The war was first and foremost about preserving the Union.
I'd concur with that.
That, in and of itself should tell us that there is no inherant right for any state to simply "Leave" the Union and declare itself a free and independent Nation, as was the case with the many southern states that did secceed.
Not necessarily. They could have decided without legal precedent that they weren't going to stand by and let them secede which is what jethro is saying.
The South did something that was illegal, and their soldiers, including Lee, and most of their politicians, committed Treason, as they broke their oaths as Officers of The United States Army, Officers of The U.S. Courts and members of the U.S. Congress,(whom all take such oaths), and all to seceed from this Union...and all of these things and more, amount to so many criminal acts against the Constitution and that I for one am really having a hard time understandding how anyone can believe otherwise.
I'm not necessarily disputing that. This really all got started when I questioned just who was really on the offense and who was on the defense. The South went on the offensive at Fort Sumter and perhaps other places to rid their territory of enemy troops, but it was the North whose agenda was to actually conquer and occupy the South and force them to obey. So it was the North who set about on an objective and the South was basically just trying to defend themselves. I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone can not see *that*. The South's goal was to achieve independence, not conquer the North, but it was the North's goal to conquer the South.
James McPherson contended that the war was obviously about slavery. He contends that absent slavery, the south's grieveances would not have risen to the level of Civil War, thus a an effort to preserve the union wouldn't be necessary.
Without slavery there would have been no abolitiionist movement.
There would probably be no Republican Party.
To downplay slavery's influence on events is to try to rewrite history,
U.S. Constitution: Article 1 Section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation."
after some thought, this didn't apply to any state that seceded. after they broke their ties with the federal government, the us constitution no longer applies to them, and they can thus enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation they so choose.
the question still stands, however, whether or not it was legal for a state to secede. nowhere in the constitution is that right denied to the states; it is thus retained by them. regardless of your take on that statement, i will present 2 distinct items which legitimised it by the federal government.
quoth article iv, section 3 of the constitution:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
by admitting west virginia as a state, congress recognised the independence of virginia, and its rejection of the constitution, in effect legalising its secession.
second, each of the states which seceded was required to be readmitted into the union. if the secession wasn't legal, why would they need to be re-admitted?
I don't think anyone's trying to downplay it, Rick, but just keep it in perspective. Slavery was crucial to the economy of the south. Abolitionists didn't seem to think about, or care about, trying to find a reasonable way to help the South make the transition to a non-slave economy. I think it would have happened anyway simply because it was already becoming inefficient.
Mr. Allison, I live in Texas and I know a lot of southerners. Today, because of the Civil War, you might not find many who would want to rejoin the north. But if the South had been allowed to secede and go their own way, attitudes today would be very different.
<
<...no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.>>
Except Texas, which may divide itself into as many as five states anytime it chooses, without permission from Congress or anyone else.
"Abolitionists didn't seem to think about, or care about, trying to find a reasonable way to help the South make the transition to a non-slave economy."
How much longer should it have gone on.
There's a lot of handsome language that the (drum and fife) Founding Fathers wrote about freedom and equalty. Was that just some people talkin.'
Rick, from your post #38: "We'd be the Balkans. And at each other's throats."
I doubt that. We'd all have much more in common with each other, including history, than differences. We get along fine with Canada. (And personally I wouldn't mind if California -- or Texas, for that matter -- were a different country :-))
Yes, ares, it's part of the Texas constitution. Texas was an independent republic for ten years because when it wanted to join the Union, the Union didn't want it. Later, the Union begged Texas to join, so it had to make concessions to the new state.
<
<...or alaska which can divide itself in half and make texas the third largest state>>
LOL! I didn't live in Texas when Alaska became a state, but I bet the folks down here took it really hard! I've never seen a state that glorifies itself as much as this one. But I kinda like it -- it's all in good fun.
OK, folks, Texas has given all those election complainers plenty of time to get used to the results. After seeing the whiners along the inauguration route, the folks from Texas have decided that we might just take matters into our own hands. Here is our solution:
Let Al Gore become President of the United States (all 49 of ‘em).
George W. Bush becomes President of the Republic of Texas.
So what does Texas have to do to survive as a republic?
NASA is in Houston – we will control the space industry.
Refineries -- We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States.
Oil – We can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for the next 300 years. Yankee states? Sorry ‘bout that.
Natural Gas – Again, we have all we need, and it’s too bad about those northern states.
Computer Industry – We currently lead the nation in producing computer chips and communications: small places like Texas Instruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Semiconductor, Dallas Semiconductor, Delphi, Nortel, Alcatel, etc.
Health Centers – We have the largest research centers for cancer research, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world.
Colleges – UT, Texas A&M, Rice, SMU, University of Houston, Baylor, UNT, Texas Women’s University, etc. Ivy grows better in the South anyway.
Workers – We have a steady supply – just open the border when we need to.
We have control of the paper industry, plastics and insurance.
In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard. We don’t have an army, but since everybody down here has at least six rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an army in 24 hours if we need it. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call the Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over a couple of Texas Rangers.
We are totally self-sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs and vegetable produce and everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. Don’t need any food.
These are just a few of the items that will keep the Republic of Texas in good shape. There isn’t a thing out there that we need and don’t have.
Now to the rest of the United States under President Gore: Since you won’t have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only President Gore will be able to drive around in his 9-mile-per-gallon SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes. That will aid the President in his plans for Smart Growth. You won’t have any TV, as the space center in Houston will cut off your communications. You won’t have any natural gas to heat your homes, but since Mr. Gore has predicted global warming, you won’t need it.
still, even after they seceded, did it matter whether or not those alliances were made before secession?
Yes, according to how I read the Constitution.
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;...."
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state......"
Now, had they seceded first it would be a different story. But they didn't, they conspired and formed alliances, made compacts & treaties..... without the approval of Congress.
right. which was illegal (which sounds to me like justification for action by the states not in rebellion). then they turned their back on ths us and rejected the constitution, which in my opinion turned the issue of whether or not the action on the part of those states was illegal into a moot point.
Lundstrom wrote: If entertaining any crackpot notion like you do is evidence independent thought, thank you, no I'll do without it.
You won't consider anything other than what you were taught in school, Lundstrom. That is closed minded. The ideas are not that of a "crackpot." At one time about half the country thought that the South should have been able to go its own way. If you were intereested in learning anything new maybe you could look into it. Oh but no that is either to difficult or it might upset your ssafe little world.
"Any speculations on what would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede? "
Lundstrom responded: Their bloody misadventure would have placed the further behind the curve of industrial development.
This statement shows exactly how much you are not thinking about this. If the South had been allowed to seceed there would not have been a "bloody misadventure."
"They didn't go to war to stop slavery, they just used slavery as an excuse to demonize the enemy and rally the forces"
Lundstrom follwed the above with another fallacy: "And stop slavery."
The North went to war to keep the South in the Union. If the South had not seceeded slavery would have continued for an indefinite period in the south.
Bill, you may be right, as I'm sure the state constitution has been amended from time to time. I don't really know. The Texas Constitution is one of the longest and most complicated of any state, and some portions of it have been ruled by judges as uninterpretable! I do know that that provision was originally in it, and it may still be.
It's something that interests me, however, and I would like to do some reasearch on it. But I won't really have time to do it until May, after my wedding and honeymoon. Can you wait until then?
agreed, jt. it is too bad though that we had to kill off more of our own in that war than were killed in all of the other wars we've been involved in combined in order to achieve that.
Us, and the rest of the world would be 20 years behind where we are now, if we were lucky.
Maybe there would have been no Hitler and no WWII if the US had split up. The US entering WWI was what ended the stalemate in WWI leading to an allied victory. If the allies hadn't won WWI and imposed a harsh peace on Germany, Hitler probably would have never came to power.
it is too bad though that we had to kill off more of our own in that war than were killed in all of the other wars we've been involved in combined in order to achieve that.
If I recall there were hardly any slaves in the North by the early 1800's much less by the 1860's. There plenty of slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware all states that remained in the Union.
You know, I am glad that you admitted that you weren't sure about the south having any right to seceed Allison. In the posts I made this morning, I only browsed through the first few parts of the U.S. Constitution, and found inconsistencies with that train of thought right off the bat.(As I talked to you about offline Muskwa). fold, as usual you are wrong. There was nothing in the Constitution that states a stae cannot secede. The Constitution only gave certain powers to the federal government. Keeping states from leaving was not one of them. Furthermore, the reservation of nondelegated powers left the power to secede to the peopl and the states.
Now it is clear that at least one person here thinks that the South DID have that right, but can ANYONE provide even ONE example in U.S. Law that says that the South or any State did/does indeed have the "Right" to seceed from the Union, because if not, this whole argument is mute. See above.
U.S. Constitution: Article 1 Section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation."
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
As long as they were states of the Union they could not do the above. Once they left they could.
Just to be clear, I never claimed they had a right to secede. Whether they did or not wouldn't have mattered if they'd won the war. Nor did it really matter after they lost the war. I'm sure lawyers could make cases for both sides.
One of the reasons that the North didn't try Jefferson Davis was because the North was afraid that the Court would rule the Southern sates had a right to secede and therfore, there was no treason.
James McPherson contended that the war was obviously about slavery. He contends that absent slavery, the south's grieveances would not have risen to the level of Civil War, thus a an effort to preserve the union wouldn't be necessary.
The war was obviously about keeping Southern staes in the Union. The North could have let the South go but it chose no to. Second had the southeern states rescinded the secession declarations slavery would have continued as it had before.
They did it before they left the union. Most would call that treason.
agreed. but, after they left, what can be done about it?
wasn't general amnesty given to everyone in the south (except for what was explicitly enumerated in the constitution after the war)? wouldn't that be an even bigger reason jeff davis wasn't tried?
Formation of the Confederate States of America On February 4, 1861, delegates from the seven seceded states met in Montgomery, Alabama to write a new constitution for their new nation. The Confederate convention was the site of considerable jockeying for political position, especially over the choice of President. The convention eventually selected Jefferson Davis, of Missisippi, a compromise candidate who was not even in attendance at Montgomery. The vice-presidential slot went to Alexander Stephens of Georgia, head of the Constituion drafting committee.
The Confederate Constitution adopted in March was almost identical to the United States constitution, with a few differences:
In the preamble, it omitted the general welfare clause, and added that each ratifying state was acting "in its sovereign and independent character." It explicitly guaranteed slavery in both states and territories, but banned the international slave trade. It prohibited protective tariffs and Congressional appropriations for internal improvements. The Confederate constitution limited the president to one six-year term, but gave him a line item veto. The delegates chose a provisional cabinet, and sent comissioners to the secession conventions in the Upper South. They hoped to present a moderate image, in order to convince the remaining slaveholding states to join them.
Did I say that? No. My point is this: the Consitution set the rules that the federal government was required to live by. It didn't follow those rules. Slavery could not have been prohibited in this country because there were too many states that would not agree to ban it. After the war was over the feds continued to ignore the Constitution by requiring the southern states to ratify amendments it would not otherwise agree too. In short it was all a federal government power grab.
Since we are talking about the south here is some good news for the south. Apparently in a new report released yesterday they found that having intercourse with your first cousin does not increase the risk of birth defects. I would argue that since anyone who would do that probably has a few defects already. (no offense meant to those in the south, just havin a little fun and lightening the mood a tad)
James McPherson contended that the war was obviously about slavery. He contends that absent slavery, the south's grieveances would not have risen to the level of Civil War, thus a an effort to preserve the union wouldn't be necessary.
One can't deny that slavery was one of the main sources of conflict between the North and South, but that doesn't mean they went to war to stop slavery. If that had been the case, they wouldn't have needed the South to secede before taking action. They could have just passed a law outlawing slavery and sent troops throughout the South to make sure the law was enforced. The reason for going to war was to keep those states in the Union.
I agree with Jethro that had the South not seceded, slavery would have begrudgingly continued for a while longer, but probably not much longer. Times were changing and so were social mores and economics with it.
The war was first and foremost about preserving the Union.
I'd concur with that.
That, in and of itself should tell us that there is no inherant right for any state to simply "Leave" the Union and declare itself a free and independent Nation, as was the case with the many southern states that did secceed.
Not necessarily. They could have decided without legal precedent that they weren't going to stand by and let them secede which is what jethro is saying.
The South did something that was illegal, and their soldiers, including Lee, and most of their politicians, committed Treason, as they broke their oaths as Officers of The United States Army, Officers of The U.S. Courts and members of the U.S. Congress,(whom all take such oaths), and all to seceed from this Union...and all of these things and more, amount to so many criminal acts against the Constitution and that I for one am really having a hard time understandding how anyone can believe otherwise.
I'm not necessarily disputing that. This really all got started when I questioned just who was really on the offense and who was on the defense. The South went on the offensive at Fort Sumter and perhaps other places to rid their territory of enemy troops, but it was the North whose agenda was to actually conquer and occupy the South and force them to obey. So it was the North who set about on an objective and the South was basically just trying to defend themselves. I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone can not see *that*. The South's goal was to achieve independence, not conquer the North, but it was the North's goal to conquer the South.
James McPherson contended that the war was obviously about slavery. He contends that absent slavery, the south's grieveances would not have risen to the level of Civil War, thus a an effort to preserve the union wouldn't be necessary.
Without slavery there would have been no abolitiionist movement.
There would probably be no Republican Party.
To downplay slavery's influence on events is to try to rewrite history,
U.S. Constitution: Article 1 Section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation."
after some thought, this didn't apply to any state that seceded. after they broke their ties with the federal government, the us constitution no longer applies to them, and they can thus enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation they so choose.
the question still stands, however, whether or not it was legal for a state to secede. nowhere in the constitution is that right denied to the states; it is thus retained by them. regardless of your take on that statement, i will present 2 distinct items which legitimised it by the federal government.
quoth article iv, section 3 of the constitution:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
by admitting west virginia as a state, congress recognised the independence of virginia, and its rejection of the constitution, in effect legalising its secession.
second, each of the states which seceded was required to be readmitted into the union. if the secession wasn't legal, why would they need to be re-admitted?
I don't think anyone's trying to downplay it, Rick, but just keep it in perspective. Slavery was crucial to the economy of the south. Abolitionists didn't seem to think about, or care about, trying to find a reasonable way to help the South make the transition to a non-slave economy. I think it would have happened anyway simply because it was already becoming inefficient.
Mr. Allison, I live in Texas and I know a lot of southerners. Today, because of the Civil War, you might not find many who would want to rejoin the north. But if the South had been allowed to secede and go their own way, attitudes today would be very different.
<
<...no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.>>
Except Texas, which may divide itself into as many as five states anytime it chooses, without permission from Congress or anyone else.
"Abolitionists didn't seem to think about, or care about, trying to find a reasonable way to help the South make the transition to a non-slave economy."
How much longer should it have gone on.
There's a lot of handsome language that the (drum and fife) Founding Fathers wrote about freedom and equalty. Was that just some people talkin.'
Check my thoughts on #38
does that have something to do with how the texas republic came into being a part of the united states, muskwa?
<sarcasm>or alaska which can divide itself in half and make texas the third largest state
</sarcasm>
Rick, from your post #38:
"We'd be the Balkans. And at each other's throats."
I doubt that. We'd all have much more in common with each other, including history, than differences. We get along fine with Canada. (And personally I wouldn't mind if California -- or Texas, for that matter -- were a different country :-))
Yes, ares, it's part of the Texas constitution. Texas was an independent republic for ten years because when it wanted to join the Union, the Union didn't want it. Later, the Union begged Texas to join, so it had to make concessions to the new state.
<
<...or alaska which can divide itself in half and make texas the third largest state>>
LOL! I didn't live in Texas when Alaska became a state, but I bet the folks down here took it really hard! I've never seen a state that glorifies itself as much as this one. But I kinda like it -- it's all in good fun.
I posted this a while back in the WC:
GOD BLESS TEXAS
OK, folks, Texas has given all those election complainers plenty of time to get used to the results. After seeing the whiners along the inauguration route, the folks from Texas have decided that we might just take matters into our own hands. Here is our solution:
Let Al Gore become President of the United States (all 49 of ‘em).
George W. Bush becomes President of the Republic of Texas.
So what does Texas have to do to survive as a republic?
NASA is in Houston – we will control the space industry.
Refineries -- We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States.
Oil – We can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for the next 300 years. Yankee states? Sorry ‘bout that.
Natural Gas – Again, we have all we need, and it’s too bad about those northern states.
Computer Industry – We currently lead the nation in producing computer chips and communications: small places like Texas Instruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Semiconductor, Dallas Semiconductor, Delphi, Nortel, Alcatel, etc.
Health Centers – We have the largest research centers for cancer research, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world.
Colleges – UT, Texas A&M, Rice, SMU, University of Houston, Baylor, UNT, Texas Women’s University, etc. Ivy grows better in the South anyway.
Workers – We have a steady supply – just open the border when we need to.
We have control of the paper industry, plastics and insurance.
In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard. We don’t have an army, but since everybody down here has at least six rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an army in 24 hours if we need it. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call the Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over a couple of Texas Rangers.
We are totally self-sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs and vegetable produce and everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. Don’t need any food.
These are just a few of the items that will keep the Republic of Texas in good shape. There isn’t a thing out there that we need and don’t have.
Now to the rest of the United States under President Gore: Since you won’t have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only President Gore will be able to drive around in his 9-mile-per-gallon SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes. That will aid the President in his plans for Smart Growth. You won’t have any TV, as the space center in Houston will cut off your communications. You won’t have any natural gas to heat your homes, but since Mr. Gore has predicted global warming, you won’t need it.
:::::rolls eyes::::
Your hear on Texan, you've heard them all....
Ain't it just the truth, Rick?
FWIW-
I agree with what jethro (and Allison, generally) has said here, as much as I can recall.
And ares' analysis on Article 1, section 10 sounds right on too.
I think the Civil War was probably a mistake. War usually is.
And I'm way too busy to dive in any more intelligently on this.
(Other than to say what was up with trying to tie Osama and Co. to the Civil War, THX?)
ares 4/4/02 7:59pm
The problem is, they conspired and made alliances before they seceded
Lance:
(Other than to say what was up with trying to tie Osama and Co. to the Civil War, THX?)
Just yanking Jethro's chain. I figure if the South had a right to freedom, so do the Arabs.
still, even after they seceded, did it matter whether or not those alliances were made before secession?
still, even after they seceded, did it matter whether or not those alliances were made before secession?
Yes, according to how I read the Constitution.
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;...."
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state......"
Now, had they seceded first it would be a different story. But they didn't, they conspired and formed alliances, made compacts & treaties..... without the approval of Congress.
right. which was illegal (which sounds to me like justification for action by the states not in rebellion). then they turned their back on ths us and rejected the constitution, which in my opinion turned the issue of whether or not the action on the part of those states was illegal into a moot point.
Lundstrom wrote: If entertaining any crackpot notion like you do is evidence independent thought, thank you, no I'll do without it.
You won't consider anything other than what you were taught in school, Lundstrom. That is closed minded. The ideas are not that of a "crackpot." At one time about half the country thought that the South should have been able to go its own way. If you were intereested in learning anything new maybe you could look into it. Oh but no that is either to difficult or it might upset your ssafe little world.
"Any speculations on what would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede? "
Lundstrom responded: Their bloody misadventure would have placed the further behind the curve of industrial development.
This statement shows exactly how much you are not thinking about this. If the South had been allowed to seceed there would not have been a "bloody misadventure."
"They didn't go to war to stop slavery, they just used slavery as an excuse to demonize the enemy and rally the forces"
Lundstrom follwed the above with another fallacy: "And stop slavery."
The North went to war to keep the South in the Union. If the South had not seceeded slavery would have continued for an indefinite period in the south.
Bill, you may be right, as I'm sure the state constitution has been amended from time to time. I don't really know. The Texas Constitution is one of the longest and most complicated of any state, and some portions of it have been ruled by judges as uninterpretable! I do know that that provision was originally in it, and it may still be.
It's something that interests me, however, and I would like to do some reasearch on it. But I won't really have time to do it until May, after my wedding and honeymoon. Can you wait until then?
Regardless of why, I for one am glad the evil of slavery finally ended.
Even if the South did have a right, I don't care.
I think the best end result occured.
It's history now.
agreed, jt. it is too bad though that we had to kill off more of our own in that war than were killed in all of the other wars we've been involved in combined in order to achieve that.
Us, and the rest of the world would be 20 years behind where we are now, if we were lucky.
Maybe there would have been no Hitler and no WWII if the US had split up. The US entering WWI was what ended the stalemate in WWI leading to an allied victory. If the allies hadn't won WWI and imposed a harsh peace on Germany, Hitler probably would have never came to power.
it is too bad though that we had to kill off more of our own in that war than were killed in all of the other wars we've been involved in combined in order to achieve that.
Ah, it was time to thin the herd.
Just kidding, just kidding.
If I recall there were hardly any slaves in the North by the early 1800's much less by the 1860's. There plenty of slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware all states that remained in the Union.
You know, I am glad that you admitted that you weren't sure about the south having any right to seceed Allison. In the posts I made this morning, I only browsed through the first few parts of the U.S. Constitution, and found inconsistencies with that train of thought right off the bat.(As I talked to you about offline Muskwa). fold, as usual you are wrong. There was nothing in the Constitution that states a stae cannot secede. The Constitution only gave certain powers to the federal government. Keeping states from leaving was not one of them. Furthermore, the reservation of nondelegated powers left the power to secede to the peopl and the states.
Now it is clear that at least one person here thinks that the South DID have that right, but can ANYONE provide even ONE example in U.S. Law that says that the South or any State did/does indeed have the "Right" to seceed from the Union, because if not, this whole argument is mute. See above.
Because they can think instead of believing what they are spoon fed.
U.S. Constitution: Article 1 Section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation."
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
As long as they were states of the Union they could not do the above. Once they left they could.
There plenty of slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware all states that remained in the Union.
What do you mean by "Plenty". If I recall there were something like 40,000 Northern slaves to the 800,000+ Southern slaves.
There was nothing in the Constitution that states a stae cannot secede.
You are almost correct because, that isn't what happened in the Civil War.
THX 1138 4/5/02 7:28am
See above twit.
Jethro, don't start that crap of calling people names.
As long as they were states of the Union they could not do the above. Once they left they could.
They did it before they left the union. Most would call that treason.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...
now, technically, the individual states forfeited that right when they ratified the constitution. in theory.
No it is an inalianable right to throw off oppresive government.
" Most would call that treason. "
Treason and sedition. That's what you stand for, jethro.
Treason and sedition.
Just to be clear, I never claimed they had a right to secede. Whether they did or not wouldn't have mattered if they'd won the war. Nor did it really matter after they lost the war. I'm sure lawyers could make cases for both sides.
One of the reasons that the North didn't try Jefferson Davis was because the North was afraid that the Court would rule the Southern sates had a right to secede and therfore, there was no treason.
James McPherson contended that the war was obviously about slavery. He contends that absent slavery, the south's grieveances would not have risen to the level of Civil War, thus a an effort to preserve the union wouldn't be necessary.
The war was obviously about keeping Southern staes in the Union. The North could have let the South go but it chose no to. Second had the southeern states rescinded the secession declarations slavery would have continued as it had before.
Second had the southeern states rescinded the secession declarations slavery would have continued as it had before.
Well thank God that didn't happen.
Maybe the reason Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee weren't marched in front of a firing squad was because Lincoln saw no use in making them martyrs, too.
They used to shoot Union troops for falling asleep on guard duty.
Those two got away with treason and sedition.
They did it before they left the union. Most would call that treason.
agreed. but, after they left, what can be done about it?
wasn't general amnesty given to everyone in the south (except for what was explicitly enumerated in the constitution after the war)? wouldn't that be an even bigger reason jeff davis wasn't tried?
The problem is, they conspired and made alliances before they seceded
They did? Which alliances?
They did? Which alliances?
Yes, with each other!
That happened after secession.
Lundstrom: Lincoln was killed only a few days after Lee surrendered and, I believe, before Davis was captured.
I wrote: There was nothing in the Constitution that states a state cannot secede.
JT responded: You are almost correct because, that isn't what happened in the Civil War.
I do not know what it is that you mean.
That happened after secession.
You'd better go back and read your history book.
No you better read the history books. I still don't know what "that" is.
They conspired, formed alliances........ all before the seceded.
Formation of the Confederate States of America
On February 4, 1861, delegates from the seven seceded states met in Montgomery, Alabama to write a new constitution for their new nation. The Confederate convention was the site of considerable jockeying for political position, especially over the choice of President. The convention eventually selected Jefferson Davis, of Missisippi, a compromise candidate who was not even in attendance at Montgomery. The vice-presidential slot went to Alexander Stephens of Georgia, head of the Constituion drafting committee.
The Confederate Constitution adopted in March was almost identical to the United States constitution, with a few differences:
In the preamble, it omitted the general welfare clause, and added that each ratifying state was acting "in its sovereign and independent character."
It explicitly guaranteed slavery in both states and territories, but banned the international slave trade.
It prohibited protective tariffs and Congressional appropriations for internal improvements.
The Confederate constitution limited the president to one six-year term, but gave him a line item veto.
The delegates chose a provisional cabinet, and sent comissioners to the secession conventions in the Upper South. They hoped to present a moderate image, in order to convince the remaining slaveholding states to join them.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/timeline.htm
Jethro, do you wish we still had slavery in this country?
Did I say that? No. My point is this: the Consitution set the rules that the federal government was required to live by. It didn't follow those rules. Slavery could not have been prohibited in this country because there were too many states that would not agree to ban it. After the war was over the feds continued to ignore the Constitution by requiring the southern states to ratify amendments it would not otherwise agree too. In short it was all a federal government power grab.
Since we are talking about the south here is some
good news for the south. Apparently in a new report released yesterday they found that having intercourse with your first cousin does not increase the risk of birth defects. I would argue that since anyone who would do that probably has a few defects already. (no offense meant to those in the south, just havin a little fun and lightening the mood a tad)
James McPherson contended that the war was obviously about slavery. He contends that absent slavery, the south's grieveances would not have risen to the level of Civil War, thus a an effort to preserve the union wouldn't be necessary.
One can't deny that slavery was one of the main sources of conflict between the North and South, but that doesn't mean they went to war to stop slavery. If that had been the case, they wouldn't have needed the South to secede before taking action. They could have just passed a law outlawing slavery and sent troops throughout the South to make sure the law was enforced. The reason for going to war was to keep those states in the Union.
I agree with Jethro that had the South not seceded, slavery would have begrudgingly continued for a while longer, but probably not much longer. Times were changing and so were social mores and economics with it.