Lies My Teacher Told Me: The True History of the War for Southern Independence

Shotwell Publishing ^ | Clyde N. Wilson

[soakncider]

TRUE HISTORY OF THE WAR FOR SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE IN THIS AGE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS there has never been a greater need and greater opportunity to refresh our understanding of what happened in America in the years 1861-1865 and start defending our Southern forebears as strongly as they ought to be defended. There is plenty of true history available to us. It is our job to make it known. All the institutions of American society, including nearly all Southern institutions and leaders, are now doing their best to separate the Confederacy off from the rest of American history and push it into one dark little corner labelled "Slavery and Treason". Being taught at every level of the educational system is the official party line that everything good that we or anyone believe about our Confederate ancestors is a myth, and by myth they mean a pack of lies that Southerners thought up to excuse their evil deeds and defeat....

[ifinnegan]

“From my own experience, Southern Americans, by and large, were and are humble, respectful, Godly, and industrious....NOT the villainous protagonists of popular American history”

Well stated. I fully agree.

[ifinnegan]

“The Democrat Party has just decimated the black race &
turned them into much less than was their potential to be.”

Yes. Very much so.

The Democrats and their Jim Crow and big government really messed things up. Without Jim Crow we’d have no Obama and be a lot less leftist in this country.

[ifinnegan]

“I have been a southerner for quite a while now, but i have never heard the Confederacy compared to marxism.”

No. I said that the post-War revisionism was very Marixst in its outlook.

But, Jim Crow with its government enforced social engineering was quite leftist-like.

[soakncider]

yes it is rather grim when you stop to think about it.

[Hoodat]

I prefer

The War of Secession

[Moonman62]

Fort Sumter wasn’t federal property after SC took it back.

...

And that was an act of war. Thanks for making my point.

[soakncider]

the right of secession was retained by every signatory to the Constitution.

[rockrr]

Untrue, but especially untrue with regards to unilateral secession. Men have a god-given right to rebel but you better have a just cause because men also have a God-given right to suppress insurrections as well.

[soakncider]

what was unilateral about it?

[rockrr]

It was attempted without the consent of the other states.

[Moonman62]

Not without consent.

And I’m not going to let you forget your Fort Sumter admission.

[soakncider]

so all states have to be in agreement before any other state can secede?

[RinaseaofDs]

What a quote. Had to bookmark it.

[tinyowl]

Totally agreed. And ... the founders did a really really good job, best in history, better than even they thought, of forestalling the inevitable with enumerated powers and the rest.

I forget who it is (and how they actually wrote it) who recently wrote something like 'the problem today isn't that there is a big fight over the meaning of the Constitution, it's that the Constitution is just ignored'

Trump may buy us a little more forestalling, and certainly the behavior of Muslim so called 'refugees' (esp in Germany right now) is giving him a lot of free advertising and evidence. Drudge says 20% of Dems are ready to defect to Trump. Dems wisen up when it's there safety and money at stake, and they actually can be made to see that. It's (not really) fun to watch as their favorite protected race, the bambi refugee arab spring dreamers, are leading the war against their favorite protected gender. Bill Clinton would have made a great Syrian Refugee in Cologne. Maybe Merkel should hire Hillary to go over and threaten and silence those trailer trash German assault victims.

It would all be funny if it didn't cause so much suffering.

[soakncider]

Here it is again for those that missed it: “The great classical scholar and
Confederate Soldier Basil Gildersleeve remarked that the War was a
conflict over grammar”whether the proper grammar was ‘the United
States are’ or ‘the United States is.’ We have been using the wrong
grammar.” -Clyde N. Wilson

[central_va]

I am with the South in life or death, in victory or defeat. I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. They are about to invade our peaceful homes, destroy our property, and murder our men and dishonor our women. We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be left alone.

Maj Gen. Patrick Cleburne

[RinaseaofDs]

I’ve been following the rest of the thread too. It’s as cogent an analysis on the Civil War as I’ve seen anywhere.

We are very much still settling that conflict. I suspect, in 300 years or so, they’ll say something like:

“The North won, temporarily, in 1865. However, by gutting the 9th and 10th amendments, and then passing the 14th, which was subsequently stretched out beyond all recognition by one incompetent and overreaching Supreme Court after another, Texas, and most of the South ended up seceding just prior to the great currency collapse of late 2016. Since the northern and western states had decided to farm out military bases and posts to the South, there wasn’t much the rest of the country could do about it once it happened.

Historians wonder if the South could have wound down slavery themselves had they prevailed in the 1860’s. If so, there is no telling how powerful the US could have been by cleaving more closely to the original founders intent.”

[rockrr]

I didn't say that. As you are likely aware, the US Constitution is silent on the subject of secession (and why not? Why would anyone building something include instructions for destroying it?!). It's more like the states (collective) telling errant states what they can and can't do. That's the way the country was wired, first in 1777 with the Articles of Confederation, and again in 1788 with the ratification of the United States Constitution.

Article I (Article 1 - Legislative) of the Constitution spells out duties and responsibilities of Congress.

Section 10

1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Thus no states may enter into independent confederacies - only Congress possesses that authority.

Article II (Article 2 - Executive) establishes the role of the executive (president).

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial) defines the duties and responsibilities of the judicial branch - essentially the Supreme Court.

Section 2

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Thus the Constitution grants the Supreme Court (the collective states) authority and jurisdiction over disputes between states.

Article IV (Article 4 - States' Relations) defines the relationship of the states to the whole.

Section 3

1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Thus it is up to Congress to admit or expel states. In the event of a circumstance such as happened with West Virginia, it is up to Congress plus the affected states to make such a division. Individual states do not possess the authority to do so - not legally at any rate.

To recap: yes it is a case of the federal government telling the states what they can and cannot do - that is the way the law was designed. No, it doesn't go against the 10th amendment because the Constitution granted the appropriate powers to both the Congress to define and organize the states and to the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between the states.

[soakncider]

the federal government is a creature of the states not vice versa. there were a few northeastern states that threatened to secede shortly after ratification. I can’t look up citations right now since I’m working from my phone, but I have read them. we can never contain the federal government if we grant it so much supremacy that it can hold us hostage no matter what it does.

[soakncider]

And Im not going to let you forget your Fort Sumter admission.

SC had every right to take it back, and still has that right to this day, excepting willful surrender or unlawful forcible seizure. Oregon and Nevada have supreme rights to land within their borders as well.