Posted on 12/20/2006 10:40:19 AM PST by MplsSteve
In response to Abraham Lincoln winning election as President of the United States as well as a list of grievances against the Federal govt, the state of South Carolina voted (thru a Convention) to secede from the United States of America.
The Convention was held in Charleston and issued a Declaration of Secession at the end of the convention. That document can be seen here:
http://www.thevrwc.org/historical/SouthCarolinaDeclarationofSecession.html
Comments or opinions - anyone?
Thus setting in motion the events that would eventually result in the outbreak of the War of Southern Rebellion just under 4 months later.
*grabs popcorn, passes it to Non-Sequitur*
Hey, just because we're on opposite sides, and you don't know that its proper name is the War of Northern Aggression, doesn't mean I'm not going to share my popcorn. :)
Trivia: The South Carolina Secession Convention was originally held in the state capital of Columbia, in Columbia's First Baptist Church. After the first day's session, rumors of a smallpox outbreak forced the delegates to move the convention to Charleston, where the Articles of Secession were eventually drafted and signed.
I worked for 5 1/2 years directly across the corner from that church. It was, amazingly enough, one of the few buildings in Columbia NOT burned by Sherman's troops on 17 February 1865 when they occupied the city (almost all of the rest of the downtown was burned to the ground). There is a historical plaque on the outside of the old part of the building designating its role in the Secession Convention.
The large new chapel of the church is where Strom Thurmond's funeral was held.
}:-)4
I still can't wait for Texas to secede.
Thanks (munch, munch) let me go get us a couple of beers and we'll wait for the usual suspects to show up and get this heah war under way. (Walks away whistling "Battle Cry of Freedom"..."the Union forever, hurrah, boy, hurrah...down with the traitors and up with the star...")
A state is made part of the union by ratification of the Constitution. I don't know of anything that says that a state can't revoke its ratification of the Constitution. Legal scholars of the day thought much the same way. After the rebellion, the US lost something very precious; before the war, it was referred to as 'these united States'. After the war it became the United States. Subtle but important difference, and the federal government has been exceeding its constitutionally enumerated powers ever since.
Less than a month later, Georgia seceded. The Secession Convention was held in the State House in Milledgeville, now home to Georgia Military College. A couple of years ago, GMC did a major bit of construction and recreated the legislative chambers where the vote to secede was made.
It's very beautiful, very well done, and worth a visit. After the renovation was completed, the Georgia General Assembly met there for a rare session outside Atlanta.
The Senate and House members made complete fools of themselves. While GMC Cadets stood at attention, the state's "leaders" acted like idiot, uncontrollable elementary school children on a field trip. They were such an embarrassment. I stood there watching them in disgust as they laughed and played on the steps of the Old Capitol Building. They lined up for pictures and even made sure they got all the women legislators in a photo of their own.
Meanwhile, the cadets stood there at attention, disciplined and looking smart - if unbearably hot - in their dress uniforms.
I'll never forget the spectacle of those fools on the steps that day. I was near to calling for a new convention in the old legislative chambers so that the rest of Georgia could secede from the legislators.
When I had the chance later to chastise some of them for it, I did. I told them they should have been ashamed. And like good politicians, they told me I was completely right and they were ashamed of their "fellow legislators" ... never beginning to realize that I absolutely meant them, too.
At any rate, if you can behave yourself better than an elected official, and are headed to Milledgeville, I strongly recommend a tour of the legislative chamber at GMC and the Old Governor's Mansion at Georgia College.
The most notorious of the 'usual suspects' was in at number 2.
Question: Do your antenna physically quiver when a War of Northern Aggression thread is posted or do you just get some sort of high frequency jolt to the cranium?
Good point.
I'd like to read a current debate between legal scholars as to whether a state could secede from the Union now.
It'd definitely be interesting.
You might want to read the Constitution again. A state is made a part of the Union only by being admitted by the other states as expressed through a vote of their members in Congress.
I don't know of anything that says that a state can't revoke its ratification of the Constitution.
Show me the part of the Constitution that says a state may walk away from all debt and/or treaty obligations accumulated while part of the Union, and is entitled to keep whatever federal property it could get it's hands on.
No, but I do so enjoy these War of Southern Rebellion threads. No matter how many times I see y'all post your stuff it never loses it's humor.
Back at cha.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
No, I mean the Constitution. You know, that big long thing that was passed out of convention on September 17, 1781? Where does the Constitution say they can do it. Documents like the rebel secession declarations have no legal standing.
Those great South Carolinians said it best:
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences. In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
-emphasis added-
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free, and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
According to your narrow way of thinking, neither did the Declaration of Independence.
You're boxed in NS. And I've heard all of your selectively omissive, circular arguments, so save em.
Oh, BTW, according to Texas vs White, rebellion is a legal way to secede: "membership could not be revoked except through rebellion or consent of the other states"
So, if you call us Rebels, by default, you admit that we were in 'rebellion', therefore, by a post war yankee Supreme Court decision, secession was, and as far as I can tell still is, legal.
Unfortunately, slavery was considered property and the Constitution did, and still does, protect protect property rights. (except when yankee judges get involved and loosely interpret little things like, eminent domain).
Also: The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The outlawing of slavery via the thirteenth amendment didn't occur until after the illegal war waged against the South by the northern aggressors was concluded.
That great Ohioan said it better:
"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."
I have news for you, I see no reason why secession wasn't legal before, during, or after the rebellion. They key is if it is done properly and legally. And, as Chief Justice Chase points out, that is with the consent of the states. Not just the ones leaving but the ones letting them leave. What is so hard to understand about that?
"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States." (from that link)
"membership could not be revoked except through rebellion or consent of the other states"
If it wasn't for that little ol 'or' word, your argument would be valid.
(this is what I meant earlier when I pointed out your tendency to selectively omit facts/data that don't support your narrow views)
First of all, there is no such thing as an "indissoluble relation". It defies all laws of nature.
And, I don't know if you noticed yet, but at the convention of 1787, they removed the word 'perpetual' and replaced it with 'perfect'.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,.........
(Gosh darn-it, another one of those little ol' bothersome words that completely changes the context of the subject matter.)
OK, I was referring to the legal way. The South could have gone in peace had they only left with the consent of all parties involved. Instead they chose rebellion and paid the price for their folly.
Why?
And, I don't know if you noticed yet, but at the convention of 1787, they removed the word 'perpetual' and replaced it with 'perfect'.
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" -- Chief Justice Chase
Rebellion was the only choice. The election of disHonest Abe ensured that course of action. (And if hitlery or hussein obama are elected in '08, I would be an advocate for a second try at secession because, with a dem congress and a far left liberal in the White House, our constitutional rights will take a nose dive. Put that in your perpetual pipe and smoke it. People without the courage to stand up for their freedom don't deserve it.)
Instead they chose rebellion and paid the price for their folly.
Yep. And the only regrets that most Southerner's had was that they didn't win. The rebellion was quelled but the rebellious spirit was never defeated, and that, son, is the American way.
Don't think much of the Constitution, do you?
Yep. And the only regrets that most Southerner's had was that they didn't win. The rebellion was quelled but the rebellious spirit was never defeated, and that, son, is the American way.
Better luck next time. The south will rise again one of these years and maybe y'all can try it again.
Quit being obtuse. If you firmly believe in perpetuity, then you'll gladly buy my perpetual motion machine, which, by the way, I am glad to offer at a reduced price......just for you.
What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" -- Chief Justice Chase
Chase was a tad on the biased side, wouldn't you agree? He was really nothing more than a Lincoln Lackey.
The fact still remains that the Articles of Confederation were replaced (another key word) with the Constitution. The word 'perpetual' was consciously omitted from the Constitution and 'more perfect' was inserted.
In addition, they didn't say 'perfect union', they said, 'more perfect union', which implies that they understood that the union was not and would not be perfect but that they would aspire to achieve perfection, of which, as any school kid can tell you, is not possible.
What a pathetic response. My statement was aimed at those, mostly liberal yankees, who would use political power and judicial activism to deny Constitutionally guaranteed individual freedom.
Better luck next time. The south will rise again one of these years and maybe y'all can try it again.
If we're ever confronted with tyranny (which I'm sure that the Founders would insist that that is exactly what we have today), me thinks the people should rise.
Nonsense, a totally appropriate response given your support for illegal action. Don't like the president that's been elected? Revolt. Don't approve of what the majority wants? Rebel. No need for rule of law, no interest in abiding by the Constitution unless it's convenient, nothing but your way and your way alone. You would deny whatevery protections to other that you thought might interfere with what you wanted to do. You're like the spoiled 5 year old who either gets his way or he upsets the game board and storms off bawling.
If we're ever confronted with tyranny (which I'm sure that the Founders would insist that that is exactly what we have today), me thinks the people should rise.
Why? You didn't need tyranny the last time, just have something not go your way.
Well, I'm not sure why you said it was unnatural is all. But as I pointed out the Union need not be permanent, if done legally.
Chase was a tad on the biased side, wouldn't you agree? He was really nothing more than a Lincoln Lackey.
And of course any decision you disagree with just has to be biased. But any decision you sign on to was fair. That's why Texas v White was biased where Dred Scott was a shining example of American jurispruedence instead of being an imposition of Taney's lifelong support for slavery and hatred for blacks. You all are nothing if not predictable, and completely hypocritical to boot.
A sad day in American history...
I can't wait for Washington DC to secede.
Lincoln.
no interest in abiding by the Constitution unless it's convenient,
Lincoln again.
nothing but your way and your way alone.
Once more, Lincoln. It's a hat trick!
You didn't need tyranny the last time, just have something not go your way.
like with the Russian people. It wasn't like the Soviet Union was an oppressive dictatorship or anything like that, things just weren't going their way.
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.
The fact is, Chase was biased. Even the most casual of observers would agree with that.
You all are nothing if not predictable, and completely hypocritical to boot.
We're predictable because we're consistent. You all are predictable too, but for the inverse reason.
But hypocritical? Pulease.
My goodness it's getting deep in here. I'd point out that the Davis regime had more in common with the Soviet Union than did the Lincoln Administration, starting with keeping a third of the population in slavery.
You're right about one point. Lincoln was more of a fascist.
But to call Davis the dictator over a communist South is intellectually dishonest.
You know it's really hard to carry on a debate with you when it's becoming more and more clear that I know more about Southern history than you do.
The South was invaded, surrounded and blockaded. Desperate times for a fledgling country, wouldn't you agree?
On the other hand, the invaders were led by a man that:
Violated the Constitution and his oath of office by invading and waging war against states that had legally and democratically withdrawn their consent from his government, inaugurating one of the cruelest wars in recent history.
Subverting the duly constituted governments of states that had not left the Union, thereby subverting their constitutional right to a "republican form of government."
Raising troops without the approval of Congress and expending funds without appropriation.
Suspending the writ of habeas corpus and interfering with the press without due process, imprisoning thousands of citizens without charge or trial, and closing courts by military force where no hostilities were occurring.
Corrupting the currency by manipulations and paper swindles
Fraud and corruption by appointees and contractors with his knowledge and connivance.
Continuing the war by raising ever-larger bodies of troops by conscription and hiring of foreign mercenaries and refusing to negotiate in good faith for an end to hostilities.
Confiscation of millions of dollars of property by his agents in the South, especially cotton, without legal proceedings.
Waging war against women and children and civilian property as the matter of policy, rather than as unavoidable incident to combat.
Yet, you have the unmitigated cheek to compare the actions of an honorable national leader, who reluctantly accepted his position, and was trying desperately to maintain the will of the people of his country to be a separate and free nation in the face of invading hordes of godless heathens, with a dishonorable, dishonest political animal whose personal ambitions greatly outweighed the will of his constituents and would stop at nothing to quench his imperialist ambitions and power lust to the tune of billions of dollars in destroyed property and over a million lives lost.
It's I who should not lower myself to debate with you.
In other words Davis could do anything, anything at all, and you would find some way of justifying it while at the same time criticizing Lincoln for similar actions. I was right, you are hypocrisy personified.
Violated the Constitution and his oath of office by invading and waging war against states that had legally and democratically withdrawn their consent from his government, inaugurating one of the cruelest wars in recent history.
Except that they had not legally withdrawn. They had initiated an armed rebellion against the federal government. You yourself have admitted that's what it was in earlier posts.
Subverting the duly constituted governments of states that had not left the Union, thereby subverting their constitutional right to a "republican form of government."
Nonsense, Lincoln worked to preserve the republican form of government in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri against those who would take those states out of the Union against the wishes of the population as expressed through votes of their representatives in the legislature or delegates in secession conventions.
Raising troops without the approval of Congress and expending funds without appropriation.
The militia act gave the president the power to call out the troops in times of rebellion if Congress was not in session, so Lincoln's actions were entirely legal.
Suspending the writ of habeas corpus and interfering with the press without due process, imprisoning thousands of citizens without charge or trial, and closing courts by military force where no hostilities were occurring.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the Constitutionality of Lincoln's actiosn so your classifying it and the subsequent arrests as illegal is only your opinion. And the fact that Davis performed identical actions will no doubt be dismissed by you as necessary and acceptable.
Corrupting the currency by manipulations and paper swindles
Compared to the confederate dollar the U.S. paper currency was as solid as a rock, your claims of manipulations and swindles notwithstanding.
Fraud and corruption by appointees and contractors with his knowledge and connivance.
Oh please!
Confiscation of millions of dollars of property by his agents in the South, especially cotton, without legal proceedings.
But performed under the authority of the Confiscation acts, which had been upheld as legal by the U.S. Supreme Court. An institution, by the way, noticably absent in the confederacy despite being required by their constitution.
Continuing the war by raising ever-larger bodies of troops by conscription and hiring of foreign mercenaries and refusing to negotiate in good faith for an end to hostilities.
He raised an army to combat the rebellion, and it's hard to negotiate in good faith with those who are not interested in negotiating with you.
Yet, you have the unmitigated cheek to compare the actions of an honorable national leader, who reluctantly accepted his position, and was trying desperately to maintain the will of the people of his country to be a separate and free nation in the face of invading hordes of godless heathens...
Oh my God! How you can puke up such nonsense with a straight face is beyond me. It's a waste of time even entering into a discussion with someone who has so totally swallowed the confederate kool-aid.
There is monster difference between between being the aggressor and being under siege. It's your hypocrisy that prohibits you from acknowledging this.
Except that they had not legally withdrawn. They had initiated an armed rebellion against the federal government.
It was legal. A yankee Supreme Court justice validated that fact. The South armed itself, as any sovereign nation would and should, but you can't deny that it was the north that initiated the war via invasion.
The militia act gave the president the power to call out the troops in times of rebellion if Congress was not in session, so Lincoln's actions were entirely legal.
It was extremely convenient of Congress to be out of session for ol' disHonest Abe, wasn't it. I guess that as long as an action is legal, you don't care about ethics. Congress would have insisted on a diplomatic solution whereas Lincoln's version of diplomacy was the end of a gun barrel.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the Constitutionality of Lincoln's actiosn so your classifying it and the subsequent arrests as illegal is only your opinion.
Another tidy little convenience for Abe: an, ever so slightly, biased Supreme Court. Your hypocrisy is limitless.
Oh please!
Nice rebuttal. I'll match that one with "What-ev-ver!"
But performed under the authority of the Confiscation acts, which had been upheld as legal by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Once again, rather convenient, don't you think? Like Lincoln Lackey's would rule any other way......jeez.
He raised an army to combat the rebellion, and it's hard to negotiate in good faith with those who are not interested in negotiating with you.
He raised an army to further his political ambitions. And, in typical yankee fashion, if confronted with a non-willing negotiating partner, just hold a gun to his head and force the negotiations; just make sure that it's all legal like and that you have a Supreme Court ruling in your pocket to prove it.
It's a waste of time even entering into a discussion with someone who has so totally swallowed the confederate kool-aid.
As opposed to the ACLU, liberal left, propagandized version of the War of Northern Aggression that you've totally swallowed? And I quote, "Oh please!"
I'm hitting the road and will be incommunicado for a bit.
Justice William Patterson of New Jersey, 'she should have withdrawn herself from the confederacy.'
Or Justice James Iredell of North Carolina, who held that 'once given, no state could, by any act of its own, disavow and recall the authority previously given, without withdrawing from the confederation.'
Or Justice John Blair from Virginia, who held, '[t]o this a very satisfactory answer was made: if she had such a right, there was but one way of exercising it, that is, by withdrawing herself from the confederacy.'
Documentation please for your lies.
Well let's see. How about in his decision where he describes them "...as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."
Can't you just feel the love? Blacks were 'beings of an inferior order' and were in slavery 'for their benefit'. Sounds a whole lot like some other southern slave owners, like Robert Lee.
Taney was a supporter of deporting free blacks to Africa. His belief that blacks were not and could never be U.S. citizens didn't suddenly crop up in Dred Scott, but had first been expressed by him decades before when he was Jackson's Attorney General. It lay there festering until he finally had the chance to put the force of the Constitution behind his bigotry and impose his beliefs on the country by legislating from the Supreme Court bench. Taney also believed that the southern rebellion was justified and had there ever been such a thing as a confederate supreme court I'm sure he would have been an excellent member of that 'august' body.
Just a quick question.
When the South fired the first shots of the Civil War, why exactly is there a debate going about in the legality of the ensuing combat?
A ship of mercy - filled with supplies for Fort Sumter - was attacked, and the fort itself was subject to cannon fire until Robert Andersen surrendered.
The South fired the first shots. Any response by the North - blockade, troops, or otherwise - was reactionary.
That's documentation of HIS attitude? BWHAHAHahahahahahaha? You're nuts, just parroting the same old liberal tripe, unable to parse a decision if your life depended upon it. The phase is this,
It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.Justice Taney is acknowledging public sentiments.They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order...
Can't you just feel the love? Blacks were 'beings of an inferior order' and were in slavery 'for their benefit'.
Let's see, slaughtered or a slave in Africa, or given the chance to be a slave here, potentially earning their freedom, Christianized and civilized, and you think any sane person will chose to be slaughtered or remain in Africa? Tell me sport, would you have just killed them? How laudable and noble - can't you just feel the love? </sarcasrm>
Taney was a supporter of deporting free blacks to Africa.
As was Lincoln and others.
His belief that blacks were not and could never be U.S. citizens didn't suddenly crop up in Dred Scott, but had first been expressed by him decades before when he was Jackson's Attorney General.
Then post your proof.
It lay there festering until he finally had the chance to put the force of the Constitution behind his bigotry and impose his beliefs on the country by legislating from the Supreme Court bench.
Post your proof of his alleged bigotry. Right now the only thing evident is yours. Justice Miller was filled with hatred for Taney, but once he worked with him he understood just how wrong he was.
Ship of mercy? It was filled with troops! Lincoln KNEW that attempting to resupply would cause a bloody war - he got his wish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.