There is a virtual army of South hating freepers that would disagree with that. Legion.
Only the most pin headed amongst us cannot come to grips with this truism.
I remember trying to formulate this question as a child in history class. I was roundly smacked back. The war was good. The war was against slavery. But the book stated that Lincoln only banned slavery in the states that succeeded. How then was this a war against slavery?
I was forced to rationalize it that Fort Sumter had been fired on and that was an act of war. However, from other reading it seemed that the South was angry and the voters wanted a war. The same was true half a century later when World War 1 broke out. It seems impossible now, but the populace broadly supported and wanted to go to war.
Excellent article by Walter W. As they say, the victors write the history.
This article points to why an article V convention is most needed. Obviously the states cannot secede, tried it and it did not work and would not work today either, in an attempt to reign in the fed government. The recently ordered HUD regs about socially engineering suburban neighborhoods points to how far astray this infernal central government has gone.
Blah, blah, blah................DUMMIES!!!!
Yer damn Confederacy DECLARED WAR on the rest of the U,S, of A.
Remember a little place called FORT SUMTER??? A misplaced week-long cannonade??
Huh?
Truer words have never been spoken.
WEW nails it again. I have yet to see him go wobbly.
Think about going back to 1860. Then consider the South leaving without a war. Then, project forward.
Everyone was looking to the future in 1860. What were they seeing?
Welcome, Browncoats....
I think many of us have had further education on states rights and the right to secede from the Union since the beginning of the onslaught against a flag merely representing the history of the South and her ancestors..
Surely if the idea of censorship and banning of a symbol is to gain freedom from supposed anguishing recollections belonging to long dead slave ancestors and passed on in the blood to the current generation, then why was Obama not condemned when he displayed so arrogantly on the peoples house a symbol of horrific and immoral physical assault on the bodies of the children of those now living, and children of other hues also ???
Indeed why does the Isis flag, also represe4nting a slavery of ancient times, not be confiscated at our borders and not permitted to reign over rallies and parades calling for anarchy and terror ???
To the anti-Stars and Bars group does the battle flag of the Confederacy represent hatred and planned tyranny on all peoples of colored skin, or is the fear of it rather in the camp of denying freedom to govern ones one own heart and opinions and live without a Orwellian central control ???
The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."
The Confederate slavemasters were fighting for self-determination? Just the opposite. They were fighting for slavery, not just for blacks, but for poor whites.
The Founding Fathers certainly did not believe in any right of secession from the Union. Even Robert E. Lee, respectful of the Founders, was horrified by secession.
It is correct that some northern Democrats and even some Republicans wanted to let the Confederates go, but they were greatly outnumbered by Unionists. The Federal war effort would not have succeeded otherwise. Likewise, there were many southern Unionists who had no use for slavery. Every southern state except South Carolina had units in the US Army.
My favorite quote
“Patrick Ronayne Cleburne “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late... It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision... It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”
-— Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864, writing on what would happen if the Confederacy were to be defeated.
Walter Williams has nailed it. The Constitution, as written, provides for secession, and New Hampshire and Rhode Island nearly seceded during the War of 1812.
If the Federal Government does not abide by the constitution, why should any of the several states?
If the POTUS does not follow constitutional dictates, follow the legislation of the congress and thumbs his nose at the supreme court, then why should any citizen be restricted by these same “laws”?
Obama’s Dictatorship would fight a secessionist movement today with FOREIGN forces. Bring ISIS and the ChiComs in to beat down any rebels.
Free on your feet, or slave on your knees. The time is fast approaching to choose sides.
> Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
That says it all.
As usual, Prof. Williams makes points that should be made. He has long been a beacon of reason calling us back to a reality that has been under persistent attack for over a century.
Yet another article presenting facts, real or not, to re-fight the War Between the States. Every article on the subject has generated countless posts defending one position or the other, knowing that their post will change minds and hearts. Nobody has.
Rehashing the causes and the stances from our present day point of view is ridiculous at best and dangerous at the worst. It is ridiculous to think that we know what people felt or thought in 1860. It is dangerous in that by so doing we forget the lessons of history.
The War Between the States did NOT start with the firing on Fort Sumter. It had been brewing since at least 1856, with the Dred Scott decision (the worst SC decision ever, up until the Deathcare and same-sex decisions) supporting slavery. Dred Scott was the law of the land!
I would suggest reading the party platforms of the parties in the election: http://www.ushist.com/general-information/1860_national_presidential_election_platforms.shtml
Next, I would ask that you review the political arena of today in contrast to 1860. Is our opposition to the new law of the land different to 1860? Is our opposition to the sitting President different from 1860? Do we have a President bent on expanding the Federal government as in 1860?
We may not be divided by geography, but we are divided along many lines. Will we repeat the same lesson of history? I pray not; but if it come I know where I stand.
As principals, they came together in 1776 as "united States" or "United Colonies" according to the Declaration Of Independence.
As principals, in 1781, they created a general government as their agent through the "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union..." (emphasis added).
As principals, in 1787, they created a federal government as their agent through the Constitution of the United States, in part to form a more perfect Union.
As principals they have the right to fire agents if they so agree, as they did in 1787, but that does not mean they have the right to unilaterally withdraw from the pact they have with each other, unless perhaps it's the right associated with "might".
Note:
From the "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union...":
Article VI, second paragraph:
"No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue." (Emphasis added.)
Article XIII, first and second paragraphs (Emphasis added):
"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual."
From the United States Constitution:
Article VI:
"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." (Emphasis added.)
From Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of 1755:
"Engagement...6. Obligation, motive."
From Webster's Dictionary of 1828:
"Engagement...1. Obligation by agreement or contract. Men are often more ready to make engagements than to fulfil them.
"Perpetual...1. Never ceasing; continuing forever in future time; destined to be eternal; as a perpetual covenant; a perpetual statute."
All Walter Williams is demonstrating, though I doubt he realizes it, was that at first the Southern acts of secession were not opposed by the North. It wasn’t until the South chose to start what he calls the “War of 1861” that any action was taken against them at all. After that, well, the rest is history.
Dr. Williams is a national treasure!