[exmarine]

I'm not a southerner, but I believe Jeff Davis was correct - the U.S. Constitution is a compact of States, and if a State wants to back out of that Compact, it has the right to do so. Davis believed this to his dying day, and like it or not, he has a good case constitutionally speaking.

I thought this article may be about succession in the 21st century. Today, the southern culture is almost as different from the rest of the nation as it was 150 years ago. In the South, you have the conservative bible belt, and in the north you have the hedonistic secularists. If the South succeeds in the future, please keep the gate open until I can get in. I'm sick of Gomorrah.

[exmarine]

succession should read "secession." My bad.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I'm not a southerner, but I believe Jeff Davis was correct - the U.S. Constitution is a compact of States, and if a State wants to back out of that Compact, it has the right to do so.

Davis was very willing to have the states coerced by the US government when it came to returning fugitive slaves.

Later, as president of the so-called confederate states he was a strong supporter of the central government coercing the states.

Can you believe it?

"Conscription dramatized a fundamental paradox in the Confederate war effort: the need for Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. Pure Jeffersonians could not accept this. The most outspoken of them, Joseph Brown of Georgia, denounced the draft as a "dangerous usurpation by Congress of the reserved rights of the states...at war with all the principles for which Georgia entered into the revolution." In reply Jefferson Davis donned the mantle of Hamilton. The Confederate Constitution, he pointed out to Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists. But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existance is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional."

--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433

Well, now; it seems like if Davis could do it, then surely Lincoln could do it using the EXACT same language. What do you think?