A Constitution copied from the USA. Legal Slavery. A President. A Legislature. Even a flag that looked like an American flag.
What would have been different?
Posted on 05/04/2018 6:42:25 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Leading elements of Union Major General George G. Meade's Army of the Potomac cross the Rapidan River. With a few hours they would clash with General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of the Wilderness. Lieutenant General Grant's Overland Campaign had begun.
Pretty hard to pay someone who keeps running away and turning their back every time you attempt to pay them.
Doesn't any rule of law require payment first and then possession?
They paid for it a dozen times over. The vast bulk of the Federal budget for years had been payed by the Southern states. The Northern states only contributed about 25% of the total Federal budget. The South paid the rest.
And don't start your "back end of the Horse instead of the front" argument. The money going in was the same money coming out. (As European goods.)
In a nation premised on consent of the governed, Informing a state that it's destiny may be better served in another coalition is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
And that, good sir, is plain old fashioned treason.
No it isn't. Under the understanding of that era, the states were free and could do what they wanted. Even Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase said that "Secession isn't Treason."
“What law or clause of the Constitution allows the federal government to seize state land, or allows states to seize federal land?”
There is no such provision in the real Constitution but who knows what may have been slipped into the synthetic Constitution, or the two million page Federal Register.
The procedure for how to reimburse the United States for property it claims to own when states secede is not well defined. It has only happened 11 times in our history.
The Confederacy recognized this and offered to negotiate all issues with the United States in an attempt to preserve the peace. With war potentially looming and thousands of lives at risk, Lincoln refused to meet with southern representatives.
Cell division is a natural process that involves no consciousness or action of the will. If I'm not mistaken, when it comes to single-celled organisms, the new cell will have all the same DNA of the original.
So it's a very bad analogy to what happens when countries break up. The two new countries could be very different. People will have different interests and attitudes and may end up in a country they don't want to live in.
If you have to use that analogy, it better fits the creation of colonies. The Greeks or the Phoenicians or the English could send out part of their people to a new city or province that aspired to be a copy of the original city or country.
Secession is a lot messier.
You miss my point, as usual. My point was that the secessionists weren't weaklings victimized by the evil Yankees. They were determined political men, as much a part of the power politics game as anybody else in the country.
One of the inherent defects in democracy is that the majority can always trample the rights of the minority, and the minority will never have sufficient power to rectify it.
Foolishness. Minorities group together and can often outvote a majority. Isn't that clear by now? Even in the 19th century, Southerners ruled the country with the help of allies in the lower Middle West, or Pennsylvania or New Jersey or New York City.
If you are clever enough and hardworking enough, you can manage to do a lot in American politics. How did Southerners manage to dominate US politics in the years 1800-1860?
Thankfully the Founders didn't follow your thinking about working within the British system to resolve their conflicts. It would have gotten them nowhere.
1) They were trying to work within the system. They tried it until they realized it was impossible.
2) The reason why it didn't work was because they weren't represented in Parliament. The slave states were represented -- by many accounts overrepresented in Congress.
In other words, Americans weren't a part of the British political system and had little opportunity to influence British politics. Southerners were very much a part of the US political system and should have continued to work within it to achieve their goals.
I am saying that the Constitution committed the country to keeping slavery until it could be abolished by the procedure contained within the Constitution for amending it.
You seem to be demanding that Congress do nothing that would anger or incommode slaveowners, but that is nonsense. There was no moral commandment to love slavery and not interfere with it in the Constitution. There was no implicit compact that slavery was a wonderful thing that should never be challenged.
This clearly says that state laws to abolish slavery are null and void if they interfere with returning a slave to his master.
That refers to runaways, fugitives. It doesn't mean that slaveowners could own and work their slaves in free states forever.
No, any state attempting to refuse to allow a man to come into their state with his slaves, is violating the rest of Article IV, which requires states to respect each others' Privileges and immunities.
No. As I said, Wisconsin could not deny a visiting South Carolinian the rights Wisconsin residents enjoyed, but it did not have to allow those coming from South Carolina and settling permanently in the state the right to own slaves that they enjoyed at home. At some point, you become a citizen of the state you live in and are fully subject to its laws.
This is what I mean by acting in "bad faith." Under the meaning in 1787, it was accepted by all parties that slaveowners could go to other states with their slaves if they so wished. Had all parties been informed that this would allow the banning of travel or residence in certain states, the Slave owning states would have rejected the Constitution.
That is bad history. Or no history at all. Nobody demanded that and nobody expected that. Georgians might summer in a Northern state or attend Congress in New York or Philadelphia, but they recognized that moving North permanently and not returning would have made them residents of Northern states and subject to their laws. They liked it at home and were smart enough to go back when August was over or when Congress was out of session.
I have joked about that for years. It has become a thing to claim you are using "weaponized Autism". It means nothing to me to let people think I have Aspergers, and the only thing surprising is that some people demonstrate irony by obsessing about it. :)
"Weaponize autism" and you are likely to blow yourself up, not your targets. Jefferson Davis was convinced that he was right, that he couldn't have acted differently, that nothing he did was wrong. I begin to wonder if he was "on the spectrum" himself, and if there isn't something about secession that attracts Aspies.
Lincoln would cite constitutional law when it furthered his agenda, and he would deliberately ignore it when it didn't. (West Virginia, Article IV, Section 2, Emancipation Proclamation, and so forth)
Nope, that wasn't the reason. The reason they completely dropped the case is because the Chief Justice had already informed them that if they brought it to trial, they would lose. As a matter of fact, he informed them that they would lose everything in a courtroom that they had won on the battlefield, and the sacrifice of all those men would have been for naught.
No, they didn't want this in a court of law, because it would have gone very badly for them.
A Constitution copied from the USA. Legal Slavery. A President. A Legislature. Even a flag that looked like an American flag.
What would have been different?
Problem with the "cell division" metaphor is that the two cells have no significant differences.
In politics and history if two regions or peoples have no significant differences, why is secession necessary?
If the two countries were the same, why do you need two countries?
So in other words there is no provision that you know of? Then why do you insist there is?
The procedure for how to reimburse the United States for property it claims to own when states secede is not well defined. It has only happened 11 times in our history.
What were the other 10?
The Confederacy recognized this and offered to negotiate all issues with the United States in an attempt to preserve the peace. With war potentially looming and thousands of lives at risk, Lincoln refused to meet with southern representatives.
Well no they didn't but that is neither here nor there. The claim was that Sumter belonged to the Confederacy and Anderson's troops were trespassing. Can you please explain the legal process that resulted in that?
You sure are good at twisting things.
Can you twist the stem of a cherry into a knot using your tongue?
I’ve seen that quote before, mostly at neo-confederate sights, and considering that his Supreme court stated “”The doctrine of secession is a doctrine of treason, and practical secession is practical treason, seeking to give itself triumph by revolutionary violence.” [80 U.S. 646, 650] it is very suspect. I’ve never been able to find the source, perhaps you have it?
The fact of the matter is Jefferson Davis was under indictment by the federal government until pardoned by Andrew Johnson. So I do know my history.
It was the way the slavocracy practiced it.
There’s something about chaos that seems to attract Aspies...
Which would be a shame if true. But since no attempt to pay was made then it's just more of your opinion.
The vast bulk of the Federal budget for years had been payed by the Southern states. The Northern states only contributed about 25% of the total Federal budget. The South paid the rest
So you keep claiming.
And don't start your "back end of the Horse instead of the front" argument. The money going in was the same money coming out. (As European goods.)
Heaven forbid. Facts are wasted on you anyway.
In direct competition for the same territories and resources and bitter enemies because of the south's bad faith breech.
“States” didn’t own slaves. Slavery was one man owning another. Some states allowed this, some did not. I gave you the example you asked for, i.e., George Washington’s Attorney General, who brought the slaves that he owned in a Slave State, into the Slave-free-state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania had a state law that said if you brought your slave(s) into their state and kept them there for more than six months, your slaves would become free. This happened. The man lost his slaves and they were freed. This is the example you asked for.
Your problem is that you do not understand Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3. You look at it the way the Slave Power did. They turned it into the “fugitive slave clause”, then into the Fugitive Slave Act, the Fugitive Slave Law, the Compromise of 1850 and finally into the Dred Scott Decision. You are like them.
Did you or did you not state here a few months ago that you had Aspergers?
By 1945 the Germans were on the ropes.By 1865 so was the Confederacy.
“The fact of the matter is Jefferson Davis was under indictment by the federal government until pardoned by Andrew Johnson. So I do know my history.”
Verdict first!
Then the trial.
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.