Replies

It was far more legal for the Confederate states to leave the union than it was for the colonies to fight the war for Independence. No treason was committed since bills of seccession were passed in the state legislatures of the several states of the Confederacy.

There was no clause in the founding documents that forbade secession, and that omission was intentional by the founding fathers in light of the tyranny of the British government should be revisited upon the states. Furthermore the institution of slavery was written into the very Constitution you are holding up as a cause for the conduct of the northern invasion. Now the federal govt taxes all of our labour for 4 months out of the year, THAT is slavery and nobody bats an eye over it. Your rejection of these principles is on purely emotional grounds and is as worthless as an argument of the legalities intrinsic to the issue.

"It was far more legal for the Confederate states to leave the union than it was for the colonies to fight the war for Independence"

Our revolt against Britain was treasonous of course. There is a very famous axiom to the effect that the one justification for treason, is successful treason. I don't think I agree with that morally, but it does have a certain historical truth to it.

"No treason was committed since bills of secession were passed in the state legislatures of the several states of the Confederacy."

If California passed a bill announcing it was withdrawing from the Union over our war in Iraq and ordered the US to vacate its military bases on the west coast the cry of treason from the deep south would be heard in China.

"There was no clause in the founding documents that forbade secession, and that omission was intentional by the founding fathers in light of the tyranny of the British government should be revisited upon the states."

Art III Sec 3 subsection 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Sounds like that would cover the so called Confederacy. Hostility to slavery is now tyranny? It was to southerners in 1860. I see things haven't changed all that much.

"Furthermore the institution of slavery was written into the very Constitution you are holding up as a cause for the conduct of the northern invasion."

There is an important difference which you are conveniently ignoring. The North had repudiated and abandoned slavery. The south was clinging to it. The election of Lincoln was a dagger plunged into the heart of the system. It meant that slavery would be abolished by constitutional amendment probably within 10-20 years. Thats why the South seceded.

"Now the federal govt taxes all of our labour for 4 months out of the year, THAT is slavery and nobody bats an eye over it."

When was the last time you were sold apart from your family, or your children were sold? When was the last time you were whipped or branded? Your attempts to equate taxation with slavery is assanine. No one likes taxes. But its not slavery. If you don't like it you can move to another country. Slaves don't have that option. Get a grip.

"Your rejection of these principles is on purely emotional grounds and is as worthless as an argument of the legalities intrinsic to the issue."

My visceral hatred of slavery is indeed a deeply emotional matter for me. And the legalities are indeed important. At the end of the war most southerners applied for and received pardons. (Lee applied for one and out of an unfortunate vindictiveness was refused. Jefferson Davis refused to ask for a pardon to his dying day.) It is a well established principal of law that you can not be pardoned for something you did not do. In accepting a pardon you admit the guilt of the crime.

But I will reiterate my statement from my previous post. Even if I were convinced of the legality of secession (which I am not) I would still have called for war on the south. Slavery is in itself a causus belli, at least in North America. If Canada or Mexico attempted to institute slavery tomorrow I would demand they stop under threat of war.