Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on July 21, 2005, 11:52:03 AM
-
From another thread that wandered a bit off topic. However, it's a powerful question..
Originally posted by Toad
More importantly and more to the point, there is no Constitutional delegation of power to the Federal Government to forcefully (militarily) keep a State from secession or leaving the Union.
That's my point and so far no one has shown otherwise.
The question rather than it's answer poses a question from me...
"Why?"
Does the south require a seperate nation.. or is it time for a 'new union'? What are the key current motivations to rise in rebellion against the current federal republic?
-
Ahem... I'm pretty sure Lincoln would have disagreed.
-
Yep.. and that's what I posted in the Hawaii thread. However, the robust discussion that devolved seems to indicate something else is happening here.. some thought must be given to the motivations required in this day and age for succession.
I profess ignorance, and request enlightenment as to what would cause a state, or group of states to decide to chuck the union and start over.
-
From the other thread comes your answer:
WHEN in the Course of human Events,
it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
-
Sandy, Lincoln obviously did disagree.
However, I pose you the question I posed in the other thread:
Where in the Constitution does it delegate to the Federal Government the power to militarily force States to remain in the Union?
Because that power is not specifically enumerated, the 10th Amenedment would apply, would it not?
-
How so?
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.
We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate--we cannot consecrate--we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.
The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us,--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
------
What great issue faces us as a nation that would require succession from the Union to pursue? Is it the monster of the Federal Governemnt itself that is the cause? Is it beyond repair via the vote? If so, might I suggest a revolution aimed at the head of the beast, rather than succession aimed at it's body?
-
What great issue faces us as a nation that would require succession from the Union to pursue? Is it the monster of the Federal Governemnt itself that is the cause? Is it beyond repair via the vote? If so, might I suggest a revolution aimed at the head of the beast, rather than succession aimed at it's body?
The fact that we currently live under a communistic / socialistic state.
Stunning isn't it? Compare what we have to communistic states. The number of disimilarities will rock you.
Myself? I'm just waiting for them to try to touch my guns before I start the revolution.
-
Haven't seen any state governments that were less messed up than the federal one. methinks that 'succession' is not a solution.
if the ballot box cannot solve the problem, what chance does a revolution have?
-
No, not a state secession. I'm talking about tearing the whole thing down and starting over.
-
Its one of those tricky issues that makes you wonder what went on behind closed doors as the constitution was engineered.
There is nothing in the constitution that expressely establishes the right, or denies it, of any state from withdrawing from the union thereby leaving it up to the states legislatures to decide based on the will of the people. Apparently.
Lincoln was most absolutely correct in beating down the southern rebellion. Also remember that the terrorist insurgency (KKK) was a force to be reckoned with for over 100 years after the formal end of hostilities.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Is it the monster of the Federal Governemnt itself that is the cause?
[/b]
Yep. That's the only possible one I see. I don't think it's to that point yet, however. In my mind, it's the potential threat though.
Some quotes from James Madison:
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
The Constitution of the United States was created by the people of the United States composing the respective states, who alone had the right .
Is it beyond repair via the vote?
[/b]
It may well be. That's what we're going to find out in the next 20+ years or so I think.
If so, might I suggest a revolution aimed at the head of the beast, rather than succession aimed at it's body?
Suggest what you like. Seems to be that if the Federal Government gets THAT intrusive and THAT overbearing, it will be another Civil War. If the insurrection succeeds, I think it would result in mostly a return to the original intent with a stronger emphasis on restraining the Federal Government and protecting the rights of the individual States.
Just my take on it, if it ever came to that.
From Jefferson:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
-
Revolution is not going to happen. In 20 years, the people who could do it, would do it, and would stand by it are going to be too old to do it.
Each generation gets more 'me' minded than the last. More apathetic. Less involved. Less independent. A shell of the people who founded this country is all that is left. There is no true fire or spirit. All talk, no walk.
My son complained about it for years while he was going through high school. "All they care about is the next fad".
-
Maybe.
But I think there's a point where even the "me-ists" will decide the Feds are too oppressive and overbearing.
Then, with the battle cry "I gotta be Meeeeeeeeee" they will revolt. ;)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Revolution is not going to happen. In 20 years, the people who could do it, would do it, and would stand by it are going to be too old to do it.
Each generation gets more 'me' minded than the last. More apathetic. Less involved. Less independent. A shell of the people who founded this country is all that is left. There is no true fire or spirit. All talk, no walk.
My son complained about it for years while he was going through high school. "All they care about is the next fad".
Guns, History, Girls, Kids, Animals, Nature, Veterans..
Thats on my care list..
I could care less about fads..
My fad is WWII history!
-
If the insurrection succeeds, I think it would result in mostly a return to the original intent with a stronger emphasis on restraining the Federal Government and protecting the rights of the individual States.
You obviously don't remember your history lessons.
States Rights = Confederacy. It failed twice. It's also failing in the European Union.
When I do revolt (when, not if) I'll take it back to the day the bill of rights was written (not counting the further ammendments).
The problem isn't a strong federal government. They had a strong federal government way back then. The problem was that people became more and more complacent and let it grow without bounds.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Why, when the Feds take away their Playstations and Nintendos it'll be "To ARMS!".
-
Skuzzy, I'm not too far out of Highschool, but I can point out that Toad is already wrong.
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.
-
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.
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
__________________
__________________
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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??
-
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?
-
Yes! And Freedom Fried Chicken dinners too :D
-
I'll wager I've read far more about the Secession and Civil War than you have.
Highly doubtful. I may be just out of highschool, that doesn't mean I'm a handsomehunk though.
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.
Who the **** do you think I learned from?
Mary ****in poppins?
Many people are led to believe that the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery.
The civil war was about slavery. Any other reason you can possibly think of points directly back to slavery. The Economics of Slavery. The State's rights to keep slaves...
It goes on and on.
Most Southerners did not believe in slavery and it probably would have been abolished within 20 years anyway.
There's nothing to say to this but bull ****. The reason the south kept slaves while the North abolished it was because the south believed in slavery. At anyone time the southern people could have easily over thrown the Southern aristocracy and abolished slavery.
But they didn't. Think about that one.
My question to you is-why would so many Southerners be willing to die for something they did not have?
Because they were led to believe that the attacks were a general attack on the South's way of life.
Anyone who didn't fight was a coward and didn't want to fight for their land.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Highly doubtful.
Highly likely. It was a hobby of mine long before you were born. LONG before.
Try this one; 10 Civil War historians on why the South lost. See if ANY point to the Souther Constitution.
Why the South Lost the Civil War (http://www.thehistorynet.com/ah/blwhysouthlost/)
Here's another to widen your horizons on the origin of the Civil War.
A Jeffersonian View of the Civil War (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html)
-
This discussion reminds me of an article I've recently read:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/usa04.html#usa1104i
greetings
-
Originally posted by Toad
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?
Is the ship foundering?
Normally, abandonment prior to command decison is considered cowardice or deriliction of duty. In the absence of command and faced with obvious evidence of immininent sinking abandonment is appropriate.
I see the ship is afloat, I see the idiot captian is still in command, I see damage control parties at work, I see the ship may survive. To abondon would be desertion... I may keep an eye on the boat station and my section chief, but I ain't diving over the rail just yet.
;)
-
Matter of perspective Hang.
She may not be under the water yet, but my socks sure are getting wet.
-
Nobodies diving over the rail. Skuzzy was asking what would it take; it'd take abridgement of signficant parts of the Constitution.
Suppose they suspended the 1st and started jailing newspapers editors for printing editorials disfavorable to the administration in 2015. Along with that they suspended the 4th and searched anyone's home anytime, anywhere without warrant. At the same time they do away with the 6th and just toss you into jail with no due process, no trial.
What you gonna do then? I suspect that many of us will toss out minor differences like political nametags and oppose the tyranny. You and I, opposite on so many current issues, probably see this situation the same way, eh?
-
The term Civil War is a misnomer. The South did not instigate a rebellion. Thirteen southern states in 1860-61 simply chose to secede from the Union and go their own way, like the thirteen colonies did when they seceded from Britain. A more accurate name for the war that took place between the northern and southern American states is the War for Southern Independence. Mainstream historiography presents the victors’ view, an account that focuses on the issue of slavery and downplays other considerations.
I was reading the link you gave and actually taking it seriously up until I read this paragraph. I'm going to stop here and refuse to read any further into this bull ****.
Try this one; 10 Civil War historians on why the South lost. See if ANY point to the Souther Constitution.
Almost all Civil War Historians focus on only the civil war and immediate events after and before. They might focus further back, but only tracing slavery.
I would highly doubt there are that many people out there as intelligent as I am to pick out the real problems.
Highly likely. It was a hobby of mine long before you were born. LONG before.
And I know all of this information because I've never ever read a single book about the Civil War. I've never studied history at all. I only know that Lincoln was president during that time because it was brought up at a party once.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Toad
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.
Huh? Thats the same thing I said when nominating Jackson for "General of the Year" award in the "Best Commanders Evar" thread.
Laser, your arrogance is clouding your comprehension. The slavery issue was brought up by Lincoln 2/3 of the way through the war as a wedge to drive the people of the south apart. The emancipation proclomation, while not something he was against, was a political tool used in hopes of formenting a rebellion among the slaves against the owners in the hopes of further crippling the souths ability to sustain the war.
The revisionist's of the past 50 years have done a rather good job of convincing people that slavery was the main issue that brought war, when it was not.
-
The revisionist's of the past 50 years have done a rather good job of convincing people that slavery was the main issue that brought war, when it was not.
No, it is just the opposite. More and More increasingly, the reason for the Civil war has diverged from Slavery to other issues.
Don't act like you or I have never heard this before. I used to think the exact same way. I could point to all issues that I thought (key word there) had nothing to do with slavery.
It took a great History Professor to convince me otherwise. (This man had forgotten more about the Civil war then you or I will ever know combined).
I tried arguing him down mid class about the reasons for the civil war. I must have had 10 or 15 reasons. Every single one he specifically pointed back as Slavery being the cause of it. The connections weren't vague either. He pointed out slavery as the direct cause of it.
Needless to say, I came out at the end of the class very embarassed. I went to research all of these things (no way was a professor going to top me). I honestly had to come back the next day to admit he's correct.
The major tendency for young people is simplicity. But as you get older you think that things can't possibly be simple. You demand complexity.
Same thing goes for the Civil War. As you get older you try to see things as being complex. But the truth of the matter is it just isn't.
Slavery was the only cause of the Civil War.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I was reading the link you gave and actually taking it seriously up until I read this paragraph. I'm going to stop here and refuse to read any further into this bull ****.
[/b]
And you wonder why I struggle to take you seriously. You don't have to agree; you have to consider. Your willingness to read and consider views that don't match your previously held conclusions is duly noted and not at all suprising.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Almost all Civil War Historians focus on only the civil war and immediate events after and before. They might focus further back, but only tracing slavery.
[/b]
In other words, NONE of the 10 Civil War historians even mention the South's Constitution as a reason for the loss of the war, so you dismiss them too.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I would highly doubt there are that many people out there as intelligent as I am to pick out the real problems.
[/b]
I have no doubt. I eagerly await your book on the subject. Do let me know when you publish.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
And I know all of this information because I've never ever read a single book about the Civil War.
Well, your posts to date at least support that statement.
-
Liz, I hope you don't think I'm plagiarizing you. I don't recall even seeing your comment on Jackson.
As for Lasersailor.... I'm guessing there's no use trying to discuss anything with him. He's made up his mind and has no need of historical fact.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
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?
From a soon to be high school sophomore this is what it is to me-A way of telling the British WE ARE a union and WE WILL stand up against you. We can govern ourselves without any help from you. We don't need your taxes or your BS rules and laws. This is our nation to rule and we will do it. We desire independence and we will have it.
Close or way off?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sandy, Lincoln obviously did disagree.
However, I pose you the question I posed in the other thread:
Where in the Constitution does it delegate to the Federal Government the power to militarily force States to remain in the Union?
Because that power is not specifically enumerated, the 10th Amenedment would apply, would it not?
I don't believe there's anything in the Constitution to prevent a state from attempting secession (again).
-
Laser, you're out of your element.
-
Originally posted by Toad
In other words, NONE of the 10 Civil War historians even mention the South's Constitution as a reason for the loss of the war, so you dismiss them too.
The South lost the war because they started it at Ft. Sumter.
If they had not, I do not believe Lincoln could have rallied support for a war. A quiet secession was the way to go.
-
http://www.scv.org/
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The South lost the war because they started it at Ft. Sumter.
If they had not, I do not believe Lincoln could have rallied support for a war. A quiet secession was the way to go.
You are very right Sandman.
-
Ahh... Lincoln.."The great Centralizer"
He was actually the beginning of the end of the Constitution as it was written.
A few of my thoughts.
The term "Civil War" is way innaccurate..civil war refers to fighting inside of a single country..this was a war of two soveriegn nations.
It was started by Lincoln..He was warned that US Ships were not to enter into Charleston Harbor.
No part of the Constitution prohibited a state from leaving the union.
I'm from the south...I believe that states rights and bullying by the northern states were the main reasons this all started. Slavery is probrably one of the many, but not the first and foremost. Remember history is written by the victorious not the loser.
My problem with the whole "civil war" thing is what happened after the war. How the south was degraded and taken advantage of by the Govenment and the carpet baggers. Made to jump through hurdles to gain admission back into the union. It was low, vengeful, and just wrong.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, it is just the opposite. More and More increasingly, the reason for the Civil war has diverged from Slavery to other issues.
Don't act like you or I have never heard this before. I used to think the exact same way. I could point to all issues that I thought (key word there) had nothing to do with slavery.
It took a great History Professor to convince me otherwise. (This man had forgotten more about the Civil war then you or I will ever know combined).
I tried arguing him down mid class about the reasons for the civil war. I must have had 10 or 15 reasons. Every single one he specifically pointed back as Slavery being the cause of it. The connections weren't vague either. He pointed out slavery as the direct cause of it.
Needless to say, I came out at the end of the class very embarassed. I went to research all of these things (no way was a professor going to top me). I honestly had to come back the next day to admit he's correct.
The major tendency for young people is simplicity. But as you get older you think that things can't possibly be simple. You demand complexity.
Same thing goes for the Civil War. As you get older you try to see things as being complex. But the truth of the matter is it just isn't.
Slavery was the only cause of the Civil War.
I think you should read more books about the Civil War, and depend less on what you heard at a party or the believes of a single history teacher.(BTW, I think, and I could be wrong here, that high schools have teachers, and collages have professers)
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
I'm from the south...I believe that states rights and bullying by the northern states were the main reasons this all started. Slavery is probrably one of the many, but not the first and foremost. Remember history is written by the victorious not the loser.
States rights were part and parcel of the issues that brought Secession to a head and brought about the Civil War, but bullying had nothing to do with it. The Civil War was coming from the time they started dividing up the new lands in the western US and arguing the issues of slavery vs free states. The old compromises werent holding. Lincoln was always against the idea of slavery, but was of the opinion that time would deal the death blow to the institution, that interference was not only unnecessary, but potentially harmful to the Union and the safety of the citizens of slave states if they were freed. I lay most of the blame for igniting things past saving on Stephen Douglas. His deal making pushed the hottest issues of the day onto the front burner and caused tempers across the country to flare at a time when they were already hot to start with.
-
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdouglas.htm
-
Lasersailor, you got a pretty one-sided point of view. Not saying your completely wrong, I just think that if you cant argue both sides, you cannot effectively argue one.
Slavery was the issue which led to secession. Northern industrialism led to the war. In the end, ole Dixie was doomed for many reasons, but the truth of what was gained by our civil war is both important and in some ways, hard to fully understand. The enforced freedom of the slaves made life difficult for them and possibly is still making life difficult for our minorities, I am no expert on anything, especially this. I have read that Lincoln didn't intend to free the slaves, and in truth he didn't. The emancipation proclimation wasn't a legally binding document, it was a political, and partially, a military ploy. But in the end, right was done in this matter. Waiting for the southern aristocracy to come to thier senses might have taken quite a while, but had such been done and they been freed in a more organized manner, and during a calmer and more solvent time for our nation, things may have turned out better. But, again, I am going off on a tangent here, and am quite probably wrong about many things.
Many people in the south still hold to the ideal of the confederacy, and not as a nation of slave holders. Its the thought that we lost a war to a bunch of yankees that really gets in our craw. :p
-
Originally posted by Toad
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.
LOL confederacy is like the Germans in WW2, plus they had cooler uniforms and weapons to boot!
-
Truth is like picking berries, if you look at the tree from only one angle you'll miss a lot of berries.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/
-
.(BTW, I think, and I could be wrong here, that high schools have teachers, and collages have professers)
Good call. :aok
I think you should read more books about the Civil War, and depend less on what you heard at a party or the believes of a single history teacher.(
I was being sarcastic. I know that Sarcasm is a new topic to broach for you guys. :rofl
I used to agree with every single thing you've said about the reasons and causes for the start and end of the war. I was so confident in what I knew that I was willing to step infront of an entire class and try to prove the Professor wrong.
I pretty much got smacked like a red headed step child.
Just because I have an opinion that is different than yours, doesn't mean that I haven't looked at all viewpoints.
And you wonder why I struggle to take you seriously. You don't have to agree; you have to consider. Your willingness to read and consider views that don't match your previously held conclusions is duly noted and not at all suprising.
I was considering! I was reading every single word and paragraph. But I just got to there and I had to stop. I took a quick look past it and saw that it got even worse.
I don't believe there's anything in the Constitution to prevent a state from attempting secession (again).
Like I have said many times, the founding or seceding of people from a government is not found in the constitution.
How many more times will I have to say it?
-
So would California count as a Southern or Nothern state in the next Civil War?
-
i expect the other 49 states will succeed from california before they get around to each other.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
From another thread that wandered a bit off topic. However, it's a powerful question..
The question rather than it's answer poses a question from me...
"Why?"
Does the south require a seperate nation.. or is it time for a 'new union'? What are the key current motivations to rise in rebellion against the current federal republic?
I live in the South and I haven't heard talk of secession or anything of the sort. Even in 1861 Alabama didn't want to secede. I think it passed by a very narrow margin of votes. Woulda been hard to not secede after Mississippi and Florida did. After that it was like a domino effect for the other states. Am not very knowledgeable about how the other states viewed secession, but Alabama almost didn't secede, the main pressure coming from her neighbors.
*Used to have a good link that talked about that, but I did write it down and now that has disappeared - (may be wrong about the exact vote number outcome.)
Change of subject:
About secession, to me it just makes sense that after the war, some kind of provision would be in place to make secession unlawful. I believe this is what Toad is talking about, and he is asking about if and where it exists. Or that he is claiming there is nothing in the present day constitution that specifically deals with secession. Is this correct Toad? There have been no amendments? It is my understanding at the time of the War Between the States, secession was not unconstitutional.
Whether it's there or not, I believe the US would not allow it in any event. Even if the Feds allowed it, secession by a state would probably be met with the same enthusiasm as making Washington DC into a state.
Les
-
Originally posted by Toad
Liz, I hope you don't think I'm plagiarizing you. I don't recall even seeing your comment on Jackson.
Well, not plagarizm so to say, but I thought perhaps I had inspired you to take a look at it. It weird in that its almost verbatim. Of course, I couldn't remember the name of the hills.:D
-
"Furthermore, I've thought about this alot and have come to the conlusion that had Jackson not been mortally wounded at Chacellorsville and been present at Gettysburg, the US of A would be a very different country, a good bit smaller perhaps. The crucial point IMHO at Gettysburg was the first day. Had Jackson been in command on the left instead of Ewell he would've taken that hill (on the left) and the whole union line would've been untenable, hence the Union wouldn't have had the high ground, been forced to attack and lost. The door to Washington being open, I think Lee would've taken it."
From:
Greatest Commander Thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=154812&referrerid=1760)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nobodies diving over the rail. Skuzzy was asking what would it take; it'd take abridgement of signficant parts of the Constitution.
At the same time they do away with the 6th and just toss you into jail with no due process, no trial.
Guantanamo! Patriot act!
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Guantanamo! Patriot act!
Has the patriot act caused any US citizens not found fighting for the other side to be jailed at Guantanimo?
Is Guantanimo a place they put people who break the law in the US?
-
Originally posted by Toad
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
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.
OK, there were similarities -- but you're leavignout the CRUCIAL difference. The powers of the central government were effectively neutered by the requirement of a supermajority (off the top of my head ?2/3?) for ANY binding action. The net effect was that nothing could be accomplished as a governmental unit.
In that sense, a loose confederation of states simply cannot work in modern life. Every unmet political need that made the Articles of COnfederation impractical ist still present -- and in the modern world, those factors would combiine to make life infintiely worse in a Confederation now.
You think political battles are tough now -- can you imagine passing any law in congress if the vote requirement was teh same as it now takes to break a filibuster?
And look at the excellent example of the EU. Modern states, each with their own developed language and culture. Even with the competitive pressures a UNITED States applies, those guys cant get anything together -- adn tehy have a bureacracy that makes the US look like pikers for inefficiency, secrecy, nonaccountability, and waste.
-
Battle of Antietam (Sept17, 1862) 26,134 Americans died in 12 hours of fighting. Is there any other day in history where so many Americans died?
P.S. I looked back more into the battle. It lasted from 05:00 to 19:00 hours. The number of 26,134 were casualties, I can't seem to find if those numbers are the dead and wounded. Most of my books are still packed after the move.
-
AFAIK, the casualties numbered over 23,000. That's both wounded and killed. I believe the number that died was closer to 4,000.
-
Has anyone here actually read the constitution? ... Excuse me if you say yes, and I say you need a refresher course.
Question: Did the south break/bend any of these provisions? ... And bring up amendments that were passed after the fact is just plain ignorant.
Article. I.
Section. 10.
Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
edit link added
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
-
I think the question is/was can a State withdraw from the Union. Is there anything in the Constitution that says "once a State joins the Union it cannot withdraw"?
If a State CAN withdraw do any of your quoted provisions apply after said withdrawal?
-
Thats all well and good, but what you spelled out is only in effect so long as the States recognize the power of the Constitution. If you agree they have the right to withdraw from that resolution that binds the states together, then once they have done so the rules of the Constitution have no hold upon them anymore. The question is, what in the Constitution prevents the act of secession. The answer is nothing.
Lincoln took a stretch, and tried to make a case that the founding fathers never intended to allow the withdrawl of states. That to do so jeapordized national security and the foundations of our country. Now what he did is precedent, because he won. That makes him right yanno. Lincoln was a great man, undoubtedly. But had the North lost the war, he would have been seen in a far different light I'm thinking.
-
Not that I am aware of.
But the constitution IS a giant catch 22 if you read it carefully.
To fulfill all the requirements to legally withdraw are nearly impossible ... there are just to many binding clauses (and this was recognized by many southern states) that create the breaking of the oath of allegiance and/or ratification of the several states.
One must not confuse articles/statements in the preamble with those in the constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that lack of expressed denial does NOT endorse approval.
-
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.
I can't find any place that the power to militarily force a State to remain in the Union is delegated to the United States. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
More importantly and more to the point, there is no Constitutional delegation of power to the Federal Government to forcefully (militarily) keep a State from secession or leaving the Union.
That's my point and so far no one has shown otherwise.
The Gaurantee Clause has been interpreted to authorize the Federal Govt to keep states in the Union. What are they teaching in civics classes these days?
-
Jefferson, who called Virginia his "country," planted the seeds of the secession doctrine with his Kentucky Resolution of 1798, written in protest to the Alien and Sedition laws:
"[T]he several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of certain amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for general purposes, delegated to that government certain powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect."12
Hannis Taylor called Jefferson's compact doctrine the "Pandora's Box" out of which flew the "closely related doctrines of nullification and secession," which he notes, with less than perfect foresight, "were extinguished once and forever by the Civil War."13 Jefferson's biographer, Willard Sterne Randall agrees:
"[Jefferson] forthrightly held that where the national government exercised powers not specifically delegated to it, each state 'has an equal right to judge . . . the mode and measure of redress.' . . . He was, he assured Madison, 'confident in the good sense of the American people,' but if they did not rally round 'the true principles of our federal compact,' he was 'determined . . . to sever ourselves from that union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government . . . in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.'"14
-
A few years ago, I started readinga new book about the roots of the Civil War that had a challenging conclusion -- that the documentary evidence of what seccessionists said BEFORE teh war clearly emphasized slavery as a cause (with states' rights as enabling secession but not motivating it), but AFTER the war they shifted their ground to emphasize the states' rights aspect. Unfortunately, my civil war fever has faded and I cannot track down teh title -- maybe someone herre is afmiliar with it?
IN any case, for those who feel slavery was not the cause -- can you really concieve of the war happening if all states had legalized slavery? Historically, I just cant see that happening. Slavery was THE hot button topic before 1865, so hot button that J.Q. Adams was censored and prevented from submitting petitions (a right CLEARLY and DIRECTLY permitted in the constitution) because he had the boldness to submit ones from constituents abhorring slavery. Seccesssion happened simply because Lincoln, who was perceived as a radical on slavery, was elected. He expressly was motivated by the drive for unity, not by slavery during his early presidency; and the emancipation proclamation didnt free a single slave in the US. It only affected slaves in rebelling states which did not rejoin by a given date; he used it as a form of economic and especially international political warfare.