Posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:39 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
Personally, I’m not interested in fighting the last civil war.
Too busy fighting the current one...
Well, I will agree that Jefferson was indeed a traitor, along with Franklin, Washington, and the whole crew of the good ship United States. The colonies were indeed in Rebellion against their lawful sovereign, and Jefferson justified that rebellion by appealing to “world opinion” that George III had acted tyranically by, among other things, attempting to supress that rebellion militarily. That rebellion was legitimized by the recognition of the United States by sveral foreogn powers who then went to war with Great Britain to help secure our independence from the English king. Finally, aftre many years, the king conceded our independence, although neither he nor his successors did not give up hope of recovery until the Union won the “War of Southern Secession.”
Jefferson Davis had a much stronger case. The exact nature of the Union was redefined after the War by the addition of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Lincoln was more or less the American Bismarck. Just as the Prussians had established their Empire in 1871 after a series of wars, by excluding Austria from any role in Germany and by reclaiming German lands lonmg held by France and then creating a new Constitution that gave Prussia ascendency in the new Germany empire, Lincoln forcibly required the Southern States to surrender its sovereignty and the a great proportion of their wealth. In 1870, the State of New York alone possesed as much wealth as the entire South. Not for another hundred years did the South finally recover its economic position in the Nation. To be sure, Lincoln, had he lived, would notg have committed the political blunders associated with the “Jacobins” in their deteremination to take down Johnson and to punish the South. Instead he would have established “Tory” Governments in each of the Confederate States that would have been loyal to Lincol and his branch of the Republican party. These would have been, like the Republican government actually established, dominates by Carpetbaggers and Scalawags, but black participation in government would have been much more limited. Lincoln’s aim was to make the Republican Party, a minority in the country, the dominant force in the country. It is impossible to foresee how Lincoln would have reacted to events. Certainly he would not have reacted as Johnson, a Jacksonian Democrats, and stra\ong state-rights advocate did.
Okay, what was the first state to present articles of secession to Congress?
“Just curious here. For an act to be illegal it has to violate a law. Which law was violated by the Southern States’ secession?”
Wanna know what made it illegal?
The North Won. Simple as that, really. The winner makes the rules.
However, look at history. Which part of the country now dominates national politics? In a very real way, the South lost won war, but won another. The country is more conservative, and dare I say it, more southern.
Leaving aside for the moment that my good and learned friend Stainlessbanner far exaggerates the 'threats' of secession that were made, how can they be a test case? On what grounds should such talk have been taken before the court? Courts rule on actions taken, not contemplated or talked about. The Supreme Court's restrictions go even further. As one of the three branches of government they cannot go to Congress and say, "Don't pass that law because we'll strike it down as unconstitutional" or go the the President and say, "Don't take that action because the Constitution doesn't allow it." To do so would be a violation of the separation of powers. So the court cannot, under any circumstances, issue advisory rulings to the other branches of government or the states. The court can only rule on actions those entities take, and then only if it is a matter brought before them.
As I said before, I see it tragic oversight by the Founding Fathers.
In retrospect you may be right. But that doesn't change history.
The legality of secession was left unclear to the point that honorable men could interpret it two different ways and that was a tragic oversight in the wording of the Constitution.
True. And when the question of the legality of secession was finally brought before the court it issued it's ruling. It said one side was right and the other wrong. It did not say that the wrong side should have known better, it did not say that their acts were criminal, merely that there interpretation was wrong.
free dixie,sw
What unconstitutional war? I'll point out that the Southern states initiated the conflict when they chose to further the aims of their rebellion by bombarding Sumter.
it's no more complicated than this: NONE of the states would have FREELY entered into a union from which they could not just as FREELY depart "on their own motion", should joining that union prove NOT to be in their informed self-interest.
note to ALL: N-S is The DAMNyankee Minister of PROPAGANDA. further, he said n another WBTS thread that he was an EXPERT "on every subject". he is a LEGEND "in his own mind."
free dixie,sw
well said.
free dixie,sw
What automation? Southern farming techniques didn't really mechanize until the 1940s. And far from dying, slavery was booming in the lower south. The slave population of Texas was growing fast and the price of slaves was increasing. That doesn't much look like a dying insitutition.
free dixie,sw
The Civil War ended 142 years ago and the South lost. Get over it.
in the meanwhile, either offer something WORTH reading or, PLEASE, "clam up".
fyi, i get REALLY tired of a few LAME-brains, who think that they get to set the rules for everyone else on FR.
free dixie,sw
N-S, you're smarter than THAT!
free dixie,sw
Read the rest of the speech. Lincoln is talking about Texas' natural right of rebellion.
Here's more context to that passage:
If, as is probably true, Texas was exercising jurisdiction along the western bank of the Nueces, and Mexico was exercising it along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, then neither river was the boundary; but the uninhabited country between the two, was. The extent of our teritory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution.The south certainly had a right of rebellion, and the north had the right to put down the rebellion. Note that Lincoln says "having the power." The south thought they did, but they didn't. And the catch with rebelling is that, if you lose, you can't bitch about your rights being violated for the next century and a half.Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
As to the country now in question, we [allegedly] bought it of France in 1803 [France did not own it, could not sell it!!], and sold it to Spain in 1819, according to the President's statements.
After this, all Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized against Spain; and still later, Texas revolutionized against Mexico. In my view, just so far as she carried her revolution, by obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so far, the country was hers, and no farther.
Texas v. White was not a 5-3 decision. It was a 7-1 decision. Five justices joined Chase in his opinion, while two others issued a separate, but concurring decision. Only Justice Grier dissented.
you might ask HIM who he "used to be" before he was PERMANENTLY BANNED "for cause" from FR. you might also ask him WHAT he did to get banned.(PERHAPS, you can/will believe his SELF-serving, lame, excuse.)
also, ask him about the CRIMINAL FRAUD that he ADMITTED to perpetrating, while trying to extricate himself from the "web of knowing lies" that he wove for himself & got CAUGHT up in.
btw, if you continue to post TO "bubba" you will make TWO (2) FReepers who will do so. (i'm the other, as i post to him to RIDICULE his DISHONESTY,hatefulness,sanctimoniousness, BIGOTRY & arrogant LIES.) free dixie,sw
one hopes that you left the southland (never to return), as we have more than enough "homegrown" idiots & bigots in dixie.we don't need ANY "out of state" ones.
free dixie,sw
btw, the local merchants of Charleston were,on at least the PREVIOUS day if NOT on the day of the bombardment, still happily selling everything the fort wanted to the fort's population. some of the luxury goods supplied to the fort were fresh bread, cakes, pastries,lace, coffee, tea & chocolate. one union officer even had his (privately-owned) pistol repaired & returned to him by a Charleston gunsmith.
the war was the SOLE fault of lincoln. the blood of a MILLION Americans is indelibly on his hands.
free dixie,sw
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.