ADVERTISEMENT

Seriously...How many people take the time to read other points

You are also wrong about any "conditional" ratification of the US Constitution by Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island. For example, in New York's Constitutional Convention on 24 July 1788, Anti-Federalist John Lansing, Jr. moved that a resolution be adopted giving New York the right to secede from the Union if certain amendments were not adopted within a certain number of years. Alexander Hamilton, who had anticipated such a proposal, had written to James Madison several days earlier and posed the question to him. Madison, in his capacity as a Congressman, had replied, indicating that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid. Hamilton read the letter to the convention, and Lansing's motion was defeated on the 25th by a vote of 31 to 28.
 
So since the first slave owner in what was to be the United States was a black man. And since the colonies were governed by the British. And since the vast majority of African slaves were captured and sold into slavery by black Africans. What about the Neo-African's and the Neo-British? What are we to think about those countrymen who captured and sold their own race for profit?

The U.S. comprised of only about a tenth of the worlds slave trade at the time. So where is the outcry over slavery as a whole on this planet?

Oh, does it only matter that it was done in this country?

I only say that tongue and cheek to highlight the hypocrisy of the Neo-Confederate moniker that many liberals use when posed with a problem. You show your colors and/or ignorance each time you use it. It shows how little regard for truth you truly have. You want so badly for the history of the civil war to be about slavery, you can't see past the sources of your opinion and agenda. I cannot change history to suit my agenda. I can only see history as it is and how it was.

The great ideology that the country divided itself and killed over 600,000 people over freeing slaves is a bit naive. It was not a great crusade to free slaves. Again, it was a crusade to maintain state sovereignty and freedom. Too many families gave their lives and the lives of their son's and daughters to maintain freedom at the time.

It doesn't change anything. It doesn't make the history of slavery less important. But a black persons lot in life in 2015 has nothing to do with it.

You are wrong regarding the Neo-confederate "moniker". We use the term to describe a person or group who attempts to portray the confederates and their actions in the Civil War in a positive manner.
 
Whitepug, take a few and read this. We could not have a Revolution against England and do the same thing to ourselves:

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government,” said Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Just as a group has a right to form, so too does it have a right to disband, to subdivide itself, or withdraw from a larger unit.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison held that the U.S. Constitution was a compact of sovereign states which had delegated very specific powers but not sovereignty to a central government-powers which could be recalled any time. By international law sovereignty cannot be surrendered by implication, only by an express act. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any express renunciation of sovereignty by the states.

In an article entitled “The Foundations and Meaning of Secession” which appeared in the Stetson Law Review (1986), Pepperdine University Law Professor H. Newcomb Morse provides convincing evidence that the American states do indeed have the right to secede and that the Confederate states did so legally.

First, three of the original thirteen states-Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island-ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each of these states explicitly retained the right to secede. By accepting the right of these three states to leave the Union, has the United States not tacitly accepted the right of any state to leave?

Second, over the years numerous states have nullified acts of the central government judged to be unconstitutional. These instances where national laws have been nullified give credence to the view that the compact forming the Union has already been breached and that states are morally and legally free to leave.

Third, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid a state from leaving the Union. According to the tenth amendment to the Constitution, anything that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed. Therefore, all states have a Constitutional right to secede.

However, two new constitutional questions concerning secession emerged shortly after the Civil War ended. First, under military occupation and control, six former Confederate states were coerced into enacting new constitutions containing clauses prohibiting secession. But in the eyes of most legal scholars, agreements of this sort made under duress are voidable at the option of the aggrieved party. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing to prevent these six states from amending their constitutions again.

During this same period of time and also under duress, the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was ostensibly ratified. Although this amendment does not explicitly forbid secession, some have argued that it does so implicitly.

However, the fourteenth amendment is tainted by the highly questionable legality of the Union’s invasion of the South. Some legal scholars question whether the fourteenth amendment was ever constitutionally ratified.

According to the Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our Creator with “certain unalienable rights” including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that is the case, then it is not much of a stretch to argue that the right of secession is such a right.

Ultimately, whether or not a state is allowed to secede is neither a legal question nor a constitutional question, but rather a matter of political will.

You're right about that, but that same political will allowed Lincoln to use military force to undo secession. However, on the Constitutional question of secession, the states did not have a right to secede. Secession was completely contrary to the rule of law.
 
It was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."

Yes, I agree with Jefferson and Calhoun and some of the others on state sovereignty. Yes, it was only statements, but 3-4 Northern states
had legal clauses proclaiming that they held the right to secede in their very charters. If it could not happen, how did they have these
clauses? Sure after it's all over and close to 3/4 of a million dead we are all Monday morning quarterbacks, but we're discussing the finer points of Constitutional law as if it was cut and dried when it clearly wasn't.
 
It was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."

Yes, I agree with Jefferson and Calhoun and some of the others on state sovereignty. Yes, it was only statements, but 3-4 Northern states
had legal clauses proclaiming that they held the right to secede in their very charters. If it could not happen, how did they have these
clauses? Sure after it's all over and close to 3/4 of a million dead we are all Monday morning quarterbacks, but we're discussing the finer points of Constitutional law as if it was cut and dried when it clearly wasn't.

Jefferson's thinking on government evolved over time, experience and responsibility. As president he came to believe in centralized government far more than he did before the weight of being POTUS was on his shoulders. He ended up expanding executive powers and the federal government.
 
You're right about that, but that same political will allowed Lincoln to use military force to undo secession. However, on the Constitutional question of secession, the states did not have a right to secede. Secession was completely contrary to the rule of law.

Lincoln did not start the war. Once in it he had no intention of allowing the south to maintain a slave nation though.
The South was never going to win militarily. It was men like McClellan who wanted a negotiated resolution that allowed The Confederacy to remain an intact slave nation which posed the most risk to his vision of an intact slave free United States emerging from the death and pain of un-civil war.
 
So, what are we going to do about what we've learned today? Slavery was abolished. Check. The crooks from the North whipped the crooks from the South. Check. But, have human motivations and politics (or marketing or any other manipulation of the populace) changed that much over the past couple centuries? We're on the global stage now, whether we like it or not. What have we really accomplished for ourselves and for each other above and beyond the course that was supposedly set for us 150 years ago? Better schools with graduates better prepared to compete in the global market? Better political relations around the world? Less violent crime here at home? More efficient prison system? Better control of our borders? Do we now (should we?) attract a better quality of immigrants? Where are we going and why? Are we really more concerned than ever about "what's in it for me?" How's that working out for us?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1966septemberdawg
So, what are we going to do about what we've learned today? Slavery was abolished. Check. The crooks from the North whipped the crooks from the South. Check. But, have human motivations and politics (or marketing or any other manipulation of the populace) changed that much over the past couple centuries? We're on the global stage now, whether we like it or not. What have we really accomplished for ourselves and for each other above and beyond the course that was supposedly set for us 150 years ago? Better schools with graduates better prepared to compete in the global market? Better political relations around the world? Less violent crime here at home? More efficient prison system? Better control of our borders? Do we now (should we?) attract a better quality of immigrants? Where are we going and why? Are we really more concerned than ever about "what's in it for me?" How's that working out for us?

I am a historian and am only interested in the personalities and the controversies of the past. You would do better to pose those questions to the Republican front-runner, Mr. Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boost Assendahm
It was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."

Yes, I agree with Jefferson and Calhoun and some of the others on state sovereignty. Yes, it was only statements, but 3-4 Northern states
had legal clauses proclaiming that they held the right to secede in their very charters. If it could not happen, how did they have these
clauses? Sure after it's all over and close to 3/4 of a million dead we are all Monday morning quarterbacks, but we're discussing the finer points of Constitutional law as if it was cut and dried when it clearly wasn't.
A law can't be declared unconstitutional until after someone has standing to challenge it, and that can't happen until the law is enforced or put into action. So the question of secession couldn't have been settled until a state actually seceded. The same is true of a state's constitution.
 
I am a historian and am only interested in the personalities and the controversies of the past. You would do better to pose those questions to the Republican front-runner, Mr. Trump.

Aren't we supposed to learn from history, particularly our history? And what does Trump have to do with our circumstances? He seems to be just another voice in the wind of spin, telling us what we already know. We the people have elected our leaders for a considerable portion of our history. Have we really learned much more than how to operate our newer technology? "We" (at least we claim credit) won multiple wars on our way into global prosperity. And now they tell us, that prosperity is teetering on the brink? Won't this be history in a few years?
 
I remember as a child in the 80s hearing my dad talk politics with members of the family at holiday gatherings, coworkers when I'd visit him at work, and other random people in random places. I don't remember differing opinions leading to as much hate as I witness today.

Seems like back then people who disagreed could engage in a debate without dismissing each other as human beings or even Americans. The team politics thing seemed to really take root in the 90s with political talk radio exploding as more of a pacifying and pandering platform than discussion of political news on any objective level. Then the rest of the media seemed to really take sides openly and it's been downhill from there.

The sad part is that many intelligent people would rather go down with the ship than to admit anyone on their side is ever wrong about anything. Even in the rare cases they are willing to admit that someone on their team is wrong, they immediately deflect by suggesting that the other side did something bad too as if that cancels out their own side's bad deed. It's quite juvenile.

Very good post. Unfortunately, it is not just politics that generates so much hatred. It's almost everything, from which sports team you support, to the religion you profess to, to the city/state/neighborhood you live in. Our "leaders" have set a poor example, with both parties equally responsible. It's really sad, and I don't know how it is ever going to get better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawg 'n IT
Very good post. Unfortunately, it is not just politics that generates so much hatred. It's almost everything, from which sports team you support, to the religion you profess to, to the city/state/neighborhood you live in. Our "leaders" have set a poor example, with both parties equally responsible. It's really sad, and I don't know how it is ever going to get better.

Gerrymandered Congressional districts has a huge role in the venom in politics today.
Elected Reps know they can pander to the narrow group they've carved out for themselves and win almost unopposed as long as they care to pretend to serve the nation's interest.
Knowing they really don't have to worry about elections, they can pander away to special interest with little concern for their hides.
 
Most of the long time posters hate anybody who isn't radically right wing, white and southern. If you read this board before the housecleaning you know as much. It's not like there was any real balance or both sides being equally guilty of close mindedness.
You could agree with many of them on 5 things then point out where they were wrong in calling The POTUS a spy or any number of things and they'd be all over you.
I blame site management more than anybody. They absolutely let the worst offenders run the board for years.
Why do you use the word "hate". I'm conservative and have posted here a long time. I don't hate anybody. I've been called some hateful things on this board by your side, but I know that you (or at least I hope) can't actually hate me because we don't know each other. Quit confusing disagreement with hate. The same thing happens whenever anybody disagrees with the president. They are immediately branded as racist. Tiresome.
 
Gerrymandered Congressional districts has a huge role in the venom in politics today.
Elected Reps know they can pander to the narrow group they've carved out for themselves and win almost unopposed as long as they care to pretend to serve the nation's interest.
Knowing they really don't have to worry about elections, they can pander away to special interest with little concern for their hides.
That's been going on forever. Civility and manners are the oil of human interaction. Without them there is friction. The rise of boorish behavior just begets more of the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boost Assendahm
Why do you use the word "hate". I'm conservative and have posted here a long time. I don't hate anybody. I've been called some hateful things on this board by your side, but I know that you (or at least I hope) can't actually hate me because we don't know each other. Quit confusing disagreement with hate. The same thing happens whenever anybody disagrees with the president. They are immediately branded as racist. Tiresome.

Come on, save to plea of ignorance.
If you've really read here for long you know full well what I mean.
 
That's been going on forever. Civility and manners are the oil of human interaction. Without them there is friction. The rise of boorish behavior just begets more of the same.

It really heated up in Clinton's first term, and has continued since. That is also when The K-Street project and Gerrymandering really took hold.
 
Descendants can personalize any side of any war ever fought.
That can't be considered when judging history.
His Dad was a Nazi, sorry, he fought for a noble cause...no, no, no. It would be impossible to judge history in any rationale fashion with that restriction.
I can't speak to your ancestors as individuals. I can state all those on The Confederate side were on the wrong side of history and they fought for a terrible cause. Was that their intention ? I can't make that judgment without factual information on the individual.

How stupid can you possibly be, Helen? What was the "terrible" cause the Confederates were fighting for in the Civil War? Are you capable of articulating your point without citing a sanitized, romanticized pro-Union rhetoric? For f's sake, don't let the facts get in the way of the truth.
 
How stupid can you possibly be, Helen? What was the "terrible" cause the Confederates were fighting for in the Civil War? Are you capable of articulating your point without citing a sanitized, romanticized pro-Union rhetoric? For f's sake, don't let the facts get in the way of the truth.

The terrible cause was treason. Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

It is both a fact and truth. Every confederate, from Jefferson Davis down to the lowliest private soldier, was a traitor to the United States.
 
The terrible cause was treason. Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

It is both a fact and truth. Every confederate, from Jefferson Davis down to the lowliest private soldier, was a traitor to the United States.

So it's all well and good to freely join, but woe be unto thee who decides to freely leave? What, is the United States all of a sudden Jonestown or the Branch Dividians?
 
Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. - "That's Whitepugs 'go to' post. Some people save the same quotes to re-post. That's his.
SO while it's OK for Lincoln to stir up war against the people, it's NOT OK to fight back. While abolitionists and anarchists got funding/arms and tacit approval- "How DARE anyone rise up to take arms?" (Said in a forceful indignant manner)
Lee saw what we had coming long before he resigned his commission
and I daresay he was a better military tactician AND military historian than a liberal blogger dragging the handle of Whitepug around.
And if we are being honest isn't our current POTUS guilty of treason if we should follow this quote to the fullest? Did we not just give a country whose ruler avows 'death to America' millions in aid and help further their nuclear
capability? And turning loose people we have captured back onto the battlefield? Think about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StoneColdKillerDawg
Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. - "That's Whitepugs 'go to' post. Some people save the same quotes to re-post. That's his.
SO while it's OK for Lincoln to stir up war against the people, it's NOT OK to fight back. While abolitionists and anarchists got funding/arms and tacit approval- "How DARE anyone rise up to take arms?" (Said in a forceful indignant manner)
Lee saw what we had coming long before he resigned his commission
and I daresay he was a better military tactician AND military historian than a liberal blogger dragging the handle of Whitepug around.
And if we are being honest isn't our current POTUS guilty of treason if we should follow this quote to the fullest? Did we not just give a country whose ruler avows 'death to America' millions in aid and help further their nuclear
capability? And turning loose people we have captured back onto the battlefield? Think about it.

I keep posting Article III, Section 3 because there are several people on this board who challenge me to cite the federal law with regard to treason.

Lincoln did not stir up war against the people. If you really understood American history, you would know that Lincoln tried desperately to preserve the Union, including pledging not to harm the institution of slavery. Anyone can take on the federal government---John Brown attacked a federal armory and was hung for it---but if you lose, you will be lighted down by history as a traitor to your country,

As I have said before, I don't engage in this black/white thinking that you do---I acknowledge the good and the bad in historical figures and take a balanced approach. Robert E. Lee was a combat engineer and, as a US Army officer, served with distinction. He must have been a great civil engineer because several of his fortifications are still intact, including Fort Pulaski in Georgia. However, Lee was not a historian and it is foolish of you to try to make that claim.

Since you appear to be a fan of Robert E. Lee, I will give you two quotes from a letter he wrote to his son Custis Lee on 23 January 1861:

"As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution."

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."


If you feel President Obama is guilty of treason, I encourage you charge him in federal court. I would be very interested to see how that pans out.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT