A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

reply to post by Southern Guardian
the same way anyone can determine that Margaret Sanger was not a "right to life" believer.
the evidence is perpetual for the last 150yrs or so.

no one is generalizing.
hard core abolitionists did not make their "agenda" publicly known or they likely wouldn't have attained the level of assistance that they did.
their base form of "abolition" was against sovereignty, not slavery.
[abolishing slavery though was publicly consumable]

plenty of ppl wanted to "help" the runner, rather help the "government" return them.
[same us vs them mentality used today]
doesn't mean they were fully aware of the impact those actions would eventually encompass.

besides, what a red-herring anyway.
why won't you address the fact that the greater majority of southern slave owners were black, not white.
from the same link previously posted

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

again, not supporting slavery in the least but what was in the South, was moreso in the North and in less territory.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I say good for those men and women back in those times who risked their lives, their livelyhoods, to help run away slaves start a new life. There were folks, not just northerners but a minority of southern white men and women, who made efforts, who took risks, in order to free black slaves. In the end the slave owners, and their southern political sympathizers, decided to try their luck with secession, and they lost dearly for it.

I can't say this enough... if you are looking to debate the ethics of slavery then you are creating an argument that does not exist.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy. It is called a straw man argument.

I do not have an emotional investment in an argument over the ethics of slavery.

My only goal is to present historically accurate documents while offering an unbiased view toward who won the war between the states.

I am not arguing that the Union broke the confederacy.
I am not arguing that Southern land owners and their political sympathizers either did or did not lose dearly for their attempt at secession.

The information that I am presenting is not discussed in schools.

And the typical response is the exact argument that you engage.
I am quite familiar with the continual barrage of repeated deflection that is the core of every single comment that you post.

I think that you will find that I am equally as stalwart and much less attached to a desired outcome.

The war between the states was the single most destructive act to ever happen on American soil.

When I state that the goal of the abolitionists was to create a tyrannical central government, I am not referring to every single abolitionist, but I am referring to the European Money Trust that have had the goal from day 1 of the birth of this nation to gain control of the country's finances.

The founding fathers were wise to their gambit and created a document with the expressed intent to stop this from happening.
The original intent of the Constitution for the united States was strict limitation of a central government.
These limitations were defined in the bill of rights.

The only granted rights prior to the war between the states were those of state Citizens.
The only possible means by which Federal Citizenship could be conferred to state citizens was through military occupation.

The idea of a United States citizen did exist prior to the 14th Amendment; however, it only applied to Federal Government territories.
By constitutional compact, the states were exempt from federal governance.
As I have said too many times to count, the constitution originally did not give the federal government authority over the people. It gave the people authority over the government.

It is for this reason that the Confederate States seceded.

Because the states seceded, when they re-entered the Union citizenship was still conferred by state Citizenship.
Although the slaves were free, the confederate states were not required to confer state citizenship upon the freed slaves.
The federal government responded with the Enforcement Act, the Freedman's Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
These acts show the first use of the term citizen of the United States as it would apply as a legal term to individuals born in a state of the union. And it only applied to free black slaves.
The federal government was able to do this and over-ride state law because the southern states were under military occupation and considered territories.

It was not until the federal government reformed as a municipal corporation in 1871 that ALL individuals fell under the legal definition of citizen.

The reason for this municipal incorporation was the fact that the country was bankrupt from the war.

The country was essentially put into bankruptcy receivership with the corporate government mediating.

If you look at the actual source document of the Act then this is plainly obvious.

link to original copy of the organic act of 1871

The quote in the OP stated that the goal of the abolitionist was to establish sectional superiority through a tyrannical central government whose purpose is to deny rights and liberties.

I have clearly shown this to be a historical truth.

I will not post the opinions of historians because they are OPINIONS.

I will continue to post source documents, undeniable evidence that Americans are the victims of a mass propaganda campaign concerning Southern secession and the true cause of the war for Southern Independence.

Cheers.

reply to post by Honor93


I'm not sure why you decided to repeat this argument of your that there were black slave owners, when my initial response regarded this idea of the "right to secession". When an argument does not go your way, do you always move to argue something else?

The fact that there were black owners does not change the nature of slavery, the fact that there were black slave owners does not mean that the actions of many abolitionists, at the risk of imprisonment, were some how in vain. The fact that there were black slave owners, does not automatically mean that the civil war was somehow unfair or unjust to the south. That argument makes absolutely no sense.

hard core abolitionists did not make their "agenda" publicly known or they likely wouldn't have attained the level of assistance that they did.

I'm well aware that there are abolitionists who held their positions purely in spite against Southern industrialists and slave owners. This was never my argument, I did make the point however that you cannot generalize the entire abolitionist movement at that time. Doing so is no different from me generalizing that all southerners were slave owners or sympathizers of the institution. Apparently you agreed given that you insisted that "no one is generalizing" all abolitionists, so there was really no point for you rant off about those bad abolitionists you have in mind.

why won't you address the fact that the greater majority of southern slave owners were black, not white.
from the same link previously posted

I'm not sure if you have been reading my responses on here properly, but I never made the argument that all slave owners were white. Where you got this idea, I don't know, but you were the one that suddenly decided to bring it up. Why you're so concerned with informing me of black slave owners is beyond me, it doesn't change the nature of slavery one bit, and it doesn't change the fact that the South lost the war, it does not change the motive for secession.

Now I assume that when you said "greater majority, you meant in New Orleans only, right? So what's the point of this again? It's another case of two wrongs make a right by the looks of it. The First slave owner was black, there were many black slave owners, most slave owners in New Orleans were black! there for, what? That blacks deserved to be made slaves?

You were correct in saying that slave owners only made a minority of the Union population, however you have to understand the context of those numbers. When we talk about the continental United States, with the population of the entire Union and it's territories, those numbers appear insignificant, but when we restrict to the South, to the borders of what the Confederacy initially claimed upon, we get a different number:

I'll consider Maryland to be a Northern state in this case, I'll also include Delaware as a Northern State.

The total population of Southern slave holding states accounted for approx 9.1 million people (including slaves).

More than 95% of all slave holders resided in the South or within what the Confederates initially claimed as territory.

Out of 9.1 million people in those southern slave holding states, around 3.9 million of them were slaves. That means that around 42% of the population in the Confederate States, along with her territorial claims, were slaves. 42% is a significant portion of the population, don't you agree?

Out of 9.1 million citizens of the Southern slave holding state, 380,000 were slaveholders. If we were to subtract white person(s) from that population, we are looking at a total of 5.2 million people. Out of free white southern person(s), 7.5% were slave owners. There were families behind many of those slave owners whom depended and benefitted from the labour of slaves.

49% of Mississippi families owned slaves for example, 46% of South Carolina families owned slaves. Arkansas had the lowest number of families whom owned slaves, 20%. A total of 30% of families in the Confederacy owned slaves. 30% is not by any means an insignificant portion of a population. Now we can't blame the children of those slave owners, or even many of the wives, relatives, of those slave owners, but many benefitted and depended their livelyhoods upon the labour of slaves.

thomaslegioncherokee.tripod.com...
www.civil-war.net...

On another note, we talk about the wasted lives as the result of the civil war. How those 600,000 or so men and women lost their lives as the result of the war. We often forget about those lives lost of slaves at the hands of their slaveholders, whatever "race" there may be, we also forget about the lives lost of slaves at sea. History is ugly, whichever side you stand on.

reply to post by kyviecaldges

I can't say this enough... if you are looking to debate the ethics of slavery then you are creating an argument that does not exist.

Then why start an ethical debate yourself? On your first posts you wasted no time informing the rest of us here how "humane" slaves were treated, you also were more than happy informing me how abolitionists held unethical motives. If you don't want to debate ethics, don't bring it up, eh?

I stick to my initial point. The South did not have the right to "secede" anymore than the United States as a whole having the "right" to invade Northern Mexican territory in the 1840's, or the "right" to Spain over North America because they were the first to discover it. With the exception of Texas and Vermont, from what I understand, the Union created the States, the States did not form the Union. The Union did not form through states joining voluntary, the states were carved out from Union territory, the Union was formed for the most part by force. Over the centuries the United States formed from bloody wars and invasions. So when the South decided to secede to form their own little Confederacy, their representitives, along with their apologists, thought up this idea that somehow they'd be granted the magical right to do so without any real threat, and this obviously turned out not to be the case.

The South lost, they lead a fight for independence, and they lost against Union forces. The North won, they are the victors, they in turn got to write history and the South was put back in their place. The Civil war in the end decided whether there was a "right" to secession, whether you like it or not. We can spend all day quoting from prior to that war regarding the right to secession, but in history typically the strongest political movements survive as nations, that is how the United States initially gained it's indepedence. It's something apologists, such as yourself here, appear not to comprehend. Whether they claimed they were seceding because their "rights" were somehow violated is besides the point, they lost the war in the end.

reply to post by RealSpoke



"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." A Lincoln

Make of it what you will...

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I stick to my initial point. The South did not have the right to "secede" anymore than the United States as a whole having the "right" to invade Northern Mexican territory in the 1840's, or the "right" to Spain over North America because they were the first to discover it. With the exception of Texas and Vermont, from what I understand, the Union created the States, the States did not form the Union.

Your understanding of history if highly convoluted.

The original 13 states that formed the union were independent colonies.

These 13 independent colonies then formed a confederation of 13 sovereign states.
Of these 13 states- Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and South Carolina were at the heart of the Confederacy.

Look at this map.. This is simply a map of the original 13 colonies. Please notice this statement accompanying the map.

Seeking independence from England and the British Crown, thirteen American colonies declared themselves sovereign and independent states.

This lead to the signing of a federalized constitution that eventually joined the 13 states in a loose union with a weak central government.

This same federalized constitution applied to any and all states that then joined the United States prior to 1871.

Any new states were treated as free and sovereign with the same weakened central government as the original 13 colonies/independent and sovereign states.

If what you are saying is true, and these territories were "carved out of Union territory", then there would be no need for the 14th Amendment.

There would be no need for the incorporation of a municipality in the District of Columbia.

You are basing your opinion on a US Government that existed post-1871.
That was not the case.

This is all history 101.

This was actually taught in high school.

You are simply wrong.

Your perspective is flawed and incorrect.

You cannot produce legal documentation prior to the war between the states to substantiate your claim because it does not exist.
You are basing your belief on the view that might makes right, but that was not the basis for the loose union of sovereign states that made up the United States prior to 1871.

The belief that might makes right drives a tyrannical central government.
This is what the Confederate States were fighting against, and it is what has become of the Federal Government.

This is the reason that the vast majority of wealth in the US is owned by a vast minority of individuals, as is noted in your signature.
And guess what, to add to the comment in your signature, prior to the war between the states, income tax was illegal.

The 16th Amendment applies because of the fact that a federalized municipality exists that OWNS you.
And it is this ownership that makes the income tax valid.

And they own you because the Confederate States lost the war.
You are arguing in support of the very thing that you apparently dislike.
At least from your signature.

That, my friend, is the power of Northern Propaganda.

edit on 14/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

The Civil War started in 1861 so slavery must have started about that time, since it was about the intollerability of slavery.

Slavery must have been the most profitable economic system. The North had the strongest economy in the world, so it must have had alot of slaves.

The slaves would never have won their freedom since the North was required to end slavery by war. I wonder how many Black heros never had the chance to make their own freedom and make their own America.

Highly self-esteemed black people could have made Cuba and much of Central and South America into highly developed States of the United States, according to the Southern leadership.

Controllers write the history you get by default.

The Civil War was a quantum leap away from individuality, the opposite of how it is presented.

reply to post by Semicollegiate



I do not understand any of this...

For those who see the war between the states as a racial issue, I have decided to include some widely known information down here in the South.

You see, these great emancipators... You know... The abolitionist party of whom I have been accusing of promoting sectional superiority through the formation of a strong central government that is now being used to deprive us of our freedoms and liberties (Thank you quote from the OP).
These folks were anything but emancipators.

I have heard many so-called historians dispute the fact that numerous Southern Blacks supported the confederacy, and like 99% of the mainstream information on the Civil War, this is simply not true.

Southern Heritage 411 Inc. is a corporation founded to inform the public about Southern Heritage from the perspective of the hundreds of thousands of black people who love and support the South, its people, its customs, and its history.

The President of "Southern Heritage 411" is H.K. Edgerton, a black Confederate activist who works tirelessly to bring the real truth of our heritage to people of all races. H.K. Edgerton has walked thousands of miles carrying his large Confederate Battle Flag through cities and towns and down country roads. He speaks at venues all over the South exposing the many myths of Yankee history and setting the record straight regarding blacks role in the history of the South.

Here is another interesting quote from the site.

...see a perspective of Southern Heritage not taught in our public schools or seen in our politically correct media. Some of the facts will shock and surprise you.

link to source

Here's two videos from the same guy. Keep in mind that he is the former president of the NAACP in Asheville, NC. The CNN debate is some choice yankee propaganda!!





Take some time to review this information.

Seriously.

Black Confederates? Why haven’t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, “I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910” Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a “cover-up” which started back in 1865.

What do you think about this?

It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?”.

link to source

Yeah.... SURE... The Yankees were all about emancipation!?!?!?!

Sherman's March was an invasion of both geographic and psychological space. The Union army constructed a vision of the Southern landscape as military terrain. When they brought war into Southern households, however, soldiers were frequently astounded at the fierceness with which many white Southern women defended their homes.

But in the rural South, where the household remained the political center, white women could see themselves as both mothers and warriors, giving them material and ideological reasons to resist. African Americans' reactions to Union soldiers were even more complex. Their initial delight at the coming of the "army of emancipation" was often replaced with terror as Yankees plundered black homes and assaulted black women.

link to source

The fact is, the Lincoln government intentionally targeted civilians from the very beginning of the war. The administration's battle plan was known as the "Anaconda Plan" because it sought to blockade all Southern ports and inland waterways and starving the Southern civilian economy. Even drugs and medicines were on the government's list of items that were to be kept out of the hands of Southerners, as far as possible.

link to source


Yeah... Emancipators...

WAKE UP PEOPLE. YOU HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH LIES!!!

edit on 14/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
The original 13 states that formed the union were independent colonies.

Define indepedent? They were very much under the control of the British Empire, they were carved under the British Empire, and formed a Union shortly after the War of Indepedence (as I understand, Vermont was the only colony that held true indepedence for some 3 years until she was thrusted into the Union). King James the Second initially established the New England Dominion, the colonies were later carved out by British loyalists and colonialists. They were not sovereign States during that time.

"independent" colonies were as much sovereign as our independence states are today. Atleast you admitted that they were governed by a central government.

You are basing your belief on the view that might makes right,

I'm not basing my belief on what makes it "right", I base my beliefs on reality. The Union formed for the most part through force and war, it did not form through fully sovereign states voluntarily joining (with the exception of Texas and Vermont). The civil war settled this question, there was never a "right" to secession, that "right" could only be acheived through force, and the South failed to achieve this. The civil war settled the question of whether the Union was a voluntary one, whether states could leave voluntarily, and the answer from the civil war was, no.

The belief that might makes right drives a tyrannical central government.

Yes, because the established government of the Confederate states was of the complete opposite to tyrannical right? I'd like to know where you got that idea. It is so very ironic you talk about the "tyrannical central government" of that time, considering that in the 1850's it was the Southern backed Democrats that controlled congress, and both presidents were southern backed Democrats.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

"independent" colonies were as much sovereign as our independence states are today. Atleast you admitted that they were governed by a central government.

You are simply wrong.

I don't know how else to say it.

I have displayed numerous historical documents that prove this.

I have never said that a central government did not exist.
Not once. Never.
You are employing yet another straw man tactic.

The arguments that you present are becoming weaker and weaker with each successive post.

The Union formed for the most part through force and war, it did not form through fully sovereign states voluntarily joining (with the exception of Texas and Vermont).

The independent states first formed a confederacy, thus the articles of confederation.
They then joined in a loose union with a central government that was limited by the constitution.

This is obvious in Barron v. Baltimore.
This decision, as well as the the Crunkshank decision, reaffirmed the fact that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government and not the states.

Look man... It really sucks to be proven wrong. I sympathize with you.
It took me several years of research while continually being proven wrong to understand the reality that I am showing you.
This is hard to swallow because it contradicts everything that you have ever been taught.

But this is the truth and I don't know how else to put it other than.. You are simply mistaken.

You beliefs are misguided.

You have been misinformed.

Barron v. Baltimore

The ruling legally established the principle that the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, apply to and restrain the federal government's powers but do not apply to state governments. This legal doctrine was not reversed until the twentieth century when the Supreme Court gradually included the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.

it was common knowledge of the day that the Bill of Rights was added because people feared the federal government and not because they dreaded abuses of power by their state governments.

link to source

I welcome any and all efforts by you or anyone else to disprove the information that I am presenting to you concerning the reformation of our government into an all powerful central entity.

I will continue to present historically significant source documents to defend my case.
But the deeper this debate becomes, the more apparent the truth in my argument.

This is because I am presenting to you the correct and unbiased view of history.

Cheers.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
I don't know how else to say it.

I have displayed numerous historical documents that prove this.

Prove what? With the exception of Vermont's brief indepedence for 3 years, the 13 colonies were not sovereign independent States. They were carved from under the British empire and soon after the revolutionary war, they became the Union, from there on the Union expanded to claim territory in the parts of the South and the west, from there, more States were carved out of what was already Union territory.

Was colorado an independent sovereign country that joined the Union voluntarily? No, it was a State that was carved out of what was already Union territory (and former Mexican land). Oklahoma? Same deal. The only two states that held true sovereignty and joined the union voluntarily were those of Texas and Vermont, and both of them held their independence for under that of 10 years.

The Union was not formed by the States, the States were not all sovereign entities that joined the Union voluntarily, they were created within the Union, some in part under British rule, they were not sovereign States at any point. How did the Union become what it is today? With the bloodied war of independence, the forceful expansion and invasion of Northern Mexican lands, the annexation of Hawaii as a territory through forcing the Hawaiian king to give up sovereignty, and a series of other bloody conflicts. Get off this fairytale that all states were somehow sovereign prior and they all voluntarily joined the Union, history says differently.

The civil war settled the question of secession, States do not hold the right to voluntarily secede. The South tried, and they were met by the force of Northern Union forces. Had the South won, history would be different, but they lost the war, and they lost dearly. The victors write history, the victors established the rule. It's as simple as that.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

With the exception of Vermont's brief indepedence for 3 years, the 13 colonies were not sovereign independent States.

Actually, you are super-wrong.


from the wiki entrance on the 2nd Treaty of Paris

Acknowledging the United States to be free, sovereign and independent states

link to source

from the University of Oklahoma (copy of the 2nd Treaty of Paris)

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states,

link to source

from the Declaration of Independence

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States...

Notice the spelling of united States of America. The u is lower case and the S in states is uppercase for a very specific reason.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States

link from the government archives.

You sure about this statement NOW?

The Union was not formed by the States, the States were not all sovereign entities that joined the Union voluntarily, they were created within the Union, some in part under British rule, they were not sovereign States at any point.

You might want to rethink your position.

Visit the links. Actually reading this stuff gives it life.

That is why we have archives.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


You still don't get it, do you? Whether these states were referred to as sovereign and independent prior did not mean necessarily that they were sovereign states who voluntarily joined the union, and whom could voluntarily leave. They were governed in the end by a central government, the constitution laid this out clearly, the states were given autonomy, and they were referred to as independent, but in the end, they still fell under the Union. The United States is a country, it always has been a country, whether the states contained in it were referred to as "independent" is irrelevent, they were still in end part of the Union and they still fell under Union territory.

The Civil war settled the question as to whether those states contained within were independent and sovereign, they weren't. Texas v. White 1869 further settled the question as to whether these states were really independent sovereign states with the right to secede.

To make it shorter for you understand, the South thought it was within their right to secede, they thought that they were sovereign independent states who could voluntarily secede when they saw fit, this did not turn out to be the case. Had the South otherwise won the civil war, they would have rightfully earned true independence and sovereignty.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

You still don't get it, do you?

It would seem from the historically accurate source documents that I have provided that it is you who doesn't get it, but I really don't want to split hairs over the issue.

I don't like to kick a man while he is down.

Whether these states were referred to as sovereign and independent prior did not mean necessarily that they were sovereign states who voluntarily joined the union, and whom could voluntarily leave.

You are sooo sooo wrong.

Let's look at the Federalist Papers no. 39

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

link to source

Maybe it's just me, but I would swear that this states that in ratifying the Constitution, the States would stay a sovereign body, and the act of ratification is voluntary.

Am I reading this wrong?
Seriously.

Seriously

I mean this is just James Madison who wrote this.
You know... One of the guys who actually wrote the Constitution.

That the South stood for the propagation of slavery at all is enough to make whatever else they stood for "moot." Slavery is a heinous institution and any person, state or philosophy that supports it is inherently not good.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I gotta be honest with you... I really want you to see exactly how wrong you are.

Your attempt to translate Lincoln's arguments against the legitimacy of secession is a laugh.
Lincoln was a truly gifted orator.

A misguided, deluded, and tyrannically power-hungry orator but gifted as well, and his arguments were much more persuasive when delivered by him.

The very first clue that secession is an inalienable right is the Declaration of Independence, which itself is a freaking declaration of secession.
I find it difficult to believe that the very document that outlines the fact that we are gifted with inalienable rights somehow excludes the very same inalienable right inherent in said document.

That last premise is a bit of a mind twister, but only because you have been heavily brainwashed.

I really think that you should take the time to read Federalist Paper no. 39 because the entire paper is dedicated to informing the people that the act of entering into a constitutional compact is voluntary.
The entire nature of a republican government, and I am not talking Mitt Romney "republican", is that all individuals are self-governing.

If I am self governing and I don't want to participate in something then I don't participate.

And that includes government.

This is the message of Federalist Paper 39.

And to further this idea...

I direct your attention to the very first sentence of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson.

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government...

link to source

Lastly... Let's look to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

link to source

The Constitution did not prohibit secession and the only legal arguments that you, or anyone for that matter, can offer are after the fact.
The power of secession is an inalienable right because the federal government was given limited authority by voluntary agreement of the people.

How many different ways do I have to prove this to you?

The Texas v. White case that you referenced was after the fact.

Of course the Supreme Court would rule that secession was not a right.
The state of Texas was under military freaking occupation at the time and the Justice that wrote the majority ruling was Chief Justice Salmon Chase...

The same Salmon Chase who was Lincoln's Treasury Secretary.

Do you really think that 3 years after the war with the entire South under military occupation that the Supreme Court was going to say... "nope, sorry guys the confederates were right".

Really.

You are the wrongest kind of wrong about this.

I would just give up because you cannot win this debate with me.

Originally posted by Threadfall
That the South stood for the propagation of slavery at all is enough to make whatever else they stood for "moot." Slavery is a heinous institution and any person, state or philosophy that supports it is inherently not good.

I am really shocked.

I mean.... HA.

Are you serious?

Is this the best that you can do?

I have just spent three pages explaining to every single person reading that you guys are the victims of some serious brainwashing voodoo mojo and the fallback is to combat the litany of historically accurate sources that I have listed with more of the same blatant propaganda.

It must be some kind of a case of stockholm syndrome, but on a large scale, because the people who complain the most about not having freedom will go to any length to defend the very entity responsible for placing them in bondage.

I think that I have made my point.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
For those who see the war between the states as a racial issue, I have decided to include some widely known information down here in the South.

You see, these great emancipators... You know... The abolitionist party of whom I have been accusing of promoting sectional superiority through the formation of a strong central government that is now being used to deprive us of our freedoms and liberties (Thank you quote from the OP).
These folks were anything but emancipators.

Yes, and it's not like the South isn't a seething hive of subhuman, white supremacist bigotry to this very day either, is it? I will criticise Lincoln for refusing to allow any state the right to leave the Union, purely on principle; but then again, given the nature of who he was dealing with, I honestly would not have held it against him if he had wiped out the lot of them. Those were his two options, as far as I am concerned. Allow the South to leave, or give it a beating of sufficient severity, that it would remember it for the rest of its' history.

Texas is probably the quintessential example of what I am talking about, here. That state has had the highest rate of capital punishment deaths in the Union, for years running. The greatest injustice levelled against David Koresh was not the fact that he was killed; but the fact that it was implied that as a screaming, AK-47 wielding, fundamentalist maniac, he was somehow atypical of Texan society.

You can say that Lincoln was a tyrant. I will say that the people he was at war with were vermin.