If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

The Patriotist ^ | 2003 | Al Benson, Jr.

[Corin Stormhands]

Well said.

[jlogajan]

"Are we fighting the Civil War again?"

One can always hope.

Nah, you'll never get slavery back, as much as you thirst for it.

[jlogajan]

A better analogy in this particular case would be that the husband's primary motive in forcing his wife back was to retain control over her paycheck.

Except in this case all the seceeding states complained first and foremost about the loss of their beloved institution of slavery.

It's funny how you neo-confederates always try to reinvent history to forget the south's main war cry was the protection of slavery.

[Tauzero]

" Nah, you'll never get slavery back, as much as you thirst for it."

Rather, it'd be a chance to end slavery.

But hey, I understand many people, like you, don't find the manacles chafing.

[honeygrl]

cooool graphic!

[bk1000]

'Many Northerners would add the caveat that the husband forces the wife to stay in the house so he can keep her from abusing the kids, which she had been doing contunuously. Buying and selling them, even... ;) '


Don't even start. The North was just as guilty in that regard.
Using your analogy, the 'husband', if abusive, is more likely to abuse the kids than the abused 'wife'. The North would have lost greatly in tarifs and agriculture were the South to secceed. The Damn Yankees weren't as noble as you might think, nor the South as evil.

[bk1000]

'Then they get their butts whipped, the immoral institution of slavery is immediately overthrown -- and they have been calling the "whaaaambulance" ever since'



Obviously a flaming revisionist liberal expounding on what he has been told instead of researching the facts.

[D1X1E]

Thank you for your feedback King.
Certainly the abuse of the "children" ie: the buying and selling. SHOULD have been a motivating factor in the husband's decision to punish the wife. However, the fact that the husband's family also practiced and condoned this abuse at varying times, tends to make one question the husband's true motives.

[Poohbah]

In my garage I have two bricks that are all that's left of a fine family home in the Shenandoah. That house belonged to my people until Sheridan's men burned it. They also dragged a kinswoman of mine from her childbed and gang-raped her when she had recently given birth. Her injuries were severe. These events had implications for my family that have lasted to the present day. Under these circumstances it's sort of hard to simply forget the War.

I take it, then, that you support slavery reparations to African-Americans.

[honeygrl]

"Grand Old Partisan! Walt! You're on, boys--post something bitter, irrational, and hate-filled to contribute to the conversation. "

I thought Walt was still in Time-Out.

[sheltonmac]

Thanks for posting that excellent article. The anti-secession crowd have yet to provide an adequate answer to the question posed. If secession was illegal and unconstitutional, then the case against Davis--not to mention the entire Confederate leadership--would have been a slam-dunk.

[stainlessbanner]

I thought Walt was still in Time-Out.

He's baaaack! Looky here

[bert]

We hear a lot about secession, but what about the opposite.

Can a state be purged? What mechanism exists to eliminate a state from the union? Are we stuck with the NE states for ever?

[azhenfud]

"But the Supreme Court did declare secession as practiced by the southern states unconstitutional in 1869?"

The self-righteous Supreme Court also ruled women have a right to "terminate unwanted fetuses", meaning nothing less than murder of the unborn. There ARE wrong rulings handed down from the SC and like they say, "possession is 90 percent ownership", so it is in determining the legality of a particular action where no precedence has been set. All rulings by our courts, absent of precedence, are indicative of the justices' attitudes (ie. their personal beliefs) on an issue and help determine and shape how they interpret the WRITTEN LAW. Do you believe they (the SC injustices) would have ruled the same had the outcome of the WoNA been a little different and the North were defeated?

I believe not....

[honeygrl]

"He's baaaack! Looky here "

oh well.. it was nice while it lasted.

[azhenfud]

"Can a state be purged?"

Can Califoreignia?

[Tribune7]

It probably wasn't illegal. But the South did fire on Fort Sumter, and in their infinite wisdom, manage to start a war.

[Corin Stormhands]

I take it, then, that you support slavery reparations to African-Americans.

How the heck did you get there? Did you go to yankee skools?

Capriole was giving a list of reasons to remember family history and heritage. I saw no call or claim for restitution.

[azhenfud]

"But the South did fire on Fort Sumter..."

They did - after strictly warning Lincoln not to resupply the fort, that an attempt do do so would be considered an act of NORTHERN AGGRESSION leading to war. He tried it anyway.

[Poohbah]

How the heck did you get there? Did you go to yankee skools?

The call for reparations is frequently (and, IMNHO, rightly) met on Free Republic with a response of "it took place almost 150 years ago, get over it."

Capriole is saying that "get over it" isn't a proper response.

What's his response to the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons blaming slavery for (fill in the blank)?