laws forbidding blacks from entering and living there."

Pre-Civil War!
Indiana and Illinois had such laws, other states did not.
But I would suggest that the law's actual effect was less to expel freed slaves, than to reduce slave-catchers roaming their states in search fugitives they could return South.
This law allowed those northern states to officially declare: "no fugitive slaves for you to catch here".

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "According to the 10th amendment, states would also have the right to ban abortion and homosexual marriage within their boundaries.
Tis a pity the Federal government has run roughshod over these rights or things today just might be more conservative."

Agreed.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I don’t drink. And I am not a man."

Well, that explains some things, glad to meet you mam.
I commend you for your unusually even temper, and for taking as much time on this as you have.
It's much more fun when I'm not having to bat away barrages of insults! ;-)

But as with all propagandists for the pro-Confederate cause, what you think you know of history is pure fantasy.
It just didn't happen the way you've been told.
In reality, it was all about, indeed only seriously about protecting slavery from Ape Lincoln and those evil Black Republicans.

Because of that, there's just no honest way to turn such a sow's ear into a silk purse.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...in case you have not noticed many conservatives nowadays are somewhat lacking in spine.
But you can still see some standing against federal overreach."

Agreed!

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "As fun as our discussion have been, I’m gonna have to bring it to a close.
I am currently working three jobs and don’t really have the time to spend writing any more long responses."

I also have many obligations which often call me away for long periods.
And yes, I have enjoyed this exchange, and appreciate the considerable effort you put into it.
But seriously, you need to learn some real history for a change, and pro-Confederate propaganda ain't it, dear.
So, let me suggest two books, the second I've read, studied & relied on, the first am just starting:

William Freehling 2007, "The Road to Disunion, Secessionists Triumphant"

Russell McClintock 2008, "Lincoln and the Decision for War"

Have a great day!

[rockrr]

BroJoeK: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...so many Northern states passed laws forbidding blacks from entering and living there."

Pre-Civil War!

Indiana and Illinois had such laws, other states did not. But I would suggest that the law's actual effect was less to expel freed slaves, than to reduce slave-catchers roaming their states in search fugitives they could return South. This law allowed those northern states to officially declare: "no fugitive slaves for you to catch here".

To be fair, there were some northern states that passed black-codes and anti-miscegenation laws both pre and post Civil War. They ere typically border states that did inherit "the problem" by virtue of proximity. The reasons as well as the scope of these laws varied from state to state and were chiefly in response to events such as Prigg v. Pennsylvania and Dred Scott v. Sandford. The south had established cultural "norms" for negro behavior that the north had no reason to adopt - until circumstances were thrust upon them.

Some states, like the states of Indiana and Illinois were frank and blunt: "we don't want you here". All telegraphed a similar sentiment: "we don't know what to do with you".

Ironically, blacks who violated the law faced punishments that included being advertised and sold at public auction. It is important to note that attitudes regarding blacks were hardly solidified anywhere except the south. Some communities saw so few of them they were regarded as curiosities. Many (most?) were wary of them and passed laws to discourage their immigration. White supremacy was still an unabashed aspect of most communities north and south. Don't forget that the Plessy v. Ferguson decision on "separate but equal" segregation was rendered in 1896!

It's also important to keep in mind that northern states began to roll back those black-codes almost as quickly as they passed them. With the exception of Indiana, the North was free of anti-miscegenation laws by 1887. Southern Jim Crow laws persisted and even survived Brown v. Board of Education and the problematic 1965 Civil Rights Act.

[rockrr]

Sorry - I should have said "until the problematic 1965 Civil Rights Act".

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

What’s interesting is that, despite these laws on the books, a large black population developed in Illinois. The 1860 census counted nearly 8000, a number exceeding that of most of the confederate states.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "Some states, like the states of Indiana and Illinois were frank and blunt: 'we don't want you here'. All telegraphed a similar sentiment: 'we don't know what to do with you'. "

That has lead pro-Confederates to claim blacks were treated better in the South than the North.
But the proof of it would be some evidence -- any evidence -- of migration from the "hostile" North to the "friendly" South, and to my knowledge, despite the hostile Northern climate, it never happened until relatively recent years.

[BroJoeK]

Bubba Ho-Tep: "The 1860 census counted nearly 8000, a number exceeding that of most of the confederate states."

Do you mean free blacks?

[combat_boots]

Come April, we celebrate the 150th of the end of the Civil War. You watch. DC will say/do nothing or almost nothing. It hasn’t for the War of 1812, either.