Question about the south

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
Nah, twist it all you like.

I still disagree.

The South did not attempt to overthrow the government of the Union or the North. They attempted to withdraw from the Union, leaving the North's form of government unchanged for the North.

in·sur·rec·tion
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin insurrection-, insurrectio, from insurgere
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. Open fighting against authority (as one's own government) -- see REBELLION

Of course it was insurrection.

But feel free to disagree with the US Congress, the legislatures of the southern states, Webster's dictionary, and anyone else.

As the original 13 were not attempting to topple the crown, that wasn't insurrection either, right?

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
in·sur·rec·tion
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin insurrection-, insurrectio, from insurgere
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. Open fighting against authority (as one's own government) -- see REBELLION

As the original 13 were not attempting to topple the crown, that wasn't insurrection either, right?

Hunh. Then it wasn't really the American Revolution. It was the 1st Successful American Insurrection. Or, the American Rebellion, if your English.

I'll be damned.

[Toad]

Yep, when the colonists rebelled against the English Crown, that was insurrection.

When a free and sovereign State decides to withdraw from a failed compact with other States AND the compact itself has no provision prohibiting such an action it is NOT insurrection.

As I said, the roots of our present overbearing Federalism lie in Lincoln's disregard for State's Rights.

Once more, with feeling:

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.

Show me the power delegated to the United States by the Constitution that directed Lincoln to invade the South to "save the Union".

In which Article or Amendement does it reside?

[Hangtime]

it would seem to me to be a very big point about nothing..

..the 'nothing' being that there has been NO ammendment SINCE the Civil War that precludes succession or abridges the rights of states to secede.

a VERY big point; that glaring nothing....

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Hunh. Then it wasn't really the American Revolution. It was the 1st Successful American Insurrection. Or, the American Rebellion, if your English.

I'll be damned.

Revolution:  the overthrow of a government by those who are governed.

According to some in this thread, since the crown was not overthrown, that would be correct.

But since in both the revolutionary war and the civil war, a smaller piece of a larger whole was trying to become independant, from the point of view of the larger whole, the smaller piece was in open rebellion against the larger, which is by definition insurrection.  

Hence the term 'rebels' was used to describe both the minitemen and  confederate fighters.    

I quoted the part of the Constitution that empowers the congress to put down insurrection, a part of the constitution signed by representatives of slave holding states. By becoming signatories states became united with, not independant from other states.

A free and sovereign state could tax foreign trade, keep troops and ships,  enter into treaties, alliances, or confederations; coin money; all things prohibited by the Federal Constitution, of which, once again, the slave holding states were signatories.

Still, the issue that was the base of all this was slavery, as described in documents (South Carolina was in full earlier in the thread) from Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

and Mississippi

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--

Now the declaration of Texas does have some other reasons, although Slavery is the first one mentioned and is mentioned frequently throughout the document. Texas does include greivances of lack of protection against Indian attacks and "Banditti" from Mexico. But it asserts that the reason for this lack of protection was because it was a slave holding state, and it seems that a strong reason for it's secession was it did not wish to be left alone in the south as a union outpost and felt it was more akin to the Confederacy.

[Toad]

You still trying to twist it?

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

But since in both the revolutionary war and the civil war, a smaller piece of a larger whole was trying to become independant, from the point of view of the larger whole, the smaller piece was in open rebellion against the larger, which is by definition insurrection.  

Hence the term 'rebels' was used to describe both the minitemen and  confederate fighters.

[/b]

Unfortunately for your comparison, the colonies did not enter VOLUNTARILY into an agreement with the Crown that clearly delineated each sides rights and responsibilities.

That makes all the difference.

This is NOT true in the case of the South. The Constitution clearly points out that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States.

Constitutionally, Lincoln and the North didn't have the "power" to invade the South.



the part of the Constitution that empowers the congress to put down insurrection, a part of the constitution signed by representatives of slave holding states. By becoming signatories states became united with, not independant from other states.

You might even say they entered a compact with the other states. And, as has been repeatedly pointed out:

1. The South did not invade or attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. They attempted to withdraw from the Union and that is something quite different. So your "insurrection" argument is lost; it's clearly shown the North invaded the South, not the other way round.

2. The Northern States had failed to abide by the compact. Clearly, undeniably failed to fulfill their obligations.

3. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that ever said a State cannot withdraw from the compact.

It's already been shown that Lincoln had no respect for the Constitution. His invasion of the South is perhaps the preeminent example. He's the President that made the Federal Government the bloated Borg machine it is today.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
You still trying to twist it?

the part of the Constitution that empowers the congress to put down insurrection, a part of the constitution signed by representatives of slave holding states. By becoming signatories states became united with, not independant from other states.

You might even say they entered a compact with the other states. And, as has been repeatedly pointed out:

1. The South did not invade or attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. They attempted to withdraw from the Union and that is something quite different. So your "insurrection" argument is lost; it's clearly shown the North invaded the South, not the other way round.

Rebel forces attacked the federal supply ship "Star of the West" in January.

Rebel forces siezed all but 2 army forts in the south, (Sumter and Pickens)
while Buchanan was still president.

Rebel forces fired on Ft. Sumter in April

Rebel forces attacked the Federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry in April

Armed insurrection had begun long before Union forces "invaded" the south in July, and even before Lincoln was president.

 
2. The Northern States had failed to abide by the compact. Clearly, undeniably failed to fulfill their obligations.[/B]

Note that the Consitution of the CSA does not have any passage allowing for secession from it, it merely parrots the US consitution but ads the passage from the Articles of Confederation that talks of "Sovereign and free states" and strengthens the institution of Slavery

The Confederates designed a counrty that strengthened slavery but the did not have a passage that allowed for secession should the greiveance be big enough.  Why?

Feb 8 thru 27, a peace conference between seceeding states and the Union was held.  The proposed article has 7 sections.

Section 1 marks 36° 30' north latitude as the boundary where slavery is allowed south and prohibited north.

Section 2 has to do with the expansion of US territory, and a double majority requirement, that is that the senators from slave states must pass by majority and the senators from free states must pass by majority.

Section 3 has to do with prohibiting the abolishment of slavery

Section 4 has to do with returning fugitive slaves

Section 5 prohibits the importation of foreign slaves

Section 6 require that all states must accept changes in the parts of the US Constitution that speaks of slavery issues, effectively giving any one state a veto power.

Section 7 requires that thee federal government buy fugitive slaves from owners whne the fugitives cannot be returned.

More proof that Slavery was the issue.

just straight forward, no twisting involved.

[Brenjen]

The Confederates designed a counrty that strengthened slavery but the did not have a passage that allowed for secession should the greiveance be big enough. Why?

 The question is, why should they? Joining either union was voluntary & so  leaving it should be too without having to spell it out.

 You mention rebel forces attacking federal positions & troops. Those were in Confederate territory & the federals were instructed to leave. No territory in the C.S.A belonged to the federal govt. after they left the Union. It was the Union who invaded. If the federals wanted peace, they should have left the positions they occupied in foreign territory when instructed to do so.

 Everyone keeps harping on slavery, it was only one facet of a larger issue, get over it. Lincoln would have kept slavery if the southern states had agreed to stay in the union, so apparently it wasn't THE issue for them. It was states rights all the way; 100%.

[lukster]

The reasons for the civil are not so important as the reasons the south lost. Understanding the loss of that war will go a long ways toward a different outcome next time around.

Seriously though, another civil war isn't likely to be a state vs state war. More likely to be worker vs corporation/government war as we've seen happen so many times throughout human history.

[midnight Target]

This is about the silliest argument I've seen on this board... I take that back, I've seen much sillier... but anyway.

 Slavery was THE isssue. There is no denying that. The best Toad has to offer is the compromises set up in the Constitution due to SLAVERY. His claim that the compromises set up the eventual crisis and were thus the "first domino" are laughable. The reason for the compromise was SLAVERY.

The "states rights" issue was SLAVERY. The South didn't secede due to tarifs. As Holden pointed out so deftly SLAVERY was there before the constitution, it precipitated the silly 3/5ths compromise and it was the reason for the huge separation between North and South.

Arguing that there would not have been a war if Lincoln hadn't refused the right of seccesion is like saying there wouldn't have been a shooting at the bank if only the cops weren't called to arrest the robbers.

[Brenjen]

Some people just refuse to see the forest for the trees.

[Suave]

Yep Holden's right. The southern states used to teach a revisionist history version of the civil war in public schools. My sisters went to school for a few years in charleston SC in the 70s, they've got lots of funny stories about it.

Even then it was very racially segregated. I remember us kids sitting on the porch eating watermelon with our hands like normal people eat fruit. And the neighbor lady came over in a big, igdignant huff telling my dad that he can't let us eat watermelon like that because that's how "******s" eat it.

It was so common to throw that word around that people might get offended if you took offense to it. I remember the icecream truck driver telling me that I better not forget to take my bigwheel back in the garage or a "******" will steal it. I remember getting slapped by my mom when I was 4 or 5 for saying that word, untill then I didn't know that there was anthing wrong with it. I learned that word before I even went to kindergarten, pretty sad statement.

[Brenjen]

I was born in L.A. & it's the same there. The word ****** is no different than spic or wop or kike or rag as a matter of fact, I have been called a cracker, honky, snowflake, whiteboy, saltine & many others...you don't see me crying foul over it. I never learned anything about "a revisionist history version of the civil war" & I attended public school in Arkansas for years.

 ( I bet the profanity filter even edits out ****** & not the others )

 Any of you fine upstanding people ever heard of racism? It's the same for everyone, blacks included. They are not above it or deserving of special treatment, but they get it anyway & that is wrong.


 Edit: SEE that word is not profanity if Honky isn't. I am offended & I think I'll sue

[Toad]

1. Lincoln and the Federal government DID NOT have an "enumerated power" in the Constitution to use force to keep any State in the Union.

2. There would have been no Civil War had the North not invaded the South.

3. Constitutional issue and one in which the South held the correct interpretation.

But they lost and now you have this omnipotent bloated bureaucracy ruling the States. Enjoy.

[Suave]

Originally posted by Brenjen
I was born in L.A. & it's the same there. The word ****** is no different than spic or wop or kike or rag as a matter of fact, I have been called a cracker, honky, snowflake, whiteboy, saltine & many others...you don't see me crying foul over it. I never learned anything about "a revisionist history version of the civil war" & I attended public school in Arkansas for years.

 ( I bet the profanity filter even edits out ****** & not the others )

 Any of you fine upstanding people ever heard of racism? It's the same for everyone, blacks included. They are not above it or deserving of special treatment, but they get it anyway & that is wrong.


 Edit: SEE that word is not profanity if Honky isn't. I am offended & I think I'll sue

This person missed my point entirely. You see where he came from the word ****** was offensive, or an insult. In Charleston 1975 our neighbors saw nothing wrong with it. It was just part of their lexicon. They would be taken aback if a local black person was offended by it, and if a white person was offended by it they'd probably get upset and feel insulted.

One of my sisters went to a black school, so she had black friends. Sometimes neighbors would call to warn us that we had "******s" in our yard.

I wonder how much charleston has changed since then, I wonder if there are still white and black schools there.

I remember when I went to Army basic training in 91 there were black trainees there from charleston, I tried to talk to them because I was born there, but they didn't much care for me or anybody with my skin color. I'm glad I didn't grow up in Charleston because if I had I would've probably bore the same attitute towards them as they did towards myself.