The first state to present Articles of Secesson to Congress was not a Southern state.
But wasn’t firing on Ft Sumter kind of a bad thing (requiring a response?)
The position State agents to enforce the State CODE CHANGES...
Also the State can and should attach all federal lands to State lands.. and limit any taxes going to the federal government to support state project to take their place..
It should be legal and would be legal to DEPORT any federal employees or assigns that did not sign a non compete agreement..
You listening TEXAS?.... Don't succeed just TAKE OVER and BE a State.. Taxes left over after running the State can go the Feds, if any.. If they don't like it.. Print your OWN MONEY.. Let the federal reserve talk to your HAND..
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
LOL
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." (1848)
Then he did the old political Flip-Flop and decided that he wasn't going to preside over the break up of the Union even if his actions violated that "most sacred right".
Thanks for the post!
“Guess What Folks—Secesson Wasn’t Treason”
And it wont be the next time either.
Personally, I’m not interested in fighting the last civil war.
Too busy fighting the current one...
Well, I will agree that Jefferson was indeed a traitor, along with Franklin, Washington, and the whole crew of the good ship United States. The colonies were indeed in Rebellion against their lawful sovereign, and Jefferson justified that rebellion by appealing to “world opinion” that George III had acted tyranically by, among other things, attempting to supress that rebellion militarily. That rebellion was legitimized by the recognition of the United States by sveral foreogn powers who then went to war with Great Britain to help secure our independence from the English king. Finally, aftre many years, the king conceded our independence, although neither he nor his successors did not give up hope of recovery until the Union won the “War of Southern Secession.”
Jefferson Davis had a much stronger case. The exact nature of the Union was redefined after the War by the addition of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Lincoln was more or less the American Bismarck. Just as the Prussians had established their Empire in 1871 after a series of wars, by excluding Austria from any role in Germany and by reclaiming German lands lonmg held by France and then creating a new Constitution that gave Prussia ascendency in the new Germany empire, Lincoln forcibly required the Southern States to surrender its sovereignty and the a great proportion of their wealth. In 1870, the State of New York alone possesed as much wealth as the entire South. Not for another hundred years did the South finally recover its economic position in the Nation. To be sure, Lincoln, had he lived, would notg have committed the political blunders associated with the “Jacobins” in their deteremination to take down Johnson and to punish the South. Instead he would have established “Tory” Governments in each of the Confederate States that would have been loyal to Lincol and his branch of the Republican party. These would have been, like the Republican government actually established, dominates by Carpetbaggers and Scalawags, but black participation in government would have been much more limited. Lincoln’s aim was to make the Republican Party, a minority in the country, the dominant force in the country. It is impossible to foresee how Lincoln would have reacted to events. Certainly he would not have reacted as Johnson, a Jacksonian Democrats, and stra\ong state-rights advocate did.
The Civil War ended 142 years ago and the South lost. Get over it.
Bump for later read. This Yankee with strong Southern family roots (NC, SC, TN, TX, AK) has got to jump in here.
ping
No, not treason. The South did not try to take over the federal government, they tried to separate from it.
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT, MORE AMERICANS TO GET KILLED OVER THIS ISSUE ? STFU !!!
BTTT for Dixie!
The constitution is a contract. The penalties for breaking that contract are severe. The only way states could legally leave the union is if another constitutional convention was called and some states chose not to attend.
It seems to me that most attacks on confederate symbols by african american groups really have nothing to do with the legality or illegality of secession.
Not so. The Declaration of Independence was a revolutionary document, not a secessionist one. There is a vast difference between revolution and secession: one is an act of the people, the other of the government. By revolution the people dissolve the government and replace it with one that they judge to be better. By secession the government of a state, far from being dissolved, usurps the authority of the central government. Jefferson and his colleagues knew this; they did not doubt that what they were doing was indeed treason according to the legal order they wanted to overthrow.
I don't see that the reference to the Hartford Convention advances the case. If the New England states had seceded (which of course they did not) can we doubt that this would have been denounced as treason by those opposed to it, including the leaders of the Southern states?
The claim that the Southern states were "paying 83% of all the expenses" of the Union is fantastic, and I find nothing in the Historical Statistics to support it.
Most of us detest big government or collectivism. Yet, since the advent of the Lincoln administration we have been getting ever increasing doses of it. Lincoln was, in one sense, the "great emancipator" in that he freed the federal government from any chains the constitution had previously bound it with, so it could now roam about unfettered "seeking to devous[devour?] whoseover[whosoever?] it could." And where the Founders sought to give us "free and independent states" is anyone naive enough anymore as to think the states are still free and independent?
If by "us" the author means the American people, then the first sentence can't be true; otherwise we wouldn't have big government or collectivism. But the real point is that it's unfair to blame Lincoln for all of this. Although some unfortunate precedents were set in Lincoln's administration, the process by which federal power was extended without limits really began in the late 1880s and the 1890s. Important steps were the Interstate Commerce Act (1887), the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890), the (abortive) revival of the income tax (1894), and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Northern Securities Company v. United States (1904). By what I believe is no coincidence, it was also in this period that "Jim Crow" laws were revived and stiffened and southern African-Americans disenfranchised.
Thanks ping