POLITICALLY CORRECT HISTORY - LINCOLN MYTH DEBUNKED

LewRockwell.com ^ | January 23, 2003 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo, PHD

[one2many]

<!-- a{text-decoration:none} //-->

CONTENT="">

Politically Correct History by Thomas J. DiLorenzo The political left in America has apparently decided that American history must be rewritten so that it can be used in the political campaign for reparations for slavery. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago inserted language in a Department of Interior appropriations bill for 2000 that instructed the National Park Service to propagandize about slavery as the sole cause of the war at all Civil War park sites. The Marxist historian Eric Foner has joined forces with Jackson and will assist the National Park Service in its efforts at rewriting history so that it better serves the political agenda of the far left. Congressman Jackson has candidly described this whole effort as "a down payment on reparations." (Foner ought to be quite familiar with the "art" of rewriting politically-correct history. He was the chairman of the committee at Columbia University that awarded the "prestigious" Bancroft Prize in history to Emory University’s Michael A. Bellesiles, author of the anti-Second Amendment book, "Arming America," that turned out to be fraudulent. Bellesiles was forced to resign from Emory and his publisher has ceased publishing the book.) In order to accommodate the political agenda of the far left, the National Park Service will be required in effect to teach visitors to the national parks that Abraham Lincoln was a liar. Neither Lincoln nor the US Congress at the time ever said that slavery was a cause – let alone the sole cause – of their invasion of the Southern states in 1861. Both Lincoln and the Congress made it perfectly clear to the whole world that they would do all they could to protect Southern slavery as long as the secession movement could be defeated. On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows: ARTICLE THIRTEEN No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. Two days later, in his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed that the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. As he stated: I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable (emphasis added). This of course was consistent with one of the opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." That’s what Lincoln said his invasion of the Southern states was not about. In an August 22, 1862, letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley he explained to the world what the war was about: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. Of course, many Americans at the time, North and South, believed that a military invasion of the Southern states would destroy the union by destroying its voluntary nature. To Lincoln, "saving the Union" meant destroying the secession movement and with it the Jeffersonian political tradition of states’ rights as a check on the tyrannical proclivities of the central government. His war might have "saved" the union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically as the country became a consolidated empire as opposed to a constitutional republic of sovereign states. On July 22, 1861, the US Congress issued a "Joint Resolution on the War" that echoed Lincoln’s reasons for the invasion of the Southern states: Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease. By "the established institutions of those states" the Congress was referring to slavery. As with Lincoln, destroying the secession movement took precedence over doing anything about slavery. On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it. Nor would the Republican Party, which enjoyed a political monopoly after the war, have insisted that the Southern states rewrite their state constitutions to outlaw secession as a condition of being readmitted to the Union. If secession was really unconstitutional there would have been no need to do so. These facts will never be presented by the National Park Service or by the Lincoln cultists at the Claremont Institute, the Declaration Foundation, and elsewhere. This latter group consists of people who have spent their careers spreading lies about Lincoln and his war in order to support the political agenda of the Republican Party. They are not about to let the truth stand in their way and are hard at work producing "educational" materials that are filled with false but politically correct history. For a very different discussion of Lincoln and his legacy that is based on fact rather than fantasy, attend the LewRockwell.com "Lincoln Reconsidered" conference at the John Marshall Hotel in Richmond, Virginia on March 22. January 23, 2003 Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland. Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com Thomas DiLorenzo Archives Really Learn About the Real Lincoln Now there is a study guide and video to accompany Professor DiLorenzo's great work, for homeschoolers and indeed anyone interested in real American history. http://www.fvp.info/reallincolnlr/

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

[WhiskeyPapa]

Source please, and if you don't mind, also include any known responses to the offer. Thanks.

You might be interested to know that on May 21, 1861 the men acting as the rebel congress passed a law requiring that -private- debt owed to -private- northern creditors be paid directly to the CSA treasury. This measure actually brought in $8 million. It had been hoped to net $200 million through this criminal act.

The rebels never had the money to pay for even a fraction of what they stole. What was the value of the land of the states comprising the Louisiana Purchase? The federal government took over the debts of Texas. Over $100,000,000 was spent to rid Florida of hostile indians. Of course Florida was purchased because the slave power was concerned about the slaves who escaped from slave states.

Part of the neo-reb rant is this infantile "mine, mine, mine," mindset that excuses criminal behavior.

President Lincoln called it:

"The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these states were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave, and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums, (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of the so-called seceding states, in common with the rest. Is it just, either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining States pay for the whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, pay no part of it herself?

Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain... "

A. Lincoln 7/4/61

Walt

[mac_truck]

I'm not sure I understand your argument as it applies to Texas. Texas voters elected representatives to a secession convention endorsed by the state legislature. The elected delegates to the secession convention then voted to secede, subject to confirmation by the voters of the state themselves. The voters of the state then overwhelmingly voted to secede.

No. The state ratification declarations I was referring to were those made by the states ratifiying the US Constitution. Texas belonged to Mexico then, so it doesn't really apply.

The problem with the "secession was legal" arguement is that none of the southern states brought their case for secession before the US Supreme court.

I think they may have gotten a favorable ruling from the court, especially Virginia which had expressed reservations in their ratification declaration.

If amendment X of the US constitution enumerates a states right to secede, then Article III informs the state(s) where to go with their greivence.

This "the union is perpetual until we decide it isn't" mumbo-jumbo is logistical sleight of hand, that avoids the court and makes the confederates (old and new) look like the disreputable schemers is suspect they were.

[Ditto]

Immediately prior to the battle, the Lincoln was also planning to employ that same union attachment in military coordination with the arrival of his fleet for the purpose of fighting their way into the harbor and asserting control over it.

That is plainly laughable. You can not have read anything about Sumter and have made such a silly claim. The measley 3-ship re-supply convoy had neither enough firepower on the ships nor enough men to "assert control" over Charleston harbor. The CSA had it completely ringed with heavy artillery and manned by over 10,000 troops under Boreguard's command. The only thing Lincoln hoped to accomplish was to re-supply a starving garrison, keep the Stars and Stripes over Sumter, and to maintain the crisis at the status quo hoping for some sort of resolution. It was a political objective, not a military objective.

But the status quo was what terrified Jeff Davis and the fire-eaters. They understood they had to get the Upper South to jump to their side or their silly little banana republic that had nothing but slaves and cotton balls would have collapsed in a matter of months when the harsh fiscal realities of what they jumped into began to sink in. The only way change the dynamics was to force Lincoln to take military action and then appeal to "Southern solidarity" against "Yankee aggression" to get the wealthier, more populous Upper South on their side. Once the flag was fired on, Lincoln had no option but to respond by calling for volunteers from the states.

Davis and the Charleston lunatics got exactly what they wanted --- war. Even Robert Toombs called Davis' decision lunacy and he understood what would happen in the end.

[Ditto]

It's hard to imagine how you can post this crap.

Walt, I'm beginning to think the neo-rebs are Democrats in some sort of drag. They have no need for facts, logic, truth or consistency. Their feeling and emotions are all they need. They call you names all they want, but if you respond, you are basding grand Souther Culture. They also love to play the victim game a lot with all their cries about "Southern Bashing" and endless 150 year old grievances of what happened to g-g-g-g pappy so and so. They must have a damn copy of Jessi Jackson's play book --- or maybe he has a copy of theirs.

[outlawcam]

Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain... "

Makes sense to me. Also, it's funny that from the Articles of Confederation onward, the United States government assumed that a sign of political legitimacy was the payment of debt properly borrowed and owed to creditors--both public and private. Even Jefferson died while still in debt to foreign creditors, though much of it was inherited from his father-in-law.

There is something to be said there in regards to the conduct of our founders and the government of the United States versus the conduct of the Confederacy, and the character of those who controlled each. Also, it is equally interesting that, consistent with their claim that the Confederate government was illegitimate, the United States negated all debts incurred by the Confederacy in its insurrection.

[Aurelius]

"But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."

As was to be expected, your response is irrelevant to the point at issue. There was no "invasion by foreign nations" or "insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States".

[thatdewd]

But ratification wasn't a negotiation between two sides, it was the acceptance of the Constitution by the individual states. The framers weren't accepting anything, it was the states that were. Therefore, the clauses would be binding only if both sides agreed to it.

Their conditions were not prohibited by the agreement, and they clearly stated them as a condition to being bound. Legally, that is acceptance. If not, then they were never bound to begin with.

Instead the clauses in the ratification document were a one-sided assumption of what was permitted under the Constitution.

Not at all. The clauses were very clearly stated conditions placed upon their being bound to the union. They were a 'binding' part of the agreement.

The Constitution was the final word on what was legal and illegal and the Supreme Court ruled that the path that Virginia chose to follow in 1861 was illegal.

For that to be a legal ruling, the Justice's "consensus of states" BS would have to be part of the Constitution or the documents that bound the States to it, which it is not. The documents binding those States to the Constitution very clearly show that it was the individual State's decision. The agreement and the documents associated with it directly contradict that ruling and show it to a direct violation of the original agreement. It is an illegal ruling or the union is void as a fraudulent agreement.

[rustbucket]

The problem with the "secession was legal" arguement is that none of the southern states brought their case for secession before the US Supreme court.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. What seems obvious to you, is not obvious to me, and probably vice versa.

I see where you are coming from in arguing for a Supreme Court role here, but I don't believe your argument applies when a state has exercised its sovereignty and seceded. To me, such a state is no longer a part of the Union and is no longer subject to the Constitution. Similarly, I no longer feel bound to the rulings of the British Parliament, regardless of what the British may think (though they gave up on the point long ago).

If it were simply a dispute between states belonging to the Union, then your argument for a Supreme Court role would make more sense.

Secession is the ultimate check and balance (short of arms) protecting our rights against a tyrannical central government.

Coercing states at the point of a gun is not what this country was founded for. As Alexander Hamilton said:

It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a Government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government.

[thatdewd]

Are you at all familiar with this document? What does the title say?: Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union

ROFLMAO!!! That government was replaced by the one we have now, you know, the one we actually were discussing. Apparently, according to your understanding, "perpetual" means 'about ten years'. Or do you hold that George Washington was NOT the first President of our country? The previous presidents under the AofC are not counted because that government and it's "perpetual" union only lasted about TEN YEARS. Or do you think Washington was the eleventh President? You're starting to appear more ignorant than Waltrot. I'd advise you to avoid associating with him, as he considers the Constitution to be a "Pact with the Devil".

[thatdewd]

The union was not something to be changed for light or transient causes either

It was up to the State to determine what constituted a need to reassume those powers.

The articles of Confederation clearly state from the title line forward that the Union was Perpetual.

And the Articles with it. Apparently "perpetual" means 'about ten years', because that's how long they lasted.

If you think the south was deceived into union with the north, then your grasp on history (and reality for that matter) is very weak indeed.

I never said that, in fact I have said the opposite. Your comprehension skills are worse than waltrot's.

[thatdewd]

That point is covered in AoC...

Which means that "perpetual" means 'about ten years'. That's how long they lasted. Since you don't remember, the AoC were done away with, and replaced by the Constitution. You know, that document you consider to be a "Pact with the Devil".

[thatdewd]

That is plainly laughable. You can not have read anything about Sumter and have made such a silly claim.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, April 5, 1861. Captain SAMUEL MERCER,

Commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, New York:

SIR: The United States steamers Powhatan, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will compose a naval force, under your command, to be sent to the vicinity of Charleston, S. C., for the purpose of aiding in carrying out the objects of an expedition of which the War Department has charge.

The primary object of the expedition is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports. Should the authorities at Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort, the Powhatan, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will return to New York, and the Pawnee to Washington.

Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent the vessel or vessels having supplies on board from entering the harbor, or from peaceably proceeding to Fort Sumter, you will protect the transports or boats of the expedition in the object of their mission-disposing of your force in such manner as to open the way for their ingress and afford, so far as practicable, security to the men and boats, and repelling by force, if necessary, all obstructions towards provisioning the fort and re-enforcing it; for in case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition a re-enforcement of the garrison will also be attempted. These purposes will be under the supervision of the War Department, which has charge of the expedition. The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G. V. Fox, with whom you will put yourself in communication, and co-operate with him to accomplish and carry into effect its object.

You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston Bar, ten miles distant from and due east of the light-house, on the morning of the 11th instant, there to await the arrival of the transport or transports with troops and stores. The Pawnee and Pocahontas will be ordered to join you there at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, which latter vessel has been placed under the control of this Department for this service.

On the termination of the expedition, whether it be peaceable or otherwise, the several vessels under your command will return to the respective ports, as above directed, unless some unforeseen circumstance should prevent.

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,

GIDEON WELLES,

Secretary of the Navy.

[thatdewd]

Bump for TRUTH!!!

[thatdewd]

The post above only deals with the "hiring of the ships". As to the troops, the mission's real purpose was stated more clearly, as this command shows:

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.

Lieutenant Colonel HENRY L. SCOTT, A. D. C., New York:

SIR: This letter will be landed to you by Captain G. V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-enforce Fort Sumter.

To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter-indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take-with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.

The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward of the Navy for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others.

Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery implements, fuses, cordage, slow-march, mechanical levers, and gins, &c., should also be put on board.

Consult, also, if necessary, confidentially, Colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton.

Respectfully, yours,

WINFIELD SCOTT.

[SCDogPapa]

A little more Thruth.

By the possession of Forts Moultrie and Pinckney and the arsenal in Charleston, their military stores fell into the hands of the State of South Carolina, and by the governor's orders a careful inventory was made at once of all the property and duly reported to him. At Moultrie there were sixteen 24-pounders, nineteen 32-pounders, ten 8-inch columbiads, one I o-inch seacoast mortar, four 6-pounders, two 12-pounders and four 24-pounderhowitzers and a large supply of ammunition. At Castle Pinckney the armament was nearly complete and the magazine well filled with powder. At the arsenal there was a large supply of military stores, heavy ordnance and small-arms. These exciting events were followed by the attempt of the government to succor Major Anderson with supplies and reinforce his garrison.

The supplies and troops were sent in a large merchant steamer, the Star of the West. She crossed the bar early on the morning of January 9, 1861, and steamed up Ship channel, which runs for miles parallel with Morris island, and within range of gulls of large caliber. Her course lay right under the 24-pounder battery commanded by Major Stevens and manned by the cadets. This battery was supported by the Zouave Cadets, Captain Chichester; the German Riflemen, Captain Small, and the Vigilant Rifles, Captain Tupper. When within range a shot was fired across her bow, and not heeding it, the battery fired directly upon her. Fort Moultrie also fired a few shots, and the Star of the West rapidly changed her course and, turning round, steamed out of the range of the guns, having received but little material damage by the fire. Major Anderson acted with great forbearance and judgment, and did not open his batteries. He declared his purpose to be patriotic, and so it undoubtedly was. He wrote to the governor that, influenced by the hope that the firing on the Star of the West was not supported by the authority of the State, he had refrained from opening fire upon the batteries, and declared that unless it was promptly disclaimed he would regard it as an act of war, and after waiting a reasonable time he would fire upon all vessels coming within range of his guns. The governor promptly replied, justifying the action of the batteries in firing upon the vessel, and giving his reasons in full. He pointed out to Major Anderson that his removal to Fort Sumter and the circumstances attending it, and his attitude since were a menace to the State of a purpose of coercion; that the bringing into the harbor of more troops and supplies of war was in open defiance of the State, and an assertion of a purpose to reduce her to abject submission to the government she had discarded; that the vessel had been fairly warned not to continue her course, and that his threat to fire upon the vessels in the harbor was in keeping with the evident purpose of the government of the United States to dispute the right of South Carolina to dissolve connection with the Union. This right was not to be debated or questioned, urged the governor, and the coming of the Star of the West, sent by the order of the President, after being duly informed by commissioners sent to him by the convention of the people of the State to fully inform him of the act of the State in seceding from the Union, and of her claim of rights and privileges in the premises, could have no other meaning than that of open and hostile disregard for the asserted independence of South Carolina. To defend that independence and to resent and resist any and every act of coercion are "too plainly a duty," said Governor Pickens, "to allow it to be discussed."

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/america/civilwar/cw26.htm

[SCDogPapa]

"Thruth"

Can't type,,,,Truth!

[Non-Sequitur]

Their conditions were not prohibited by the agreement, and they clearly stated them as a condition to being bound. Legally, that is acceptance. If not, then they were never bound to begin with.

You still have it backwards. The states were accepting the Constitution as adopted by convention. The fact that they chose to place assumptions in their ratification documents did not mean that those assumptions were valid, or that they could be exercised in whatever manner the state chose. If may be perfectly legal for a state to resume power to itself and leave the Union, but if the state chooses to do so unilaterally then their actions are illegal because they violate the Constitution.

For that to be a legal ruling, the Justice's "consensus of states" BS would have to be part of the Constitution or the documents that bound the States to it, which it is not.

It is a legal ruling, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. The Constitution vests the Supreme Court with interpreting the Constitution, not you or I, and the fact that you think its BS means absolutely nothing. The Supreme Court determined that secession as practiced by the southern states was illegal because it was done without the consent of the other states. That's all there is to it, unless the Constitution is amended or a future court overturns the decision.

[thatdewd]

You still have it backwards. The states were accepting the Constitution as adopted by convention. The fact that they chose to place assumptions in their ratification documents did not mean that those assumptions were valid, or that they could be exercised in whatever manner the state chose.

If that were true, then their ratifications were accepted under fraudulent pretenses, and the agreement would therefore be void as fraudulent. It is very clear in the ratifications that stated the existence of the right to reassume those powers that it would be the individual State's decision. The "consensus of States" idea is directly in violation of that, and therefore in direct opposition to the very documents that bound the States to the Constitution to begin with. BTW, I do not think the Constitutional union was a fraudulent agreement.

It is a legal ruling, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. The Constitution vests the Supreme Court with interpreting the Constitution, not you or I, and the fact that you think its BS means absolutely nothing. The Supreme Court determined that secession as practiced by the southern states was illegal because it was done without the consent of the other states. That's all there is to it, unless the Constitution is amended or a future court overturns the decision.

LOL - Once again, an incorrect court decision is not really law. That is a long established position of the Supreme Court, and one that everyone everywhere agrees with. That "consensus of states" ruling is invalid because it violates and illegally usurps the stated conditions for reassumption of powers that were declared when the Constitutonal union was created. It would make the union itself a fraudulent agreement and therefore void. Perhaps one day we can argue this on appeal in front of the current Court.

[thatdewd]

No. The state ratification declarations I was referring to were those made by the states ratifiying the US Constitution. Texas belonged to Mexico then, so it doesn't really apply.

The clauses in the ratification documents only show that the right to reassume those powers was an accepted idea when the Constitutional union was created. They establish a principle applicable to all states, for if it was true for one, it would be true for another. It was an "equal" Constitutional union.

The problem with the "secession was legal" argument is that none of the southern states brought their case for secession before the US Supreme court....If amendment X of the US constitution enumerates a states right to secede, then Article III informs the state(s) where to go with their greivence.

They did not need to take anything to the Supreme Court because they were not disputing the constitutionality of any law or seeking legal arbitration to any dispute. They were excercising the previously stated right that a State could reassume the powers it had ceded to the Constitutional union. A right declared and included in the very documents that created the Constitutional union. Once they had reassumed those powers, they had also reassumed those powers previously granted to the Court.

This "the union is perpetual until we decide it isn't" mumbo-jumbo is logistical sleight of hand, that avoids the court and makes the confederates (old and new) look like the disreputable schemers is suspect they were.

LOL - Apparently you consider the Founding Fathers to be "schemers" spouting "mumbo jumbo" because they got rid of the "perpetual" Articles of Confederation ten years after creating them. You're starting to sound more and more like ol' waltrot every day. Soon you will no doubt do like him and call the Constitution a "pact with the devil". I would hope that is not the case and that you have merely been misled by him.

[4CJ]

I do, and I believe that had the matter been left to be peacefully settled then future cases would have clarified the court's decision. Many people believed that the court overstepped the bounds of the issue before the court.

The very first congress denied citizenship status to blacks, as did every other congress until the 14 Amendment was ratified. What was so galling to many, is NOT that blacks were deemed property (see preceding sentence), it was that the ruling would have allowed the emigration of blacks into the west.

The southern side must have suspected that the decision wouldn't stand since they chose the path of rebellion.

Nonsense. It was Lincoln and the Black Republicans that refused to abide by the decision, denying blacks their legally detrmined right to settle the West.