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 ...
Well that's certainly one way. But if the claim is that states can walk out at will because it is not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution then why can't they just proclaim themselves states since that's not explicitly prohibited either? Why can't states expel another state from the Union against its will? If everything is explicit and nothing is implied then both my scenarios should be true. Right?
“But if the claim is that states can walk out at will because it is not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution then why can’t they just proclaim themselves states since that’s not explicitly prohibited either?”
The way states are added is spelled out in Article IV. For some reason the founders did adopt the way you prefer.
For the record, Lincoln did add West Virginia on a whim in violation of the United States Constitution. So there is that.
“For some reason the founders did adopt the way you prefer.”
I wrote that wrong. It should read: “For some reason the founders did NOT adopt the way you prefer,”
you’re missing the points. I said nothing about armed and you turned it into a rebellion. The military option was exercised by the feds to keep the southern states in the union.
Secondly you can’t establish a law that prevents their succession yet you refer to it as illegal. Since there is no power given to the feds, the tenth amendment would allow the states to make the decision to leave or not.
Post-war, SCOTUS, in the Texas v. White case, ruled unilateral secession - as practiced by Texas and the other southern states expressly unconstitutional. So now (absent a legal challenge) it is a moot point.
so there was no legally defined process and if the north called succession “insurrection” that justified the civil war. Noice spin on word usage by the union.
Might and Right are not the same things.
When you stop posting your BS I can stop responding to it.
I don't think it would have lasted nearly that long. By 1882 or so the last slaveholding countries in the western world, Brazil and Cuba, had emancipated all of their slaves. It was dying everywhere. A bloodbath was not a good way to get rid of it. Everybody else in the 19th century managed to get rid of it peacefully.
Yes and I've posted them many times
“If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condem the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion. His (Jefferson Davis’), capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled.” Chief Justice Salmon. P. Chase to Stanton
Google it for yourself. The quote has been widely cited.
Because the other states that are in would have to agree to admit the state filing to be admitted.
You keep getting tripped up by this word "Rebellion" which assumes the conclusion. It was not rebellion. States are sovereign and have the right to unilateral secession.
The south screwed up and failed to enjoy either one. Wanna try again?
I didn’t use the word I responded to the guy who called succession insurrection
The Southern states exercised their rights as sovereign states.
Being right and loosing a war not the same thing either.
What FLT-bird won’t post by Chief Justice Chase is his statement “that secession was null, void and unconstitutional” in the White v. Texas decision.
Breezed right by that whole Fort Sumter thing, didn't you?
Secondly you can’t establish a law that prevents their succession yet you refer to it as illegal.
No, I said secession as practiced by the Southern states was illegal. Secession itself is not forbidden by the Constitution, seceding unilaterally is. Secession needs to be done after negotiation and with the consent of the other states. Chase thought so. Madison thought so. Jefferson thought so. Who am I to disagree with them?
Since there is no power given to the feds, the tenth amendment would allow the states to make the decision to leave or not.
If no such power existed then I'd agree with you.
See my reply 177 and 204.
Google it for yourself. The quote has been widely cited.
Cited but not sourced.
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.