# US Civil War Myths and Facts



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 31, 2009)

To wrap up some tangents here, I provided 4 threads for civil war discussion, We can also spin that off into a new one if anyone would care to discuss that more. Please start a thread is so.

Regarding the Crusades, it's an interesting topic, and again, I would love the chance to really dig into that topic, so if anyone else does, please feel free to start a new thread.

We can then return this one to the headstone topic.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2009)

A Civil War thread would be good, I'd like to learn more about the history and also how it has affected people today.  I imagine apart from slavery it changed a great many things.
A Crusades thread would be useful because it is very much in modern Muslims minds and I know many fear a modern crusade, a discussion could be constructive. I don't have enough knowledge of either to start them though.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> And by the way, the point of his post is absolutely ridiculous.  There is nothing in Christianity, or in our holy book that justifies lynching blacks.  It was Christians who formed the abolitionist movement that led to the formation of the Republican party and the Civil war faught to end slavery.



It was Christians who effectuated New World slavery and Christianity that was used to justify it. Robert E. Lee states the position that what was being done to the Africans was for their good, as the Jews' time in Egypt ultimately was for them:



> "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."



Christianity was the means of identifying the Africans as heathens in need of Christian help, for their own good. Intolerance of non-Christians a fundamental tenet of Christianity, and saving others forcibly from the Christians' view of hell is certainly ensconced in the Christian tradition.



The Last Legionary said:


> Edited to add: Your history is wrong mate. The Civil War fallacies were debunked here by Kaith and a few others way back when.



A few conspiracy theorists here--actually, it was mostly just Kaith--convinced themselves that up was down. The rest of the world hasn't yet accepted the Great MartialTalk Debunking.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Actually the entire world doesn't know, I didn't learn anything about the American Civil War whilst at school and only have a hazy idea of what it was about so I'd bow happily to Bob's knowledge of the whys and wherefores.



Please, please, _please _don't do that. Wikipedia would be a much better source.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

Jeff, all my sources were cited, are verifiable and are accessible. Sources included documents by reliable witnesses to Lincoln's own words.  

The fact that they wrongly teach in school that Lincoln freed the slaves doesn't make it right.  He didn't. He was dead before they were freed. No Loyal State Slave was freed until the Constitutional Amendment was passed. (verified, documented)

The fact that they wrongly teach about the US Civil War being all about slavery, when it was about tariffs, trade balance and power (verified, documented). 

The fact that they teach in school about poor honest Abe who tried so many times to become President when he was in fact (verified, documented) a highly paid, quite wealthy (by the days standards) -corporate- lawyer. (verified, documented)

The fact that many of the Confederate States such as Virginia fought to preserve the Union (verified, documented) until Lincoln demanded an armed conflict (verified, documented) despite his own advisors recommending peaceful parting (verified, documented).

There's also the fact that the Southern States wanted to end slave importation in the 1700's but were prevented by the New England states. (verified, documented).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

*Civil War*
Revisiting the Past - The Road to War : Causes
Researching the Past - An examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Part 3 - An re-examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Pt 4 - The Institution of Slavery as a cause for war. By Bob Hubbard



Edited to add:
Please note that each of these 4 articles have numerous references cited, a short list is below:
*   Slavery and States Rights 
*Great Speech of Hon. Joseph Wheeler, of Alabama. 
   From the Richmond, Va., _Dispatch, _July 31, 1894​http://www.civilwarhome.com/wheelercauses.htm

*"Reminiscences Of The Civil War", (Chapter I)*
 - John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA

*Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862*
http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolngreeley.htm
 
*The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War*
- Thomas Dilorenzo

*U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service*
http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gett...03-lesson1.htm
http://www.civilwarhistory.com/slavetrade/causes.htm

*Wedges of Separation In The Civil War*
http://www.civilwarhome.com/sectionalism.htm

*33 Questions about American History*
-Thomas E. Woods Jr.

*Politically Incorrect guide to American history*
- Thomas E. Woods Jr

*Lincoln Unmasked*
- Thomas Dilorenzo


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

*Additional Reference:*

Myths of the American Civil War
Politics Articles | September 10, 2005

The Civil War (1861-5) has spawned numerous myths and falsities.

The Republicans did not intend to abolish slavery - just to "contain" it, i.e., limit it to the 15 states where it had already existed. Most of the Democrats accepted this solution.

This led to a schism in the Democratic party. The "fire eaters" left it and established their own pro-secession political organization. Growing constituencies in the south - such as urban immigrants and mountain farmers - opposed slavery as a form of unfair competition. Less than one quarter of southern families owned slaves in 1861. Slave-based, mainly cotton raising, enterprises, were so profitable that slave prices almost doubled in the 1850s. This rendered slaves - as well as land - out of the reach of everyone but the wealthiest citizens.

Cotton represented three fifths of all United States exports in 1860. Southerners, dependent on industrial imports as they were, supported free trade. Northerners were vehement trade protectionists. The federal government derived most of its income from custom duties. Income tax and corporate profit tax were yet to be invented.

The states seceded one by one, following secession conventions and state-wide votes. The Confederacy (Confederate States of America) was born only later. Not all the constituents of the Confederacy seceded at once. Seven - the "core" - seceded between December 20, 1860 and February 1, 1861. They were: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

Another four - Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas - joined them only after the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. Two - Kentucky and Missouri - seceded but were controlled by the Union's army throughout the war. Maryland and Delaware were slave states but did not secede.

President James Buchanan who preceded Abraham Lincoln, made clear that the federal government would not use force to prevent secession. Secession was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court only in 1869 (in Texas vs. White) - four years after the Civil War ended. New England almost seceded in 1812, during the Anglo-American conflict, in order to protect its trade with Britain.

The constitution of the Confederacy prohibited African slave trade (buying slaves from Africa), though it allowed interstate trade in slaves. The first Confederate capital was in Montgomery, Alabama - not in Richmond, Virginia. The term of office of the Confederate president - Jefferson Davis was the first elected - was six years, not four as was the case in the Union.

Fort Sumter was not the first attack of the Confederacy on the Union. It was preceded by attacks on 11 forts and military installations on Confederate territory.

Lincoln won only 40 percent of the popular vote in 1860. Hence the South's fierce resistance to his abolitionist agenda. In 1864, the Republicans became so unpopular, they had to change their name to the Union Party. Lincoln's vice-president, Johnson, actually was a Democrat and hailed from Tennessee, a seceding state.

He was the only senator from a seceded state to remain in the Senate.

Reconstruction started long before the war ended, in Union-occupied Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Slave tax was an important source of state revenue in the South (up to 60 percent in South Carolina). Emancipation led to near bankruptcy.

The Union states of Connecticut, Minnesota, and Wisconsin refused to pass constitutional amendments to confer suffrage on black males. The Union army consigned black labor gangs to work on the plantations of loyal Southerners and forcibly separated the black workers from their families.

Contrary to myth, nearly two thirds of black families were headed by both parents. Slave marriages were legally meaningless in the antebellum South, though. But nearly 90 percent of slave households remained intact till death or forced separation. The average age of childbirth for women was 20.

Segregation was initiated by blacks. The freedmen lobbied hard and long for separate black churches and educational facilities. Nor was lynching confined to blacks. For instance, a white mob lynched, in September 1862, forty four Union supporters in Gainesville, Texas. Similar events took place in Shelton Laurel, North Carolina. The Ku Klux Klan was the paramilitary arm of the Democratic party in the SouthFree Reprint Articles, though never officially endorsed by it. It was used to "discipline" the workforce in the plantations - but also targeted Republicans.

The Democrats changed their name after the war to the Conservative Party. By 1877 they have regained power in all formerly Confederate states. 

Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Central Europe Review, Global Politician, PopMatters, and eBookWeb , and Bellaonline, and as a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent. He is the the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Jeff, all my sources were cited, are verifiable and are accessible.



That doesn't make your conclusions accurate. For the most part you cherry-picked isolated quotes and used them to buttress your own obsessive points. The people whose work is taught in colleges--high schools teach nonsense in every field due to the control of locally-elected school boards; look at the constant efforts to have creationism taught in biology--have written extensive analyses, published in books and checked by peer review and constant use.

Any attempt to boil an entire war down to one single issue--slavery, tariffs, states' rights, what-have-you--is oversimplifying, but that's what the academic study of past events is: making a history that allows one to grasp the times without having lived them.

Incidentally, lots of crazy theories are well-documented in works by their proponents (e.g., once again, Intelligent Design).



> There's also the fact that the Southern States wanted to end slave importation in the 1700's but were prevented by the New England states. (verified, documented).


Can you be more specific here? If this came up previously, I don't recall it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Please, please, _please _don't do that. Wikipedia would be a much better source.


Emancipation Fraud


> The proclamation did not name the border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation.



13th Amendment?  Which one?  


> Earlier proposed Thirteenth Amendments
> 
> Each of two amendments proposed by the Congress would have become the Thirteenth Amendment if it had been ratified when originally proposed.
> 
> ...


The Corwin Amendment was passed by both the House and the Senate, endorsed by outgoing President James Buchanan publicly and Abraham Lincoln said he did not oppose the Corwin Amendment. It was in the process of being ratified when war broke out and is technically still pending.  It may still be, however that is highly unlikely.  The current 13th was only ratified by Mississippi March 16, 1995.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 1, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Incidentally, lots of crazy theories are well-documented in works by their proponents (e.g., once again, Intelligent Design).


 
Why is it every other post an excuse for you to bash Christianity with broad strokes?  Intellegent Design doesn't even apply to the discussion at hand but you had to get the dig in didn't you?  I love watching you post about intollerence to other groups whilst you go on endlessly about Christians and Christianity.

Perhaps Its time I start in on how stupid most "educated" people are in every other post and use a handful of wacko examples to uphold that viewpoint.  I wonder how quickly you'd find that **** getting old?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Can you be more specific here? If this came up previously, I don't recall it.



Virginia attempted to ban the importation of slaves prior the American Revolution - the British government overruled them.  Virginia's reasoning was economic - imported slaves lowered the prices for domestic (locally-bred) slaves on the public market.  It was protectionism, not a desire to end slavery.

All states eventually created laws banning the importation of slaves.  Georgia was the last to do so, not the first.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Can you be more specific here? If this came up previously, I don't recall it.



"*three-fifths compromise*."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

*Founding Fathers wanted to free slaves from the start.*


> John Jay, who was the president of a similar society in New York, believed:
> the honour of the states, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.
> 
> 
> ...


* [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]

How                the West (Except for the U.S.) Ended Slavery[/FONT]*
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]*by                Thomas J. DiLorenzo*[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]*[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]*[/FONT]





> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Powell                then tells the story of how the British navy attempted to stop the                international slave trade. Among its major antagonists were New                England slave shippers, who continued to deliver slaves from Africa                to the Caribbean through the mid 1860s. (The big majority of the                slave ships in America were built and sailed from New York, Providence,                and Boston harbors.) Although the slave trade in America was banned                as of 1808, "an estimated 50,000 slaves were [also] brought                into the U.S. between 1807 and 1860," writes Powell. New York                City "had been a lively slave trading center." [/FONT]






> There's also the fact that the Southern States wanted to end slave importation in the 1700's but were prevented by the New England states. (verified, documented).


Looking for the document now.....


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 1, 2009)

The Emancipation Proclamation is clear in its text that it does not apply to states within the Union:


> That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free



The states "in rebellion" are enumerated later as:


> Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.




It was a propaganda move, and little more.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

> Quote:
> There's also the fact that the Southern States wanted to end slave importation in the 1700's but were prevented by the New England states. (verified, documented).


I'm currently unable to find several of my reference books where I believe the information is referenced.   Going on memory here:

During the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson and others wanted to shut down the importation of new slaves. The NE states balked at this as their income was heavily based on slave importation and transportation. As a compromise, importation was allowed until 1808, after which only domestic slave trade was allowed.

Despite restrictions on importation however, NE shippers continued to import slaves to the US, as well as to brokers in Cuba, Haiti and South America until after the end of the US war.  

As slavery was eliminated in the North, the slaves were often not freed, just resold to owners in still legal states.



*Slavery in the Confederacy*
- The CSA Constitution continued the USA's prohibition of importation of slaves after the year 1808.
- It specified that slavery was legal "_No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]"
_- It forbid the CSA Congress from  abolishing or limiting slavery in Confederate territories, leaving that decision to the individual states.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution

(Sidebar - it also had term limits, limited government, and clauses against 36,000 page unreadable bills.)


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Why is it every other post an excuse for you to bash Christianity with broad strokes?  Intellegent Design doesn't even apply to the discussion at hand



Wait, I thought that Intelligent Design was a scientific theory with no connection to any particular religion?



Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm currently unable to find several of my reference books where I believe the information is referenced. Going on memory here:
> 
> During the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson and others wanted to shut down the importation of new slaves. The NE states balked at this as their income was heavily based on slave importation and transportation.





That shipbuilders opposed the end of the slave trade I can believe...was there organized opposition by the New England states as political entities, though?


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 1, 2009)

opcorn:


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 1, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> opcorn:


 

Nice one! I didn't realise it was going to be _this_ interesting!


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 1, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Nice one! I didn't realise it was going to be _this_ interesting!



Oh, we've had the same thread at least 3 times now over the years (people posting factual info about the _War of Northern Aggression_, and other people refusing to accept it...)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

arnisador said:


> That shipbuilders opposed the end of the slave trade I can believe...was there organized opposition by the New England states as political entities, though?


Enough political clout to get the import end extended 20 years out from the signing of the Constitution, with additional threats for the NE states to secede (it was legal until Lincoln's Tariff War, still is for some states technically) twice in the years since.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 1, 2009)

Are you sure the actual war is ended and not being carried on like our War of the Roses by other means?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

The war was effectively over July 5th 1863, though the combat continued until 1865.  Some parts of the Deep South are a bit behind current trends to be jokingly referred to as still fighting it though.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The war was effectively over July 5th 1863, though the combat continued until 1865.  Some parts of the Deep South are a bit behind current trends to be jokingly referred to as still fighting it though.



Jokingly?

Please.

When I visited Gettysburg, there is a lot of respect paid to the 'southern version' of the reasons behind the war, and I think they deal with it with sensitivity and understanding.  When I visited Appomattox, a pair of Jethros saw my Michigan license plates and offered to kick the crap out of me for defiling sacred ground with my Yankee presence.

I've lived in NC long enough to know that the war never ended there.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Are you sure the actual war is ended and not being carried on like our War of the Roses by other means?



In the North, it's over. In the South...well...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

When your country has been conquered by force of arms, your property stolen, your children killed and your wife raped, sometimes that kind of anger lingers a while. 

Sheridan and Sherman if they did what they did then today, would be shot for war crimes. In fact, one of them (Sheridan I believe) admitted then, they should have been shot for it.  The Union Gov. of New Orleans allowed, even encouraged his men to rape the women of the town if they failed to bow to them. The burning of Atlanta and the scorched earth policy were blessed at the highest levels of the US government.  Lincoln encouraged such acts and reportedly found much amusement in their reports when he and his generals did meet during the war.  Documented in 1 or more of the articles I wrote, please refer there for reference.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> When your country has been conquered by force of arms, your property stolen, your children killed and your wife raped, sometimes that kind of anger lingers a while.
> 
> Sheridan and Sherman if they did what they did then today, would be shot for war crimes. In fact, one of them (Sheridan I believe) admitted then, they should have been shot for it.  The Union Gov. of New Orleans allowed, even encouraged his men to rape the women of the town if they failed to bow to them. The burning of Atlanta and the scorched earth policy were blessed at the highest levels of the US government.  Lincoln encouraged such acts and reportedly found much amusement in their reports when he and his generals did meet during the war.  Documented in 1 or more of the articles I wrote, please refer there for reference.



I didn't do any of it, nor did my ancestors, who were in Wales at the time.  There are winners and losers in all wars.  I can't change any of it.  But I can notice that in NC, my family is treated with contempt for not having grown up there, and that sucks.  I've lived all over, and have never been treated badly based on where I'm from, until I moved to NC.  If the sothroners can't get over it, they can kiss my pucker.  I cannot wait to get my family out of NC and up to MI with me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 2, 2009)

Bill, we're in agreement.  I didn't do it either, my family was in Europe until years after the war ended.  I haven't encountered any anti-yankee sentiment yet, but I do suspect it'll happen sometime.


----------



## Carol (Nov 2, 2009)

There are a mix of dynamics in NC.  Some sentiments are anti-Yankee, others are more anti-change, for a lack of a better word.  People that don't like outsiders because outsiders always change things.

Close in to Raleigh and Charlotte though, not that many seem to care...although I've never tried to live there.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 2, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> When your country has been conquered by force of arms, your property stolen, your children killed and your wife raped, sometimes that kind of anger lingers a while.



That is true, but it's been a long time ago.
Perpetuating hatred across generations when the underlying cause has gone is pointless. My generation doesn't hate the Germans anymore. There is no point.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 2, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> That is true, but it's been a long time ago.
> Perpetuating hatred across generations when the underlying cause has gone is pointless. My generation doesn't hate the Germans anymore. There is no point.


I agree.  Unfortunately, some have a long memory, something we see in the Mid East where they are still fighting the Crusades.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 2, 2009)

Claim "Those Damn Rebels fired without warning or reason on Ft. Sumter and started a war!!!"

False.

Until Lincoln called for an invasion army to be raised, Virginia and several others were arguing for a peaceful solution including reunification. Once his call for troops went out, they had no choice but to leave as the principles had been broken. As to firing the first shots, the fort at Ft. Sumter was a US fort, on South Carolina soil. The South offered to buy the fort. They were refused. They offered to pay their portion of the US Federal Debt. Refused. Lincoln also refused to meet with Southern reps, even with 2 associate justices of the USSC trying to help keep peace. CSA General P.G.T. Beaureagard also tried to negotiate a peaceful surrender of the fort (only 2 of the many US forts had not peacefully surrendered by this point), but when Lincoln sent in supplies and reinforcements, he forced the issue. Lincoln wanted his tariff's collected, no matter the cost.

When Lincoln had his war and called for troops, Virginia and 3 other states promptly seceded, and called for their citizens to step forward and defend their countries and rights.


Sidebar:
Interesting how many things were fixed over 100 years ago and thrown away....God is in the first paragraph, line item vetos, gun ownership guaranteed, states rights, etc. Did the right side really win I sometimes wonder......


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 2, 2009)

Bill, being Welsh has it's own issues! The anti English feeling is very strong as it is in Scotland. I was picked on a lot in school in Scotland for being English. Old grudges die hard and these are even older than your Civil War which is comparatively recent compared to the wars and outrages that people still feel strongly about now. The Highland Clearances have consequences both sides of the Atlantic though as do other events here and in Europe. It's all tied up together.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 2, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Bill, being Welsh has it's own issues! The anti English feeling is very strong as it is in Scotland. I was picked on a lot in school in Scotland for being English. Old grudges die hard and these are even older than your Civil War which is comparatively recent compared to the wars and outrages that people still feel strongly about now. The Highland Clearances have consequences both sides of the Atlantic though as do other events here and in Europe. It's all tied up together.



I understand that people hold grudges.  I suggest that holding a grudge against people who had nothing to do with one's impoverishment, rapine, or ravishment; either directly or via paternal lineage, is both stupid and objectionable.

To wit: I get it that 'southerners' are still ticked off at the way their ancestors were treated.  I didn't do it, and don't like being treated as if I did.  Southerners who have a problem with that can osculate my nether pucker.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 2, 2009)

Quite so.  

The only grudge worth keeping is our divinely given right, as Englishmen, to abhor the French :lol:.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 2, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Quite so.
> 
> The only grudge worth keeping is our divinely given right, as Englishmen, to abhor the French :lol:.


 
The French though, not the Bretons who are Celts, or Provancal who aren't French or the Burgundians nor the Basque or the ....LOL!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 2, 2009)

Richard Taylor was a Confederate General, the son of former US President Zachary Taylor. He commanded the  Army of Tennessee late in the war.



> A few passages from Richard Taylor's "Destruction and Reconstruction";
> 
> Chapter I. Secession
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 2, 2009)

*Slavery Myths*



 75% of white Southern families did not own slaves
 Half of all slave owners only owned 1-5 slaves
 Fewer than 1% of slave owners owned more than 50 slaves
 About 10% of blacks in the Upper South were freemen and made livings as laborers and tradesmen.
 2% of blacks in the Deep South were free, and often had wealth and owned slaves themselves.
Before Nat Turner's Rebellion, there were 3x more anti-slavery groups in the South than the North
John Brown, sung and praised as a hero, was little more than a murderer and a terrorist.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 2, 2009)

It's a bit wrong about Runnymede though, the Barons weren't doing it for the peoples freedom, they had no intentions of allowing the common people to have anything, it was purely for their own gain. It was designed to protect the privileges of the barons and to limit the power of the king. There had been previous documents in the same vein and what is known as the Magna Carta is in fact one of many following on with many edits.
That the Magna Carta is the great freedom giver under law is one of the biggest myths going, it was a start though.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 2, 2009)

to  add a light note to what I feel would/will be an interesting topic 

My son has always claimed that my wife had a porch door chair seat at pickets charge.  Not that he thinks her memory is that old but just that she talks like she was there at times

I am all in favor of a thread(s) on the civial war or the crusades


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

*Secession Myth*
The popular myth is that secession was illegal, and that Lincoln was merely enforcing the law. This is untrue.  Until the end of the war, secession was in fact legal, and ol' "Honest Abe" wasn't against breaking the law when it suited his purposes.


*Background*:

*Fact*: The Revolutionary War was ended by the Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, ratified by the Congress of the Confederation on 14 January 1784 and by the King of Great Britain on 9 April 1784.

This treaty stated thusly:


> Article 1:
> His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, *to be free sovereign and independent states*, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.


The treaty was with each of the states as separate nations.

After the war these 13 independent nations formed a Confederation and banded together under the Articles of Confederation. 6 years later, they reorganized under the current Constitution.  

In order to do so they had to first secede from their Confederation.
(Articles of Confederation) 


> Preamble
> 
> To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
> 
> Articles of Confederation and _*perpetual Union*_ between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.


  Please note, perpetual.

So, it seems secession was legal then.

In the years leading up to the US Civil War (more accurately called Lincoln's Tariff War), numerous states in fact did threaten to secede, with the opinion being that they would be crazy to do so, not that it was wrong to do so.

Who seceded?
13 English Colonies were granted their independence after fighting a war with England. 
Texas succeeded from Mexico.
California too succeeded from Mexico.

In the early 1800's the New England states threatened to succeed. They were ultimately placated and remained within the Union.


So, the -idea- of secession as a legal option was there.

In addition:
In his 1801 First Inaugural Address one of the first things Thomas Jefferson did was to support the right of secession. "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

The leader of the New England secessionists was Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who had served as George Washington&#8217;s chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, as well as a congressman and senator from Massachusetts. "The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy &#8211; a separation,  the people of he East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." 

"The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government," announced Senator James Hillhouse. 



> The New England secession movement gained momentum for an entire decade, but ultimately failed at the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814. Throughout this struggle, wrote historian Edward Powell in Nullification and Secession in the United States, "the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed."


After the war Jefferson Davis was imprisoned but was never tried for treason, and for good reason: The federal government knew that it had no constitutional case against secession.

Oh, and that Lincoln guy?  He was all for it, when it suited his purposes.
West Virginia.

There is this particular clause in the US Constitution:


> Article IV, Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states 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.


But, West Virginia was formed from Virginia.  What gives?
Well, see, Lincoln held that the states had rebelled, not seceded, a technical difference, and the USSC decided in 1870 to allow the illegal act.

But what of the Generals?  Surely they saw it differently, at least the Northerners right?


> Most of the top military commanders in the war (on both sides) were educated at West Point, where the one course on the U.S. Constitution was taught by the Philadelphia abolitionist William Rawle, who taught from his own book, A View of the Constitution. What Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession "would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."


But, surely it was illegal, right?

Nothing in the US Constitution specifically states this. In fact, there had been repeated attempts to add such a "No Way Out" clause, the most recent (prior to the war) was proposed 2 days before Lincolns coronation, (after 7 states had already left btw) by Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin that said 'No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.'.

If this was already forbidden, there would be no reason for such an amendment. Stephen Douglas argued that Article VI already stated this, however neither AIV or AVI specify an exit clause, nor deny they ability to exit.

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession.

 The fact is, until the end of the war, the idea of a state breaking off and going it's own way, while thought of as a stupid move, was seen as a right. The the Constitution's 10th Amendment affirms that any power not granted to the Federal Government is retained by the States and by the People. Since no where in the USC does it state a state cannot leave, it seems that right is still there.


Even today, there are active secession movements at all levels across the US. Many violate parts of the USC, as they seek to divide states into new entities. Others seek to split counties, cities, or other regional borders.  A few seek to split off from the US and form independent nations. How smart that might be in the current world climate is debatable.



*Sources:*
Wikipedia
Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Articles of Confederation
US Constitution
Treaty of Paris
lewrockwell.com


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> *Secession Myth*
> The popular myth is that secession was illegal, and that Lincoln was merely enforcing the law. This is untrue.  Until the end of the war, secession was in fact legal



There was no constitutionally prescribed means of seceding, making it difficult to do so and hence making any argument about its legality conjectural and very much open to debate. This is telling, because the framers did foresee the possibility of insurrections and rebellions and put language in the document relating to those situations. How could it be that insurrection and rebellion were explicitly provided for, but not secession? Without such a provision, how could one distinguish between these cases--secession or rebellion? That some people had contrary opinions on the matter is irrelevant: Until tested in court, it's just theory (or less). Anything other than Texas vs. White is just talk. That is unequivocally our system--the Supreme Court settles matters between states. It did so, and came down solidly against a right of secession.

On the theory side though, it's been argued that the rejection of the confederation in favor of the current Constitution was precisely a rejection of the loose form of states-rights-heavy govt. the confederation represented (e.g. Akhil Reed Amar in _America's Constitution: A Biography)_. The Constitution is a contract between the States--at the time, equal partners--and like all such agreements may be changed only by consent of all the parties.

The Constitution describes itself as for forming "a more Perfect Union". As Texas v. White says, if the previous union was perpetual, and this one was more perfect than that, what are we to make of this? The intentionally and noticeably stronger language in the Constitution has been frequently remarked upon in this regard. There's Article 1, Section 10: "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." This was certainly violated by the seceding states. The individual states themselves lacked laws indicating how they might decide to secede, and who was authorized to deliver such news to the federal govt.--they used ad hoc methods. It's unclear whether their own methods were internally justified.

The Federalists (in their Federalist Papers) rejected the notion of a right of unilateral secession being found in the document during the arguments for adoption. James Madison, post-Nullification Crisis, stated that there was no right of secession--and as the document's main author, he would have known better than any what was in the mind of the framers of the Constitution.

You often conflate the ideas of secession and revolution/rebellion. Many of the founders and other major figures--including James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and James Buchanan--agreed that rebellion was an appropriate option against a govt. that lacked moral authority while explicitly denying a right of secession. They felt that a revolution could be justified but that a legal right of secession did not exist. That's an important difference.



> In the early 1800's the New England states threatened to succeed. They were ultimately placated and remained within the Union.
> 
> 
> So, the -idea- of secession as a legal option was there.


That's the idea of it as a bargaining chip. Until they tried to secede, it's all talk.



> In his 1801 First Inaugural Address one of the first things Thomas Jefferson did was to support the right of secession. "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."


I'm reading that exactly opposite of how you are: He says to not "disturb" (physically molest) those people with this "error of opinion" (namely, that secession is appropriate) but rather to "combat (their views with) reason".



> After the war Jefferson Davis was imprisoned but was never tried for treason, and for good reason: The federal government knew that it had no constitutional case against secession.



What's your source for saying that's _why _they didn't prosecute? The federal govt. knew that it had to re-integrate the Southern states into society and that trials would likely be divisive and counterproductive.



> The fact is, until the end of the war, the idea of a state breaking off and going it's own way, while thought of as a stupid move, was seen as a right.


As indicated above, not so. Some thought it was but the people involved with writing and arguing in favor of the Constitution did not. 

As an aside, from Wikipedia:



> Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery was the chief cause of secession in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause. There was a striking contrast between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did _not_ cause secession and his pre-war _Cornerstone Speech_. Confederate President Jefferson Davis also switched from saying the war was caused by slavery to saying that states' rights was the cause. While Southerners often used states' rights arguments to defend slavery, sometimes roles were reversed, as when Southerners demanded national laws to defend their interests with the Gag Rule and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. On these issues, it was Northerners who wanted to defend the rights of their states.
> 
> 
> Almost all the inter-regional crises involved slavery


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

> Quote:
> After the war Jefferson Davis was imprisoned but was never tried for treason, and for good reason: The federal government knew that it had no constitutional case against secession.
> What's your source for saying that's _why _they didn't prosecute? The federal govt. knew that it had to re-integrate the Southern states into society and that trials would likely be divisive and counterproductive.



You are suggesting that the conquering US Government, would forgive the leader of their enemy in the thought of peace, while at the same time passing an obscene number of laws authorizing the theft, I'm sorry,  the "confiscation" of the properties of anyone considered a Confederate, putting puppet govenors in office of the conquered states, forcing them to rewrite their own Constitutions to hard-code a subservient status and imposing massive repayment costs after waging a war of extermination where men, women and children were indiscriminately raped, robbed and slaughtered?

It's telling that after the war David was reelected to Congress but denied his seat after the 14th Amendment was rushed into place.  Seems a nation intent on seeing the will of the people would have allowed Democracy to rule.  Except when it's inconvenient.  

So much for the "American Experiment in Democracy".




> Quote:
> The fact is, until the end of the war, the idea of a state breaking off and going it's own way, while thought of as a stupid move, was seen as a right.
> As indicated above, not so. Some thought it was but the people involved with writing and arguing in favor of the Constitution did not.





> [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Jefferson                and James Madison were the authors of the Virginia and Kentucky                Resolutions of 1798 which held that "where powers were assumed                by the national government which had not been granted by the states,                nullification is the rightful remedy," and that every state                has a right to "nullify of its own authority all assumptions                of power by others. . ." Nullification of unconstitutional                federal actions was a means of effectively seceding. [/FONT]


 (Thomas DiLorenzo)

The fact that no where in the Constitution does it state it was illegal to secede, and the fact that there were numerous opportunities to clarify in the decades prior yet they did not, would indicate it was permitted under the 10th Amendment:


> *Amendment X*
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You are suggesting that



...you have no source for your claim, just a conspiracy theory. If CSA authorities weren't prosecuted for a particular reason, that's surely an historical fact that can be cited, right? A statement by the Attorney General explaining why no one was being prosecuted? It's a fact that Jefferson Davis wasn't prosecuted. The rest is just your guess as to why, as the rest of your comments clearly indicate.

As to construing "a means of effectively seceding", that still wouldn't be a means of actually seceding, would it?



> The fact that no where in the Constitution does it state it was illegal to secede, and the fact that there were numerous opportunities to clarify in the decades prior yet they did not, would indicate it was permitted under the 10th Amendment



Not nearly as clearly as the Constitution spelling out a means for doing so, no. If you are making up for the absence of positive evidence for your side with weasel-words like "the fact that there were numerous opportunities to clarify in the decades prior yet they did not, would indicate it was permitted" is loose logic of the most self-interested sort. There are any number of things not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution that could have been so prohibited.

Look, you're just making stuff up. You're seeing what you want to see--conspiracies.

As to the Virginia and Kentucky                Resolutions, the text is available online. They say things like:



> That this commonwealth considers the federal Union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeably to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution





> That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the union of the states, to maintain which it pledges its powers



They then go on to claim a power to ignore certain federal laws and make a clear protest against those laws. There's certainly an implicit threat that the states might take stronger action but no clear statement of an intention or even the right to do so.

There's no explicit right to secede in the Consitution. There's also no explicit right to dance. In seeking a right to secede in the 10th amendment you're in the same boat as those seeking a right to privacy in the 14th amendment...save that the Supreme Court did find thee latter right but not the former. 

If the Supreme Court isn't the final arbiter of the Constitution, we're left in a pretty sorry state, with no way to decide what the document does and does not say. It was tried. There's no right to secede. There never was, despite any sabre-rattling by states seeking advantages of various sorts prior to the Civil War.

By the way, I notice that you ignored the substantive arguments I made in the first part of my post in favor of an inflammatory response, as though war atrocities were unique to the Civil War. I take this as an implicit recognition that the facts are not on your side. It's an implicit concession on your part...like the implicit right to secede to you are so attached.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

You have ignored numerous factual items I have posted here, and elsewhere. As usual however you read things how you like. I wonder, do you grade your students the same way, seeing what you wish and not what is actually on their paper?

You seem to fill in blanks as you want them to appear. It's ok to create a huge tax burden with a poorly thought out national health plan because it's implied, yet because there's no stated out it's implied its not possible to leave.  Great logic there.

I will address your various points as I can.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> ...you have no source for your claim, just a conspiracy theory. If CSA authorities weren't prosecuted for a particular reason, that's surely an historical fact that can be cited, right? A statement by the Attorney General explaining why no one was being prosecuted? It's a fact that Jefferson Davis wasn't prosecuted. The rest is just your guess as to why, as the rest of your comments clearly indicate.
> 
> As to construing "a means of effectively seceding", that still wouldn't be a means of actually seceding, would it?



Lets see, after the end of hostilities:
- As a condition of readmittance to the Union (which they never left yet did, funny that inconsistency there) the states were forced to rewrite their constitutions. 

1.South Carolina Dec. 20, 1860 July 9, 1868 
2. Mississippi     Jan. 9, 1861 Feb. 23, 1870 
3. Florida        Jan. 10, 1861 June 25, 1868 
4. Alabama        Jan. 11, 1861 July 13, 1868 
5. Georgia        Jan. 19, 1861 July 15, 1870
6. Louisiana       Jan. 26, 1861 July 9, 1868 
7. Texas          March 2, 1861 March 30, 1870 
8. Virginia        April 17, 1861 Jan. 26, 1870 
9. Arkansas        May 6, 1861 June 22, 1868 
10. North Carolina May 20, 1861 July 4, 1868 
11. Tennessee      June 8, 1861 July 24, 1866
dates of secession and re-admittance



> *The Reconstruction Acts*
> 
> On Mar. 2, 1867, Congress enacted the Reconstruction Act, which, supplemented later by three related acts, divided the South (except Tennessee) into five military districts in which the authority of the army commander was supreme. Johnson continued to oppose congressional policy, and when he insisted on the removal of the radical Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton Stanton, Edwin McMasters, 181469, American statesman, b. Steubenville, Ohio. He was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1836 and began to practice law in Cadiz., in defiance of the Tenure of Office Act Tenure of Office Act, in U.S. history, measure passed on Mar. 2, 1867, by Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson ; it forbade the President to remove any federal officeholder appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate without the further, the House impeached him (Feb., 1868). The radicals in the Senate fell one vote short of convicting him (May), but by this time Johnson's program had been effectively scuttled.
> Under the terms of the Reconstruction Acts, new state constitutions were written in the South. By Aug., 1868, six states (Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida) had been readmitted to the Union, having ratified the Fourteenth Amendment as required by the first Reconstruction Act. The four remaining unreconstructed statesVirginia, Mississippi, Texas, and Georgiawere readmitted in 1870 after ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Fifteenth Amendment, which guaranteed the black man's right to vote.


Source:http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Readmission+of+states]



> *Reconstruction Acts*
> 
> *From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> 
> ...


Now, Lincoln & Congress said they had rebelled. The USSC said they Seceded.  The view (rebellion vs secession) varied however in what punishments they chose to inflict.


Now, lets look at rape.


> An 1862 order by the Union Gen. Benjamin Butler decreeing that any New Orleans woman showing contempt for his occupying troops shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation  that is, the citys outspokenly Confederate belles were to be treated as prostitutes. After President Abraham Lincoln ignored calls to rescind the order and it was applied beyond the city, its geographical reach ensured that the threat of sexual violence and the fear of rape were common to southern women and central to how they experienced the Civil War.
> Article citation: Feimster, Crystal N. General Benjamin Butler & the threat of sexual violence during the American Civil War. Daedalus, Spring 2009.


Hmm....burned my home, raped my women, gave what's left of my property away or kept it for yourself, but! you didn't hang ol Jeff Davis. Why, make me a Yankee by god!

I think not.





arnisador said:


> Not nearly as clearly as the Constitution spelling out a means for doing so, no. If you are making up for the absence of positive evidence for your side with weasel-words like "the fact that there were numerous opportunities to clarify in the decades prior yet they did not, would indicate it was permitted" is loose logic of the most self-interested sort. There are any number of things not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution that could have been so prohibited.
> 
> Look, you're just making stuff up. You're seeing what you want to see--conspiracies.



You mean like how you see it as ok to create a national health care system? Ok then.



arnisador said:


> As to the Virginia and Kentucky                Resolutions, the text is available online. They say things like:
> 
> They then go on to claim a power to ignore certain federal laws and make a clear protest against those laws. There's certainly an implicit threat that the states might take stronger action but no clear statement of an intention or even the right to do so.



Interesting that the Kentucky legislature in 1802 disagreed with your interpretation and passed a resolution stating as much.

There's no explicit right to secede in the Consitution. There's also no explicit right to dance. In seeking a right to secede in the 10th amendment you're in the same boat as those seeking a right to privacy in the 14th amendment...save that the Supreme Court did find thee latter right but not the former. [/quote]

The fact that a right is NOT listed does not negate it's existence. 



arnisador said:


> If the Supreme Court isn't the final arbiter of the Constitution, we're left in a pretty sorry state, with no way to decide what the document does and does not say. It was tried. There's no right to secede. There never was, despite any sabre-rattling by states seeking advantages of various sorts prior to the Civil War.



So, you're saying that West Virginia is illegal as there wasn't a right to secede?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You have ignored numerous factual items I have posted



You do not understand the distinction between a list of facts and an _analysis_. You have listed a bunch of quotes from Wikipedia. That isn't an argument.



> It's ok to create a huge tax burden with a poorly thought out national health plan because it's implied



We don't agree on any of the facts you state there--huge tax burden, poorly thought out, or merely implied (vice assumed)--so this is a straw man argument.



Bob Hubbard said:


> Now, lets look at rape.



I don't understand what this has to do with an implied right to secede, present since the 1780s and clearly visible to you in the 10th amendment. It's a red herring argument.



> Interesting that the Kentucky legislature in 1802 disagreed with your interpretation and passed a resolution stating as much.



It would be helpful if you could point to it.



> The fact that a right is NOT listed does not negate it's existence.



But it does require the Supreme Court to find it there if parties disagree. How would you resolve impasses on Constitutional interpretation--and pleas don't posit a fantasyland where the justices are all chosen so as to agree with your principles. Do you have a real-world way to settle these disputes without demanding in advance that everyone think like you do?



> So, you're saying that West Virginia is illegal as there wasn't a right to secede?



That was effectively settled by the court in Virginia v. West Virginia in 1870. You could argue it wasn't settled 100% by that case, but no one has made a serious attempt to have it heard again.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2009)

You've scurried away from my response to your argument in favor of another polemic against Abraham Lincoln and the Union army. I'd like to see your specific replies to the items below. Otherwise it isn't a discussion--it's just a dumping of blocks of text from Wikipedia.



arnisador said:


> *1.* There was no constitutionally prescribed means of seceding, making it difficult to do so and hence making any argument about its legality conjectural and very much open to debate. This is telling, because the framers did foresee the possibility of insurrections and rebellions and put language in the document relating to those situations. How could it be that insurrection and rebellion were explicitly provided for, but not secession? Without such a provision, how could one distinguish between these cases--secession or rebellion?





> *2.* it's been argued that the rejection of the confederation in favor of the current Constitution was precisely a rejection of the loose form of states-rights-heavy govt. the confederation represented (e.g. Akhil Reed Amar in _America's Constitution: A Biography)_. The Constitution is a contract between the States--at the time, equal partners--and like all such agreements may be changed only by consent of all the parties.





> *3.* The Constitution describes itself as for forming "a more Perfect Union". As Texas v. White says, if the previous union was perpetual, and this one was more perfect than that, what are we to make of this? The intentionally and noticeably stronger language in the Constitution has been frequently remarked upon in this regard.





> *4.* The individual states themselves lacked laws indicating how they might decide to secede, and who was authorized to deliver such news to the federal govt.--they used ad hoc methods. It's unclear whether their own methods were internally justified.





> *5.* Many of the founders and other major figures--including James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and James Buchanan--agreed that rebellion was an appropriate option against a govt. that lacked moral authority while explicitly denying a right of secession. They felt that a revolution could be justified but that a legal right of secession did not exist. That's an important difference.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> You've scurried away from my response to your argument in favor of another polemic against Abraham Lincoln and the Union army. I'd like to see your specific replies to the items below. Otherwise it isn't a discussion--it's just a dumping of blocks of text from Wikipedia.


1- For the same reason they didn't specify a right to breath. It was seen as obvious.
2- A contract breached by 1 party will nullify the contract. The seceding states saw it that way. The writings of the time are quite clear on that.
3- What is your question? The Constitution was in many ways superior to the AOC. The Confederate Constitution however added some improvements such as line-item-vetos that only recently made it into the US version.
4- Incorrect. Several of the states did specify they had the right, I believe NY and Virginia were 2 of them.
5- Many of the Founders held different opinions. Jefferson's was that the Constitution should always be read based on the time it was written and that it said what it said and nothing more.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 1- For the same reason they didn't specify a right to breath. It was seen as obvious.



Then why add in parts about rebellion and secession? Even if the right were obvious, wouldn't a mechanism for exercising it be required?



> 2- A contract breached by 1 party will nullify the contract.



This couldn't be more wrong. If you don't pay the mortgage, the other party in that contract can still hold you responsible for the money, foreclosing if necessary. This is a major reason why we have courts--to enforce contracts. Secession from this view would have had to go before the Supreme Court as a dispute between states. You are entirely incorrect here.



> 3- What is your question? The Constitution was in many ways superior to the AOC.



Did it not state that the union of the states was to be made stronger?



> 4- Incorrect. Several of the states did specify they had the right



What about a legal mechanism for deciding to exercise it and notifying the federal govt.?



> 5- Many of the Founders held different opinions. Jefferson's was that the Constitution should always be read based on the time it was written and that it said what it said and nothing more.



But if it says what it says and nothing more, and it doesn't say there's a right to secede, then you are now arguing against yourself. Under this view, where can a right to secede come from? An expansive view of the 10th Amendment that makes it a Pandora's box of rights?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> You do not understand the distinction between a list of facts and an _analysis_. You have listed a bunch of quotes from Wikipedia. That isn't an argument.



I have given you both here, and in my numerous prior articles. You reject both.




> We don't agree on any of the facts you state there--huge tax burden, poorly thought out, or merely implied (vice assumed)--so this is a straw man argument.



I wasn't aware that we had to agree on facts to have an argument. Obviously only those who agree should argue.



> I don't understand what this has to do with an implied right to secede, present since the 1780s and clearly visible to you in the 10th amendment. It's a red herring argument.



You asked for more detail, I provided it. Your inability to understand or accept it does not negate it.



> It would be helpful if you could point to it.



I had my date wrong. It was 1799.  Found at Yale. Hope that's an ok source to cite.


> http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/kenres.asp Kentucky Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts
> *RESOLUTIONS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> THE representatives of the good people of this commonwealth in general assembly convened, having maturely considered the answers of sundry states in the Union, to their resolutions passed at the last session, respecting certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, commonly called the alien and sedition laws, would be faithless indeed to themselves, and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce in principles and doctrines attempted to be maintained in all those answers, that of Virginia only excepted. To again enter the field of argument, and attempt more fully or forcibly to expose the unconstitutionality of those obnoxious laws, would, it is apprehended be as unnecessary as unavailing.
> ...






> But it does require the Supreme Court to find it there if parties disagree. How would you resolve impasses on Constitutional interpretation--and pleas don't posit a fantasyland where the justices are all chosen so as to agree with your principles. Do you have a real-world way to settle these disputes without demanding in advance that everyone think like you do?



I'll do as you wish and avoid the FDR idea of packing the courts with favorites then.

The Supreme Court should rule based on the Constitution, not based on party lines, or favoritism. It has not however held to that ideal, as numerous critics have stated since the mid 1800's. 
The original idea was that the 3 branches would check each others power, not that the USSC would be the "ultimate constitutional power". It assumed that on it's own.

reference: http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/separation-powers/





> That was effectively settled by the court in Virginia v. West Virginia in 1870. You could argue it wasn't settled 100% by that case, but no one has made a serious attempt to have it heard again.



So you are saying that because the court after the fact decided it was ok, that it made it legal when it happened?  I believe you are right that it hasn't come up since, but that may, and I speculate, have more to do with cultural differences between the 2 sections than anything else.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Then why add in parts about rebellion and secession? Even if the right were obvious, wouldn't a mechanism for exercising it be required?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Read the 10th.  It reserves non stated powers to the states.  Therefore the states who had an escape clause could leave.  The forced rewrites removed them, which is why California specifically states it can't leave. (Exact time that was added I'm not aware of ATM)

As to the contract view, it is the one I saw listed. Specifics at the moment elude me, but I do believe I referenced them before in more detail.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I wasn't aware that we had to agree on facts to have an argument. Obviously only those who agree should argue.



I've got bad news for you in that regard.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

Ok, the 3 states who specified an out are Virginia, New York and Rhode Island. Had to look this up.



> When New York delegates met on July 26, 1788, their ratification document read, &#8220;That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.&#8221;
> 
> 
> On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island delegates made a similar claim in their ratification document. &#8220;That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.&#8221;
> ...


Source Dr. Walter Williams, George Mason University
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/apr/25/states-have-historical-right-to-secede/


I do not believe that any of the 3 states current constitutions contain escape clauses, or if they do I've been unable to locate anything resembling them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

The Constitution does not forbid the states to secede, nor does it empower Congress to wage war upon a state that secedes. 
Therefore, the 10th amendment implicitly authorizes states to secede.

The president does have power to suppress insurrections, but when a state votes to leave the Union in the same orderly manner in which it entered, it's hardly an insurrection. 
Lincoln's actions were entirely illegal.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2009)

Now, since I am often noted to do so, I can also present a plausible counter that I saw on one of the sites.  That the states were not legally able to leave based on 


> *Article VI*
> 
> All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.



The argument being that since there was still money owed on debts, they couldn't leave until they had paid their share.

I recall reading (references not handy at the moment) that Virginia at least had offered to pay it's portion but was rebuffed.  Take this with a grain of salt as I don't have references on hand to confirm/deny this.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

If secession was illegal, why did President James Buchanan allow 7 states to leave in peace?  
- The first 7 states voted to leave in January 1861.
- Lincoln took office in March 1861.
- Lincoln sent a resupply mission to Ft. Sumter in April 1861. The fort being in South Carolina, a seceded state. The resupply was fired upon and retreated, however Lincoln had his excuse "they shot first". The fort was asked repeatedly to surrender peacefully, and a payment was offered but rejected.
- Upon Lincolns call for an army to be raised, additional states then left by vote of their legally elected governments.

One could argue that by firing on the fort, South Carolina started the war. I don't disagree with that argument. It's possible that ships could have been used to blockade the fort and starve them into submission. It's possible that had firing not begun that a peaceful reunification would have worked out within a few more months. 

The question still remains, If secession was illegal, why did President James Buchanan allow 7 states to leave in peace?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2009)

Since Virginia, New York and Rhode Island had specified escape clauses, and since any power of 1 state is granted to all states equally, they all had escape ability, therefore secession was legal.



> *Article IV*
> 
> Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
> 
> ...



Court decisions and laws passed -after- the war do not make acts prior illegal.


----------

