Posted on 04/17/2009 10:17:36 AM PDT by RED SOUTH
Article VII sets out the provision for original ratification, and that Article IV empowers Congress to admit new States, but that no provision of the Constitution authorizes a state to leave the Union or bars it from doing so. The constitution does not say anything about states leaving.
I do not see why it's hard to see the relation between the Revolutionary War Tories and secessionists. Both anxiously hoped for British soldiers to kill their fellow Americans to safeguard their wealth.
Eventually, perhaps, through the replacement of their elected representatives, but directly? Probably not. After all, the people in the colonies, based on historical evidence, seemed to be split pretty evenly on the question of independence, and there were, of course, large portions of southern states that opposed secession.
I suppose the response to the people that opposed Texas secession would be "there's the door."
I'm not sure I agree on this. It's not popular because war, in this day and age, is not popular. There's rally around the flag support, but that tends to disappear pretty quickly.
But, this is likely all speculation, at least for the time being. Even as the most pro-secessionists amongst us would concede, such an option is a long, long way off. It's fairly useless to try and read the political winds of ten or fifteen years down the road.
So what you're saying is that the people of the state have zero say in whether the state stays in the Union or leaves? That the governor and the legislature can take the union out at a whim and the people of the state have no right to say yeah or nay?
You could not be more wrong. First, for initial volunteer service, how long was the committment for the North? How about the South? Which one you pick if you ain’t got a dog in the hunt and you got to pick one? Those decendents of the Overmountain Men didn’t own slaves, was that their beef? They didn’t ship cotton, they didn’t buy furniture from Charlestown. They sure were not benefitting from Northern industry.
And to protecting the wealth. The Republican parties first presidential nominee, the one before Lincoln, was Freemont. He was courtmartialed for trying to make California his own kingdom after making a fortune in Gold. And what was the time period called after the War of Northern Agression and Reconstruction? Seem to remember something about “empire”. Lincoln set the stage, and it was all planned.
The notion that Lincoln represented the rich and the powerful might seem counter intuitive at first, but when I think about the current state of affairs in our “Union” I can grasp the concept. I really can.
The similarities are profound.
The story goes that it was in a hotel in Illinois during a political convention at the state level. Lincoln was intelligent. He had proven his allegiance, at one point actually jumping out of the window of the Illinois legislature to avoid a quorum before a vote removing the railroad subsidies that were bankrupting the state.
And Lincoln was a presence. First, Lincoln, at six foot four, is still our tallest president. But it was his voice that bought him distinction. A high, squeaky—fingernails on chalkboard voice. The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln LOST both the debates AND the election, but no one could stop talking about that ungodly voice and ugliness so profound that you couldn’t stop looking at it. That, compounded with his self depreciation humour endeared him to the population. The population of a small slice of America but one also large enough to carve out enough votes for victory. See, Lincoln wasn’t even on the ballot here in North Carolina. Nope, Lincoln rode the Northern Railroads, and his county fair sideshow act captivated the public. Sound familar? Obama make many trips to Georgia?
And the War itself—well show me the money. At least half a dozen of our current “multi-national conglomerates” got their start with military contracts for tainted food and uniforms that melted in the rain. And Reconstruction, well it was an orchestrated effort to enslave the population. Again, in North Carolina—well farms where destroyed or left abandoned and homes had been torched, property taxes TRIPLED after the Yankees took over. Sound familar?
But anyways, the story goes that in that hotel room some Northern industrialist in allegiance with the European aristocracy cut a deal with the young state representative Lincoln. They give him the presidency he gives them back the “colony” that the European aristocracy had lost some 80 years earlier. Kind of like a young State senator giving a speech at a political convention after cutting his own deal with the European aristocracy and American uberrich.
So the story goes. I suppose it would be too much to ask for some documentation that backs the story up?
Depended on how long the regiment enlisted for. Longest term I was aware of for the volunteers was 3 years. Shortest was 90 days.
How about the South?
Didn't matter. In April 1862 the confederate government extended all enlistments for the duration of the war, regardless of what the original commitment had been for. The individual soldier had no choice but to serve till the end, die, get crippled, or desert.
And what was the time period called after the War of Northern Agression and Reconstruction? Seem to remember something about “empire”.
You are blessed with quite a memory. I don't suppose you can point to a source other than yourself that refers to the time after the end of the War of Southern Rebellion as 'empire' could you?
>>I think if the South would have won, it’s quite possible due to technological and industrial advances that slavery would have been eliminated PRIOR to World War era.<<
I strongly agree. The books I mentioned actually take the same premise.
http://will.illinois.edu/lincoln/historicalnotes/lincoln-in-macon-county/
Lincoln’s loss to Douglas only temporarily slowed his rise. In fact his success in going head to head with Douglas gained him national recognition and made him a dark horse candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1860. Lincoln and his lieutenants continued to plot their strategy. On February 8, 1860 the Republican State Central Committee met in Springfield and picked the time for the state convention and the place – Decatur. The objections to the booming city’s lack of capacity to handle the crowds that would be drawn by the Convention, were overcome by the central nature of the site and easy rail access. It was good for Lincoln being in the heart of the area of the state where Lincoln was strongest – the Eighth Judicial Circuit. The date for the State Convention was eventually set for May 9th, a week before the National Republican Convention in Chicago.
Richard J. Oglesby was not a delegate, but he was placed in charge of arrangements. He ultimately raised $257 from local businessmen and the total money expended was $170 for convention expenses. The problem of finding a place large enough to hold the crowds was solved by the engagement of local builder D. C. Shockley. Oglesby borrowed the lumber needed for construction of the frame between the two buildings on Park Street across from the new Central Park. He also borrowed a large circus tent which was erected over the frame. The makeshift structure was 100 feet east and west and 70 feet deep. The speaker’s platform was at the south wall. The canvas ceiling was so low that a tall man on the platform almost touched it. It was called the Wigwam, as was the more permanent structure being built for the Chicago Convention. The name came from New York state designating buildings constructed for political meetings.
Trains and roads were jammed as people flocked into the city of 3,800, the convention drawing perhaps 5,000 visitors. It was the largest meeting of its type in the history of the state. The citizens of Decatur responded to the challenge opening their homes to accommodate some of those who weren’t able to find hotel accommodations. Delegates started arriving on May 7th. Lincoln himself arrived on May 8th and ended up staying at the Junction House sharing a room with delegates N. M. Knapp and John Moses of Winchester.
The Convention convened on May 9th, there were 700 delegates from all the counties of the state except one in southern Illinois. There were reports of 2,500 to 3,000 people packing into the hall. That day Lincoln posed for a photograph at the request of Decatur photographer Edward A. Barnwell. His daughter Grace presented the photograph to the Decatur Public Library in 1947.
The Convention was loaded for Lincoln from the beginning. The initial presiding officer John Palmer and also its permanent President, Joseph Gillespie, a long time Lincoln associate in politics as well as on the Eighth Judicial Circuit, were strong Lincoln men. Lincoln was present just inside the back door as the afternoon session started. From the floor Oglesby introduced Lincoln which caused an ovation to erupt. Lincoln was thrust forward, some reports say he was actually even lifted over the crowd and passed to the platform. As if this wasn’t enough what followed was to become one of the most significant events of the entire election. Interestingly, it had been vaguely forecast in the May 4th issue of the Illinois State Journal by the Decatur correspondent. Oglesby again arose and this time he introduced the lifelong Democrat John Hanks. Hanks entered the hall with another carrying two split rail with a banner stretched between them that stated:
Abraham Lincoln
The Rail Candidate
Two rails from a lot of 3,000 made in 1830 by Thos.
Hanks (sic) and Abe Lincoln whose father was the
first pioneer of Macon County (sic)
First, for initial volunteer service, how long was the committment for the North?
Three months
How about the South?
One year.
What doesn’t matter is what happened LATER. When initially faced with a three month or one year enlistment one can’t see into the future. The three month yankee enlistment worked well. Just long enough to get thier butts kicked and run back home with their tail between their legs. Re-enlistment rates were high, got to get back their dignity.
But, you seem all concerned about “equity” like slavery and all. Could a southern planters son buy his way out of conscription? How about a rich yankee’s son? And those black soldiers in Yankee uniform, were they paid the same as the white ones? Meanwhile, back at the Confederate Foundry—how much were those FREE blackmen paid? They paid the same as whites? Rebels pay free black man equal wages to make the bullets while yankees pay black men less to dodge them. Rather ironic ain’t it.
They had no beef. They had no reason to be dissatisfied. That's why so many of them resisted the Confederacy. The heart of the conflict was about slavery and Southerners in non-slaveholding locales tended to support the Union. I suggest you look at the individual county returns in the the two Tennessee secession elections and compare the pattern with the US Census slave schedules. There seems to be a pretty strong correlation between the presence of slavery and the support of secession. I'm sure states rights and defense of the homeland motivated some, but it's hard to ignore the mathematics that indicate a relationship between the presence of slavery and pro-Confederate sentiment.
They didn't have to. The Confederate conscription law gave automatic exemptions to slaveowners, so they could stay home and suppress servile insurrections and provide all the other worthwhile services to the community typical of the Dixie drone class.
And I assume that somewhere in there is something that supports your claim that Lincoln cut “...his own deal with the European aristocracy and American uberrich?
And three years later when the army could have melted away as the three year enlistments ran out, what made the vast majority of Union soldiers re-up to continue the fight? Was it still 'dignity'?
Could a southern planters son buy his way out of conscription?
Yes, he could. Unless he owned the requisite number of slaves, then he was exempt to begin with.
How about a rich yankee’s son?
Yes, he could as well.
And those black soldiers in Yankee uniform, were they paid the same as the white ones?
After June 1864, yes. When the were granted equal pay retroactively.
Meanwhile, back at the Confederate Foundry—how much were those FREE blackmen paid? They paid the same as whites?
I wouldn't know. What do you have concerning that?
Rebels pay free black man equal wages to make the bullets while yankees pay black men less to dodge them.
How much were the slave workers paid?
Wasn't it twenty? The reb cause had rich man's war, poor man's fight written all over it.
I thought it was less. For some reason 15 comes to mind.
No, my point is that there was a time on the American continent BEFORE we were the U.S.A that in at least one case (and possibly several others) where British officers were involved in planning and delivering smallpox infected blankets to American Indians. Although the term “Biological WMD” was not used at the time, only an imbecile would argue that deliberately infecting a stone age indigenous people with a devastating disease they have no immunity to - isn’t use of WMD-like tactics.
This was documented in British military correspondence and this writing has never been translated from another language (duh, it was English writing it), changed or misinterpreted wheres its possible the KJV bible has been so multiple times as there were many versions of it, and it was revised four times after the first version of the KJV bible was released around 1611 and it was translated from several different languages over time. Not much prior to that there wasn’t even an English version of the bible - it was scriptures transposed to Latin. Versions written in Greek and so on. So the British Military writing of the Colonial era on smallpoxing the Indians is far more recent and provable then say, Moses turning a staff into a serpent, parting the Red Sea, the Burning Bush, or Angels descending from on high - not to get sidetracked into a completely different subject. Not saying any of those things happened - and not saying they didn’t. I’m an agnostic after all.
These guys who were involved in this stuff were British Crown Loyalists and Tories. The ones we fought against for freedom. The same crowd whose ships we attacked and dumped their 45 tons of their tea in the harbor worth nearly $2,000,000 in today’s money. The same type of Brits who at the time were our enemy.
So, that incident is in no way blamed by me on the USA - its blamed on the Brits of the time who were our enemy and I have no interest in defending the Brits who we fought against at the time as they were known to be cruel, arrogant and oppressive taskmasters many of whom who regarded the Indians as vermin - again British oppression among the reasons why we rebelled against the Crown.
I could even argue further that anyone who tried to defend nefarious British actions of the time would be taking the side of the enemy a la Benedict Arnold.
Although there are some who attempt to cast doubt that deliberate smallpoxing the Natives never happened - I differ. Some of the Early Brits were real bastards and based on what we know of them and the fact that they talked openly about it - I personally have no doubt they were involved in it. They didn’t even need to have an in depth understanding of science at the time - all they needed to know is that smallpox while very injurious and at times lethal to Europeans - when these Savages were infected with it, they were decimated and eradicated by it which is why they said “lets give these vermin some smallpox to wipe their asses out” so to speak.
As far as my other points about the USA fire bombing and nuking Japan, Dresden, rounding up Japs for internment etc., the popular notion these days is to apologize and bash America for those actions.
I differ. While it is silly to try to deny that we fire bombed and nuked, napalmed and slayed, where I differ is I make no bones about it. Yes, we did it, did what we had to do, and I make no apologies for it.
OTHERS might argue - “well, I draw the line at My Lai, that was wrong and we should apologize for it.” Again, I differ. A lesson needed to be taught and fear and terror needed to be instilled. But hey - again, that’s just me. Like the ad says; “Your level of savagery, cruelty and brutality may differ.” Others can apologize for it - I never will cause its plain dumb to apologize for something you had no involvement in.
To me we are too much of a coddling, touchy feely nation. I happen to believe in scorched earth and crushing the enemy mercilessly and have no problem with certain concepts that others find abhorrent. The goal is to win and conquer with the least amount of time, treasure and lives spent on our side - not pussyfoot around.
I recognize that not all might share that view - which is why I doubt I’ll be supreme ruler any time soon.
Another argument that could be made is that “well the majority of atrocities in US history happened under Democrat administrations”.
You honestly are a terrific poster.
Great stuff.
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.