If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

The Patriotist ^ | 2003 | Al Benson, Jr.

[ought-six]

"Fascists don't support the Constitution of the United States nor do they oppose the suppression of a rebellion by the racist tyrants who ran the Slaverocracy."

Which just makes my point (as far as fascists not supporting the Constitution). As for your bigoted comment re: "racist tyrants who ran the Slaveocracy," may I remind you, madam, that slavery, albeit not an admirable institution, was still a legal one UNDER THE CONSTITUTION! So, whom did you say did not support the Constitution?

[Robert Drobot]

Bump

[PLMerite]

bump for later

[Grand Old Partisan]

President Lincoln himself acknowledged that slavery was legal then, but the "Slaveocracy" was indeed run by "racist tyrants". In fact, Republicans used to call Democrats "Slaveocrats".

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no need to remind me of points remarked upon by me earlier while my memory is slipping I am aware of such trivialities as the legality of slavery and pointed out that Lincoln had no plans to change it but through legal means. However, the racist tyrants from the South didn't seem to believe him, fools that they were. Perhaps someone could demonstrate to you that legal does not equal moral.

Nor did they believe that Abe would use all constitutional means to preserve and protect that very constitution and the Union it created. As is the case with such lunacies throughout history they found their society destroyed and the people of the South even deeper in the financial and social quagmire after their insane rebellion.

Being members of a culture on the wrong side of every question about American development since the beginning of the Nation they persisted in their errors to the bitter end. Only a few men were able to rise above the inherently inhuman society of the South: Washington, the Laurens family, etc. and actually carry through to a modern position on slavery. Only a few of the leaders were anything but ignorant, blustering poppinjays struting about shrieking about "honor" when their whole lifestyle was dishonorable to the core. The only thing more ludicrous is their modern day supporters' attempts to paint them and their ideas as anything but what they were.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You don't have to tell me you are as impervious to the truth as a rock is to water. That is obvious from your position in the Pantheon of ignorance, the D.S.s.

Aurelius definition of "vile venom"- any truth about the Civil War or which contradicts or refutes any of the absurd bilge which passes for scholarly research in history which is accepted as truth by retrograde retards in support of the Confederacy and its goals.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Old wives' tales and urban legends often get accepted as truth particularly when spread by resentful survivors of events. They are embellished over the yrs so that what starts out as a kernel of truth, a woman was raped, gets blown into "a pregnant woman was gang-raped."

Would I believe every story passed down through my family about its antecedents? No. Though I would like to believe there was a Cherokee princess in my bloodline as claimed, I don't really.

[Corin Stormhands]

The loyalist state government of Virginia approved the creation of West Virginia. To this day, the Commonwealth of Virginia, not to mention the Federal Government, recognizes the Unionist Governor of Virginia as the Governor of Virginia from 1861-1868 and the Senators and Representatives of that Unionist state government as Members of Congress.

Not correct. The Library of Virginia online records note that there were two Virginia Governors at the time.

Papers for the pre-Civil War period include topics related to slavery and John Brown’s raid. From 1776–1861 there is much correspondence from counties now part of West Virginia. The papers for the Civil War years, 1861–1865, are numerous and concern many aspects of Virginia’s participation in that conflict. Researchers should note that there were two Virginia governments during these years, the regular Richmond government and the “restored” or unionist government which sat in Wheeling and Alexandria. There is a set of documents for each.

However, the official state website lists John Letcher as Governor from 1861-1864. Letcher signed the Secession Ordinance. It also notes that Confederate General William Smith served as Governor from 1864-1865 (Smith had previously been Governor from 1846 to 1849). The provisional Governors are listed beginning in 1865.

Letcher and Smith are also listed in the official report of the Secretary of the Commonwealth (the copy I'm holding in my hand is from 1999-2000, page 712). The "unionist" Government is not noted in this report.

Federal records would logically note otherwise. However, the Commonwealth recognizes the Confederate Government.

oops.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Thanks for the research, but regardless of whether the Virginia state website says there was also a rebel governor during the administration of Francis Pierpont (1861-1868), the actions of the Pierpont administration were the ones with force of law. For example, the U.S. Senators named by the Pierpont administration are recognized by the Commonwealth as U.S. Senators, such as Senator John Carlisle:

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000150

The very fact that the Commonwealth acquiesces in the creation of West Virginia is a recognition of the legitimacy of the Pierpont administration.

[Corin Stormhands]

You miss my point. I acknowledged that the Federal records would show otherwise.

But the official records of the Commonwealth do not list Pierpoint as Governor until 1865.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Yes, but for example the Senators named by Pierpont administration are recognized as Senators, thereby acknowledging the legitimacy of his administration.

[Corin Stormhands]

Yes, but for example the Senators named by Pierpont administration are recognized as Senators, thereby acknowledging the legitimacy of his administration.

But you still miss the point that you are incorrect to say the Commonwealth recognizes the unionist Government. Of course Confederate Virginia didn't have an representatives serving in the Union Congress....like, DUH!

I'm not even arguing with you about what government was legitimate or not (that's a whole 'nother thread). I'm just telling you that Virginia official recognizes the Confederate Governors as the Governors of Virginia from 1861-1865.

[nolu chan]

Disunion by armed force is treason, and treason must and will be put down at all hazards. The Union is not, and cannot be dissolved until this government is overthrown by the traitors who have raised the disunion flag. Can they overthrow it? We think not."

Illinois State Journal, November 14, 1860

Walt

Lincoln's hometown newspaper would always be a good, reliable source of moderate, unbiased authoritative reporting. Let's see what else they had to say on the issues:

We believe that ABRAHAM LINCOLN, whatever may be the troubles that beset his pathway now, will perform his whole duty to his country and the cause of which he is the representative, and, in 1864, deliver up to his successor the reins of Government over a people reunited, prosperous and happy.

[nc] Oh, yeah.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~rtownsen/Hist615_Maps/Final/Editorials/SpfldDIllStateJnl_3_6_61.htm

Lincoln’s Inaugural Address
Springfield Daily Illinois State Journal
March 6, 1861

The Inaugural Address of our noble Chief Magistrate has electrified the whole country. It has satisfied people of all parties who love the Union and desire its preservation.

[nc] Chief Justice Roger B. Taney dissenting.

* * *

Our telegraphic dispatches inform us that the address is generally well received in the North, but that it does not give entire satisfaction to the South.

[nc] Almost, but not quite, entire satisfaction.

* * *

The Jews once rolled a stone against the Sepulchre to prevent the rising of the Son of God, but as well might they have rolled a stone against the Eastern horizon to prevent the rising of the orb of day, as thus to stifle the fulfilment of prophecy.

[nc] Those jews thought they would get away with it just because they were disguised as Romans.

[nc] Kinda reminds me of Animal House:
Bluto: What? Over? Did you say "over?" Nothing is over until we decide it it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.

* * *

http://mason.gmu.edu/~rtownsen/Hist615_Maps/Final/Editorials/SpfldDIllStateJnl_4_9_61.htm

The Power of the President to Act Independent of Congress
Springfield Daily Illinois State Journal
April 9, 1861

It is a very common opinion that he simply swears to execute the laws, and from this assumption are deduced some of the most dangerous and fatal conclusions. On the contrary, his obligation is of a still higher nature. HE SWEARS TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. In the discharge of this high responsibility, he may, if necessary, discard and reject the law.

* * *

As before remarked, it would be wise to secure the co-operation of Congress, but suppose that Congress is blinded by prejudice or infected with treason, shall the Executive admit that he is the servile tool of Congress or dependent upon it for the exercise of his authority, when he has the army and navy at his command?

* * *

[nc] Yep. When you have an army and a navy at your command, screw Congress. Any of 'em act up, have the army arrest 'em and put 'em in jail or deport 'em.

* * *

... the Executive has the power to collect those revenues.

[nc] Show me the money!

... he has the Constitutional power to collect the revenue in any way that may be deemed expedient for the purpose of suppression treason and maintaining the Constitution.

[nc] Can't be letting all that revenue secede.

[Aurelius]

Keep blowing it out. I am saving your posts, along with those of a few others, for a thread which I shall title: 100 most inane posts at FR. I will include your stupid argument that the only possible meaning of "perpetual", is one which appears as a secondary or tertiary definition in standard dictionaries. I got a lot of laughs out of that one.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am honored by the inclusion in your list since all thinking people will see it as a mark of pride. As for perpetual it means 1 "lasting for an eternity" 2 "lasting for an indefinitely long duration" 3 "instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration" 4 "ceasely repeated or continuing without interruption." In other words precisely what I have said and in direct contradiction to your nonsense.

But please demonstrate your ignorance in case any here have not seen it clearly.

[Aurelius]

"I am honored by the inclusion in your list since all thinking people will see it as a mark of pride. "

Thinking people already see you as a fool.

Seriously, you waste your blather on me.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The only thinking people you know are those ridiculing the puerile crap you post. There are legions of those.

[Aurelius]

You can repeat it and repeat it and repeat it, with endless minor unimaginative variations. You are wasting your time. Nothing that you can do is going to make me take a single thing that you post seriously, or see you as anything but a big fat joke.

[Capriole]

Fine. Have it your way. I have no vested interest in persuading you of the veracity of my ancestors. I would merely point out that in the nineteenth century getting raped was not something to be bruited about. Women did not tend to make up such things since the suggestion that a rape had taken place invited eternal gossip, questions about the paternity of their children, questions about their health, and other social consequences.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I am not sure what the point of all this is.

Disunion by armed force -is- treason.

Walt