And your point is? Those people you mentioned rebelled against their soverign State. What’s the problem with a State putting down insurgents? There’s a difference between insurgents who have no legal rights and the States who seceded, who had a legal right to do so. Especially Virginia, who was one of the original States and who derived it’s rights as a soverign State directly from the Victory over the English Crown.
Speaking of Virginia, let’s take it for an example. I’m originally from Western VA (not West VA) and know full well about those who sided with the Union. Problem is, they were out voted by the rest of the State in the desire to secede. Virginia left the Union after a vote of the State delegates to do so. Those who rebelled against their State’s decision had no legal right to do so.
If you want to say that the CW was a war to determine the fate of the Union, I have no problem with that, as if seven of the original thirteen signators had seceded, the Union would have been legally dead. But don’t try to say this was a War over just Slavery. There was more at stake than what we’ve been taught lately.
I don't see anyone here disputing that. It was more than just slavery - it was the leaders of the south thumbing their noses at the rest of the country and proclaiming, "We'll have our slavery if we have to destroy the whole country to keep it!"
Nice guys.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to put down insurrections. Did the Virginia Constitution give that same power to her governor?
There’s a difference between insurgents who have no legal rights and the States who seceded, who had a legal right to do so. Especially Virginia, who was one of the original States and who derived it’s rights as a soverign State directly from the Victory over the English Crown.
There was no legal right to secede unilaterally.
Yes they did. They formed themselves into the reorganized legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia, were recognized by Congress as the legitimate government of Virginia, and voted to partition themselves. Nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.
But don’t try to say this was a War over just Slavery. There was more at stake than what we’ve been taught lately.
For the South, defense of slavery was the reason for their rebellion. You may find that inconvenient but the writings and speeches of the people of the time bear that out.
If they had a legal right to seceded, why didn't they go though a legal means instead of just a few leaders in the State saying as such and attacking federal property like forts? Why didn't they take the secession before Congress as outlined in the Articles of Confederation and upheld in Article VI of the Constitution?
I will be back in Western Va (not West VA) next week.
Beautiful country, even in winter.
paladin1_dcs: "Those who rebelled against their State’s decision had no legal right to do so."
So obviously, you will not project our Founding Fathers' Declaration of Independence language, about Creator provided rights to overthrow unjust governments, onto Southern Union sympathizers, right?
paladin1_dcs: "But don’t try to say this was a War over just Slavery.
There was more at stake than what we’ve been taught lately."
No there wasn't. It was only slavery -- nothing else was politically important enough to cause the Deep South to first secede, then start a war against the Union.
But don't believe me on this -- read what the Confederacy's founders wrote in their Causes of Secession documents.
Using James Madison's criteria for a legal dissolution of the Union there was:
And so the Deep South began seceding "at pleasure" in late 1860, immediately following the election of the anti-slavery Republican President and Congress.
But only seven states joined the Confederacy.
That's because slavery was only important enough to those seven states to cause secession.
The Upper South and Border States all refused to join, until Davis ordered the attack on Fort Sumter.
Even then, only the Upper South switched sides.
Slavery was just not important enough in the Border States (Missouri, Kentucky, West VA, Maryland & Delaware) to drive them into the Confederacy.
I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere: consider the proverbial camel whose back was broken by a straw.
I'm saying 95% of the weight on that camel's back was slavery, and the "straw" was the election of anti-slavery Republicans and Abraham Lincoln.
All of the other issues combined could not possibly have driven the Deep South to secede -- could not have broken the camel's back.