Posted on 09/09/2019 9:42:11 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Nearly all modern historians agree with Professor James McPherson’s conclusion that the Civil War was caused by Southern objections to the 1860 Republican Party’s resolve to prohibit slavery’s extension into any of the federal territories that had not yet been organized as states. The resolution originated with the Wilmot Proviso fourteen years earlier before the infant GOP had even been formed. In 1846 Pennsylvania Congressman David Wilmot introduced a rider to a $2 million appropriation intended for use in a negotiated settlement to end the Mexican War. The rider stipulated that the money could not be used to purchase land that might be acquired in the treaty if slavery was allowed in such territories. After considerable wrangling, the bill passed without the rider.
Contrary to first impressions, the Proviso had little to do with sympathy for black slaves. Its purpose was to keep blacks out of the new territories so that the lands might be reserved for free whites. As Wilmot put it, “The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent . . . I would preserve for free white labor a fair country . . . where the sons of toil, of my own race and color, can live without the disgrace which association with negro slavery brings upon free labor.”
The same attitude prevailed during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln readily admitted that his September 1862 Emancipation Proclamation was a necessity of war. Major General George McClellan, who then commanded the North’s biggest army and would become Lincoln’s opponent in the 1864 presidential elections, believed it was a deliberate attempt to incite Southern slave rebellions. Lincoln was himself aware that such uprisings might result.
(Excerpt) Read more at civilwarchat.wordpress.com ...
Do you have sources for any of those claims?
As far as I am aware the only Supreme Court case dealing with secession is Texas vs White (1869) and it was determined that secession was unconstitutional. That is a fact and settled law.
Yes it does. Dred Scott was never challenged in Court. That decision by the Court was rendered moot because of the XIII and XIV Amendments to the Constitution. The Plessy v. Ferguson decision was reversed in the Brown V. the Board of Education case. Roe v. Wade is still in force. While these decisions did not please a lot of folks, they were or are the law. Just as White v. Texas is the law of the land. Texas secession from the Union was null, void, and unconstitutional.
Good. It sounds like you've finally finished spewing your drivel and BS. That will indeed save time.
No it wasn't. South Carolina as the sovereign authority in the state had laid claim to it. It was no longer federal property and there certainly wasn't any federal jurisdiction in a state which had seceded. Coastal waterways? Those were South Carolina's territorial waters and since they had seceded, they certainly weren't under the jurisdiction of the US.
Which claims?
Like Dred Scott or Plessy vs Ferguson are settled law? Also, you seem to suffer from the delusion that a branch of the federal government has the ultimate say as to the limits of....the federal government. Ummmm no. The states certainly never agreed to that for obvious reasons.
Ah but they were "settled law" when decided....right? Everybody just accepted Roe V Wade right? Nowhere is it written that everybody must agree with every SCOTUS decision. In the case of a state's right to unilateral secession, the state's never agreed to allow a branch of the federal government the sole power to decide when/if and under what circumstances they could leave. That would have been like allowing the fox to guard the henhouse. The Chase court can say whatever it wants. That does not mean the rest of us must consider it legitimate.
I don’t recall succession being addressed in the constitution, so i conclude since the power to retain states is not granted to the federal government, it doesn’t exist.
The declaration of independence, however. does state the right to leave a government.
Lincoln however taught us you can do whatever you can back up militarily .
try seceding and see what happens.
Ah if only you would do the same.
Your absolutely right about that, we don’t have to consider it legitimate, but those decisions are the law of the land until an amendment is passed or the court hears a new case and reverses their previous decisions. That is how our constitution works.
I do want to say this. I am glad that the southern fire-eaters rebelled. I believe if they had not rebelled we most likely would have had slavery in this country until the early to mid 20th century. Even as terrible as the civil war was I think it was worth it to get rid of slavery.
I am proud of the fact that the US did finally do the right thing and ended slavery in this country. During the course of the war the US Army became an army of liberation for the slaves. It continues this tradition to today.
Thanks for the explanation. We’ll never agree on this issue, so will not comment further about it. I will continue to read your comments as they are interesting and thought provoking.
Does he ever?
If a state can leave the union merely by holding a convention or a referendum and the saying, "I'm not a state anymore" then why can't states join the Union by holding a referendum or a convention, sending representatives to Washington, and saying "I'm a state now?"
you got me. I don’t see it in the constitution but the congress has used a process before for admitting states and I would argue they would use the same one. I am not a scholar of this issue, just saying I don’t know how the feds can force a state to stay except by military force.
If Congress used a process for admitting states then why would they not use a process for letting states leave? Ideally the same one?
I am not a scholar of this issue, just saying I don’t know how the feds can force a state to stay except by military force.
If a state resorts to rebellion then isn't force by the federal government justified?
were are you getting the word rebellion. You haven’t established the feds right to force a state to stay in Whereas Jefferson laid the ground work to leave
For the same reason a 29-year old can not be a United States Senator, but a 30-year old can - that is the way the Constitution is written. See Article I.
To see how new states are legally admitted to the Union, see Article IV.
Where? The definition. Rebellion is defined as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or opposition to an established government.
You haven’t established the feds right to force a state to stay in
If their act of secession is done illegally then it's rebellion, nothing more and nothing less.
Whereas Jefferson laid the ground work to leave
If your talking about the Declaration of Independence that, too, was done via rebellion. The difference being that the Founding Fathers won their rebellion and the southern states did not.
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.