[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]

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. :-)