posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:14 AM
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Originally posted by bsbray11
Once again, it was fully understood at that point in time that any state that peacefully entered the union, could peacefully leave it...
This was the (false) understanding of the secessionists, I'll grant you.
No one thought it was "false" until it was clear Lincoln decided he'd rather go to war than let South Carolina secede peacefully. That was his call.
And for Northerners it seems to have been about as popular as the Iraq War at the time, and after the union loss at First Manassas the war was nearly
called off immediately. Again, Lincoln was determined not to let a single state secede without bloodshed.
Like I said, it's a documented historical fact that even West Point (where many military officers on both sides of the war graduated) taught that
secession was a legal option for all states who had ratified the Constitution.
William Rawle, who was appointed United States attorney for Pennsylvania in 1791 by George Washington, wrote an important study on United States
government. His book was in use at West Point when men such as Robert E. Lee attended the U. S. military academy. The Rawle’s textbook says this
about secession: "The secession of a state from the union depends on the will of the people of such state." He adds, "It depends on the State
itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right, would be inconsistent with the principles on which all our political
systems are founded; which is, the people have, in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed." Rawle does not treat secession
lightly; he says "To withdraw from the union is a solemn and serious act", yet states retain the right to do so.
Again, this was taught at the same institution where Robert E. Lee graduated 2nd in his class, and Ulysses S. Grant graduated near the bottom. It
was mainstream political philosophy of the time.
It went completely unchallenged, until Lincoln ordered South Carolina be invaded for seceding. And again, this is when Virginia and many other
states finally seceded. They did not secede before that, even at the idea that slavery would be curtailed or eventually abolished. Virginia was the
first state to pass laws against slave importation. Virginia seceded only when Lincoln ordered these states to invade their own neighbors.
you claim that slavery would have soon been antiquated. However that didn't seem to factor into the thinking of the Slavocracy of the time,
now did it?
What is this, circular reasoning? It wasn't about slavery in the first place. South Carolina may have seceded because of slavery, but not all the
other states, and the war itself was most definitely not just about slavery. It was more complicated than that, and two wrongs still don't make a
right. It was not considered legal at that time to invade another state just because it wished to exercise its right of secession. That meant more
than slavery, it meant hundreds of thousands of grown men murdering each other on top of that. Which is why I say two wrongs don't make a right. It
was Lincoln's decision to cause this.
If the sainted Jefferson davis wanted to educate the slaves, why did he never do so?
Well let's see, he only had 4 years and the resources during those 4 years were kind of tied up in other places, you know? Do you know how the
Northerner carpetbaggers treated African Americans during reconstruction in those same states? Let me guess, you think the Yankees came down and
treated everyone like royalty after the Emancipation Proclamation.
edit on 16-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)