Author Topic: States Rights to Succession.. will the South Rise Again? (Read 1503 times)

Toad · « **Reply #15 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:04:43 PM »

The Confederacy didn't fail because the idea of States Rights was wrong. It failed because the North had more resources.

It's easily demonstrable that the Southerners had better military leadership and fought more effectively until the North basically overwhelmed them with numbers/material.

I think you are wrong about the strength of the early Federal Government. In the first years, it was pretty weak and meant to be that way.Section 1, Article 8 pretty well lays out the territory for Congress to roam. It wasn't that large then but it's been continuously expanding due to creeping Federalism.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #16 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:06:07 PM »

Toad, you are far more optimistic about it than I am. Most kids coming out of high school have no idea how our government works.
Ask a high school kid why the Declaration of Independence was written and watch them succumb to the emptiness that is ignorance. All of them can cite the preamble, but none of them (for the most part,....I am generalizing a bit here) can tell you what it actually means, or stands for.

Why would they ever fight for something they have no clue about?

Toad · « **Reply #17 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:15:06 PM »

Why, when the Feds take away their Playstations and Nintendos it'll be "To ARMS!".

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:17:42 PM »

Skuzzy, I'm not too far out of Highschool, but I can point out that Toad is already wrong.

Quote

The Confederacy didn't fail because the idea of States Rights was wrong. It failed because the North had more resources.

Confederacies. Plural, more than one.

Before the US ever had even thought of the Constitution, it was under a Confederacy. It was a bunch of loosely bound states that had very very weak ties. There were many problems.

The Government had to ask the states for money. The Government had to ask the states for military. The states even had different forms of currency and tried to tax non state residents when crossing borders.

Complete and utter failure. It was actually a little embarassing for the US.

The states that seceded from the union in the 1860's formed a confederacy exactly like the one that failed.

Not many people know this because they don't bother to know this. The Confederacy of the south was coming apart at the seams regardless of how well or poorly their troops were doing. Had no fighting occured, they would have only last 7-8 years before complete anarchy.

The Confederacy was failing economically for exactly the same reasons it did before.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #19 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:27:53 PM »

Question: (This goes along with Hang's ? as well)

Is the declaration of independence or the imancipation proclimation (I think that's what Hang is quoting) actual LAW?

I realize that is what declared our independence but it doesn't actually establish any type of rule of law nore govt.

If that is the case than there is nothing in federal law that I have seen that prohibits or allows succession.

Toad · « **Reply #20 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:29:50 PM »

You digress. No one is talking about the Articles of Confederation.

The principle of "States Rights" is present in the US Constitution, it's just been usurped and ignored.

In fact there are far more similiarities between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution than there are differences. The notable differences (and critical failings) of the Articles are that they did not give Congress the But the Articles denied Congress the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce and enforce laws. These powers were added in the US Constitution.

The Confederate Constitution was very similar to the US Constitution: http://www.civilwarhome.com/csaconstitutionbackground.htm

Quote

Structurally the U.S. and Confederate Constitutions were nearly identical. Both had a preamble and seven articles, and both created a national president, a bicameral legislature, and a court system. The only major structural difference was that the first twelve amendments to the U.S. Constitution were incorporated, almost word for word, into the main body of the Confederate Constitution...

...The most significant differences between the two, however, lay in the Confederate provisions limiting the power of the national government, protecting state rights and, most important, protecting slavery...

Any attribution of the defeat of the South to its Constitution ignores the simple fact of the industrial might of the North. The Southerners could have adopted the US Constitution verbatim and they still would have lost. Money, industry and manpower won the war for the North. Period.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #21 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:36:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Why, when the Feds take away their Playstations and Nintendos it'll be "To ARMS!".

But When they pull the trigger on the Playstation controller and nothings happens? Panic stricken, they will run.

lasers, I tried not to say *all* high schoolers are that way. However, I will stand by saying *most* are that way. If my own son complains about it being that way, I have to figure it is actually worse then he knows.

Fighting about it in a bulletin board versus actually fighting about it is a completely different matter.

And I am not trying to hijack this thread. Back to the meat of the matter. I cannot see secession solving the basic problems we have today, which actually seems to permeate the government at all levels.
Secession cannot cure incompentency.
It cannot cure greed.
It cannot cure apathy.
It cannot cure hunger.
It cannot cure disease.
It cannot cure all that ails our society.
It will not balance a budget.
It will not stop terrorism.
It will not restore the spirit which this country was founded on.
It will not produce better educated people.
It will not cure the trade deficits.

I could go on. The things it will not correct or help, outweigh any possible advantages gained from it.

But, it is the 'band-aid' approach to fixing things, which, as a nation, we are so very good at. We never attack the actual problem, we only try to cover it up with something else.

Toad · « **Reply #22 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:38:34 PM »

True, Skuzzy.

But when do you decide that jumping over the side is better than going down with the ship? How long do you wait?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:39:35 PM »

No, that's not right. The Confederates could not band together as a country and could not win. It was a bunch of southern states fighting against a Federal Country.

Where do you think the name "Confederacy" came from?

Seriously, stop quoting anything you think helps your case and go read about it.

The confederates might have copied the constitution word for word, but they acted out a Confederacy. It was identical to what had failed 70 years earlier.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #24 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:40:07 PM »

If you are jumping into a pool of sharks, it does not matter.

EDIT: Ok, that was a cute onle-liner I had. By now you may have figured it out. I do not see the people of this country being able to do a damn thing about the problems being foisted on us from our political leaders. There are no answers to the questions we pose.
There will be no help forthcoming from the political machine which does everything it can to suck more blood from the people which empower them.
In short. We are screwed and we have no one to blame but ourselves. But we will not do that as it is more fun to point our collective fingers at the ones we told could do it.

Gunthr · « **Reply #25 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:52:54 PM »

Quote

But when do you decide that jumping over the side is better than going down with the ship? How long do you wait?

The Cato Institute is something you might be interested in, Toad, the organization that seeks to broaden discussion of the proper role of government based on the principles of the American Revolution. http://cato.org/

You also might be interested in The Free State Project http://www.freestateproject.org/ that is attempting to get at least 20,000 liberty loving people to move to New Hampshire to make a difference and create a better, freer way to live. (this is the closest thing I know of to any current sucession movement)

__________________

__________________

Xargos · « **Reply #26 on:** July 21, 2005, 03:08:40 PM »

I feel if the South was able to succeed from the Union, like they should have been allowed to, within 100 years they would have rejoined. Then there would not be as much resentment as there is today. Many Southerners feel they have been left out on many things, one of which was education.

Many people are led to believe that the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery. But less the 6% of the Southern whites owned slaves. My question to you is-why would so many Southerners be willing to die for something they did not have? Most Southerners did not believe in slavery and it probably would have been abolished within 20 years anyway. The South was very depended on foreign trade as was the last place in the civilized world to have slaves and many Countries frowned upon that.

My family where sharecroppers and worked side by side with the slaves and worked just as hard as they did. One last thing, Robert E.Lee gave up his slaves when the war started while Grant did not give his up until slavery was abolished.

Toad · « **Reply #27 on:** July 21, 2005, 03:22:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Seriously, stop quoting anything you think helps your case and go read about it.

I'll wager I've read far more about the Secession and Civil War than you have.

The South came VERY close to winning. Have you read about Ewell's failure to take the Heights south of Gettysburg, specifically Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill? Had that been accomplished according to Lee's orders, it would have meant the end of the Union army and Washington would have lain open to invasion. Had Jackson been available to lead that engagement, the results would most likely have been vastly different.

Your implication that it was the form of the South's Constitution that lost the war shows little study of the actual conflict. Try that premise on a roomful of legitimate Civil War military historians and see how far you get.

Westy · « **Reply #28 on:** July 21, 2005, 03:25:10 PM »

"Many people are led to believe that the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery"

I agree. It most definitely was not.

Off on a wicked tangent....could you imagine this ubb back in 1861...

"Neo-con:" We invaded the south to free the slaves! (Lincoln was a Republican btw)

"Neo-Lib" No you didn't. This is Lincolns bull****e war against states rights. "

"Neo-Con": Damned Reb! Why do you hate the Federation??

Seeker · « **Reply #29 on:** July 21, 2005, 04:05:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Westy
"Many people are led to believe that the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery"

I agree. It most definitely was not.

Off on a wicked tangent....could you imagine this ubb back in 1861...

"Neo-con:" We invaded the south to free the slaves! (Lincoln was a Republican btw)

"Neo-Lib" No you didn't. This is Lincolns bull****e war against states rights. "

"Neo-Con": Damned Reb! Why do you hate the Federation??

Would this have led to the Senate lunchroom serving "Freedom ham" sandwhiches?