Posted on 03/31/2014 10:24:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
INTRODUCTION
On May 27, 1861, the army of the United States of America (the "Union")--a nation formed by consecutive secessions, first from Great Britain in 1776, and then from itself in 17881--invaded the State of Virginia,2 which had recently seceded from the Union, in an effort to negate that secession by violent force.
The historical result of the effort begun that day is well known and indisputable: after four years of brutal warfare, which killed 620,000 Americans, the United States negated the secession of the Confederate States of America, and forcibly re-enrolled them into the Union. The Civil War ended slavery, left the South in economic ruins, and set the stage for twelve years of military rule there.
Beyond its immediate effects, the Civil War made drastic changes in politics and law that continue to shape our world 130 years later. Arthur Ekirch writes: "Along with the terrible destruction of life and property suffered in four long years of fighting went tremendous changes in American life and thought, especially a decline in [classical] liberalism on all questions save that of slavery. * * * Through a policy of arbitrary arrests made possible by Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, persons were seized and confined on the suspicion of disloyalty or of sympathy with the southern cause. Thus, in the course of the Civil War, a total of thirteen thousand civilians was estimated to have been held as political prisoners, often without any sort of trial or after only cursory hearings before a military tribunal."3The Civil War caused and allowed a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the federal government. It gave us our first federal conscription law...
(Excerpt) Read more at apollo3.com ...
If it's in response to a failure to abide by the supreme law of the land, then there is nothing of any consequence left to reject.
I don’t think the other 49 states would let Missouri, Alaska, or Texas secede.
Ak has too much oil that would throw the rest into chaos if it were lost, ditto for Texas and if Missouri fell into foreign hands, it could shut off all river traffic from the Mississipi, Ohio and Missouri rivers.
You appear to not know that during at least 2 winters Sarah Kast McGinnis came back down to the Albany, New York area to the Indian castles to urge them in their own languages to go north to Canada as the war would end and the white man would cease to be friendly and would go back to wanting the Indian lands...yes even the Mohawk..
I don’t think what other states allow matters.
You don't state specifically, but I'm beginning to suspect that you don't grasp the historical fact that the Deep South Slave-Power first declared their secession, in Madison's words, "at pleasure", meaning without any constitutionally valid reasons for doing so.
Indeed, they did not believe that any such reason was really necessary, and clearly expressed their views that the constitutional election of "Black Republican" Lincoln represented a threat to their "peculiar institution".
And that was it -- not some past Federal power usurpation, but rather a perceived possible future threat to slavery.
Bottom line: the secessionists initiated everything, including the war itself without serious constitutional, legal or even ethical justifications.
First, I’d ask what supreme law of the land had actually been violated and what steps the aggrieved parties had attempted to correct this.
Second, If you want to call it a revolution, be my guest. But the usual Lost Cause position is that it was not. Because if you call it a revolution, you can’t complain about the laws you’ve rejected not protecting you anymore. And complaining about how unfair it all was is what you guys do.
If it can be qualified, that means the Civil War did not definitively answer the question of secession, only that particular instance of it.
Common sense is against the idea that the founders would form a government from which one could leave anytime one became dissatisfied. Secondly, your position assumes the states were the source of the Constitution. That is not true.
Our national government is NOT a compact, a treaty between sovereign states, a contract or any civil agreement. The Founders started a government not a league./p>
Do you require a comprehensive list of ways the current federal government is out of compliance with the original intent of the Constitution?
"We, the People of the United States, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Our Constitution is a compact between the people of the United States. No state or local government, not even a school board, can sever those bonds between the people except by Constitutional amendment per the terms of Article V of the Constitution. The attempt of a state to "secede" necessarily includes an attempt to deprive each and every U.S. citizen living within that state's borders of every one of his or her Constitutional rights under the U.S. Constitution and an attempt to deprive each such person of his or her U.S. citizenship. It's an abominable notion.
You sound to me like a very confused, woefully misinformed, puppy.
Who in the wide world told you such blithering nonsense?!
Where did you receive your education?
Are you the product of failed US schools, or some post-Soviet propaganda machine (but I repeat myself)?
Just so we're clear:
History shows us that appeasement doesn't work for long.
Peace through strength does, but our leaders seem to have forgotten all that...
Of course.
If you've followed these threads in the past, then you know that all of who defend Lincoln & Union do so from the perspective that our Founders Original Intent did allow for "dis-union", but not "at pleasure", only for strong & valid reasons, such as "usurpation" and "oppression", or with mutual consent of Congress.
Indeed, that is also what Lincoln believed.
The historical fact is that no such condition existed in November 1860, when Slave-Power secessionists began organizing to declare their independence and a new Confederacy.
I’m aware of that and a lot more from my research in the British and Canadian archives. The Johnsons, Simon Girty, and others have a cruel and bloody legacy that that waas responsible for much the carnage visited upon the people of all sides in the war.
she no longer had her trading post,
__________________________________________
BTW when the rebels burnt down the trading post they did not allow anyone to save William, the invalid son of Sarah Kast McGinnis..
He perished in the flames...
Plus there was teenager Margaret Thompson, the daughter of John Thompson and Dorothy McGinnis and granddaughter of Sarah, who was raped and died in prison..
so much for freedom from tyranny..
I have followed them enough to have seen too many instances of claims that the CW answered the question of secession, once and for all, and those claims coming back again and again after having been soundly thrashed.
I thought we were talking about 1860, when someone actually attempted secession. But the basic idea remains the same--either work within the system established through legislation, the courts, or the amendment process--or declare a revolution, sweep away all laws and start over again.
the carnage visited upon the people of all sides in the war.
___________________________________________
That I will agree on...
Both sides were guilty of cruelty..
just don’t make a villain of Sarah Kast McGinnis and as for Timothy McGinnis..
Timothy died fighting the Indians...
to save the undeserving butts of those same neighbors who imprisoned his widow and the family 20 years later..
Yet another Lost Causer unilateral declaration.
Does that mean I'm not one of the cool kids?
Certainly that's true, regarding unilateral secession "at pleasure".
Constitutionally legitimate paths to secession would include:
Of course, as is frequently pointed out: any group of states which had the political wherewithal to get Congressional approval for their secession, would also have the power to correct whatever conditions were motivating them in the first place.
So the whole conversation remains completely theoretical & hypothetical.
But historically speaking, what the Confederates did cannot, will not ever, be done again.
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.