Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process…!

---

Just interesting that "kill them if they leave" was not necessarily the majority opinion of Northerners in 1861


Again you are very interested in the idea of a "process"…but you don't need a process to assert your rights. And the right to independence is the great right of all

---

Again, what if 1 state wanted to leave and the others said no? What do you think would happen? Because there is no process, and no real precedent, why wouldn't the other 49 be able to say no? Would they even need to agree at all? Of course your and my opinions are irrelevant, just seeing how far you would go with independence.

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process…!

---

Just interesting that "kill them if they leave" was not necessarily the majority opinion of Northerners in 1861


Again you are very interested in the idea of a "process"…but you don't need a process to assert your rights. And the right to independence is the great right of all

---

Again, what if 1 state wanted to leave and the others said no? .

---

No state has a right to tell another state what to do.

And certainly no state has a right to make war on another to keep them inside an artificial political union.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process…!

---

Just interesting that "kill them if they leave" was not necessarily the majority opinion of Northerners in 1861


Again you are very interested in the idea of a "process"…but you don't need a process to assert your rights. And the right to independence is the great right of all

---

Again, what if 1 state wanted to leave and the others said no? .

---

No state has a right to tell another state what to do.

And certainly no state has a right to make war on another to keep them inside an artificial political union.

---

The United States is an artificial political union?

I think you are stretching extra far on this one. States don't tell each other what to do, yet you know Texas would love to not have any tax dollars go to the feds. The Union is not a fleety "oh I don't think I like this any more" thing. No state has ever successfully left.

Point is, if 49 States thought 1 should not leave, that state would not leave. And the only precedent we have, in lieu of a process outlined by law, is ore or less declaring secession treason and fighting to prevent it. So I dont think States can just willy nilly up and leave like you think they can.

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process…!

---

Just interesting that "kill them if they leave" was not necessarily the majority opinion of Northerners in 1861


Again you are very interested in the idea of a "process"…but you don't need a process to assert your rights. And the right to independence is the great right of all

---

Again, what if 1 state wanted to leave and the others said no? .

---

No state has a right to tell another state what to do.

And certainly no state has a right to make war on another to keep them inside an artificial political union.

---

The United States is an artificial political union?

No state has ever successfully left.

.

---

You think it's organic? It's a created political union like the EU…it's not somehow holy or created by God to be eternal. If it does not serve the needs of the States and the people then it should (and can be) abolished and broken up.

No State has left because the Federal government wages harsh war on those that do.

"We kill you if you try to leave"

The Civil War was most definitely about slavery but also about much else: economic & social differences, constitutional disagreements, American expansion, etc. at the heart of all the issues & differences was slavery. For example, the disputes about expansion out west was whether or not new slabs stated would be allowed. One only needs to look at the Wilmot Proviso, the Compromise of 1850, and Bleeding Kansas to see that reality.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process…!

---

Just interesting that "kill them if they leave" was not necessarily the majority opinion of Northerners in 1861


Again you are very interested in the idea of a "process"…but you don't need a process to assert your rights. And the right to independence is the great right of all

---

Again, what if 1 state wanted to leave and the others said no? .

---

No state has a right to tell another state what to do.

And certainly no state has a right to make war on another to keep them inside an artificial political union.

---

The United States is an artificial political union?

No state has ever successfully left.

.

---

You think it's organic? It's a created political union like the EU…it's not somehow holy or created by God to be eternal. If it does not serve the needs of the States and the people then it should (and can be) abolished and broken up.

No State has left because the Federal government wages harsh war on those that do.

"We kill you if you try to leave"

---

It was not an artificial union, maybe Hawaii teaming up with Lithuania would be. The states were closely related from the moment each colony was formed. They were partners in name principle and goal. It was not desperation that drove them to form the union but a common goal.

I don't know what you even meant by artificial but I've never heard that. Anyways it is not worth pursuing.

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become slave-masters.] -Abraham Lincoln

"When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." -Abraham Lincoln

---

Skirting the issue, and you really didn't address the OP at all.

---

Not at all.

He said "how one can argue the cause of the civil wasn't over slavery"

Because the war was not over slavery.

It was over secession.

A very very important distinction.

Had Lincoln let the Southern States become independent there would have been no war.

Lincoln and the Federal government did not use military force to stop the Southern States from owing slaves (they had no issue with that)…they used force to keep them in the Federal Union.

P.S

He did NOT ask the question "how one can argue the cause of secession wasn't over slavery"

---

He said the cause of the Civil War. Seceding was illegal, right? .

---

No, secession was not illegal.

In 1861 when the Southern States voted to leave there had never been a single law passed by Congress that forbid secession, never a single Constitutional amendment, or single Supreme Court case that forbid secession.


How can something be illegal is there is not law against it?

---

They attacked the Union claiming to be a separate entity. The question of constitutionality has never been answered, but from the little I know, because there is no Constitutional way for a state to leave the Union, it seems there would need to be mutual agreement, else risk one side calling it treason. And they had a good case for treason, and did bring charges. Later dropped because they were afraid of an acquittal, which would have put the justification of the war in jeopardy.

---

Lincoln addresses the issue of secession in his first inaugural address. In his mind, it was completely unconstitutional.

There never was a doubt from Lincoln or the north about the war being justified. The south started it by firing upon Ft Sumter. The southerners by their actions also met the constitutional definition of treason by making war in the US. Later on, as the as continued along with heavy casualties, some northerners sought a negotiated settlement and Lincoln's re-election in 1864 was by no means assured because he was pretty unpopular. However, military successes that summer, especially Sherman burning Atlanta and subsequent March to the Sea changed all that.

Curious side note: the Democrat who ran against Lincoln in 1864 on a peace platform was George McClellan, former Union general who had been fired by Lincoln twice.

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process…!

---

Just interesting that "kill them if they leave" was not necessarily the majority opinion of Northerners in 1861


Again you are very interested in the idea of a "process"…but you don't need a process to assert your rights. And the right to independence is the great right of all

---

Again, what if 1 state wanted to leave and the others said no? .

---

No state has a right to tell another state what to do.

And certainly no state has a right to make war on another to keep them inside an artificial political union.

---

The United States is an artificial political union?

No state has ever successfully left.

.

---

You think it's organic? It's a created political union like the EU…it's not somehow holy or created by God to be eternal. If it does not serve the needs of the States and the people then it should (and can be) abolished and broken up.

No State has left because the Federal government wages harsh war on those that do.

"We kill you if you try to leave"

---

It was not an artificial union, maybe Hawaii teaming up with Lithuania would be. The states were closely related from the moment each colony was formed. They were partners in name principle and goal. It was not desperation that drove them to form the union but a common goal.
.

---

Actual in terms of culture, religion, ethnic origin, outlook, climate, and economy there were different and diverse.

And what was the common goal?

If the common goal is Liberty & Political independence then the forceful violent prevention of secession is a betrayal of that goal and the whole spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become slave-masters.] -Abraham Lincoln

"When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." -Abraham Lincoln

---

Skirting the issue, and you really didn't address the OP at all.

---

Not at all.

He said "how one can argue the cause of the civil wasn't over slavery"

Because the war was not over slavery.

It was over secession.

A very very important distinction.

Had Lincoln let the Southern States become independent there would have been no war.

Lincoln and the Federal government did not use military force to stop the Southern States from owing slaves (they had no issue with that)…they used force to keep them in the Federal Union.

P.S

He did NOT ask the question "how one can argue the cause of secession wasn't over slavery"

---

He said the cause of the Civil War. Seceding was illegal, right? .

---

No, secession was not illegal.

In 1861 when the Southern States voted to leave there had never been a single law passed by Congress that forbid secession, never a single Constitutional amendment, or single Supreme Court case that forbid secession.


How can something be illegal is there is not law against it?

---

They attacked the Union claiming to be a separate entity. The question of constitutionality has never been answered, but from the little I know, because there is no Constitutional way for a state to leave the Union, it seems there would need to be mutual agreement, else risk one side calling it treason. And they had a good case for treason, and did bring charges. Later dropped because they were afraid of an acquittal, which would have put the justification of the war in jeopardy.

---

Lincoln addresses the issue of secession in his first inaugural address. In his mind, it was completely unconstitutional.

There never was a doubt from Lincoln or the north about the war being justified. The south started it by firing upon Ft Sumter. The southerners by their actions also met the constitutional definition of treason by making war in the US. Later on, as the as continued along with heavy casualties, some northerners sought a negotiated settlement and Lincoln's re-election in 1864 was by no means assured because he was pretty unpopular. However, military successes that summer, especially Sherman burning Atlanta and subsequent March to the Sea changed all that.

Curious side note: the Democrat who ran against Lincoln in 1864 on a peace platform was George McClellan, former Union general who had been fired by Lincoln twice.

---

Had a court said the South was free to secede, in principle, there would have been a lot of post- war doubt about justification.

KaiBear said:

---

Every few months the Civil War gets rehashed around here.



Bottom line




A. Economically the South had little choice but to risk going to war with northern abolitionists as a disproportionate amount of southern capital was tied up in slaves

B. Educated southerners realized that without aid from England and France the South stood little chance of winning a protracted war with the North

C. The North effectively destroyed the South and it took almost a century for the region to recover.

D. Winners write the overwhelming number of history books of any war and so dominate later interpretations of which side was ' right ' and which side was ' wrong '.


E. The South lost. Game over.

---

Strangely, for many years after the Civil War the dominant historical narrative was that of the Lost Cause, treating them South as victims in the "war of northern aggression." A masterpiece of propaganda, essentially written by the losing side. I think at least part of the reason for that was racism in the north.

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process…!

---

Just interesting that "kill them if they leave" was not necessarily the majority opinion of Northerners in 1861


Again you are very interested in the idea of a "process"…but you don't need a process to assert your rights. And the right to independence is the great right of all

---

Again, what if 1 state wanted to leave and the others said no? .

---

No state has a right to tell another state what to do.

And certainly no state has a right to make war on another to keep them inside an artificial political union.

---

The United States is an artificial political union?

No state has ever successfully left.

.

---

You think it's organic? It's a created political union like the EU…it's not somehow holy or created by God to be eternal. If it does not serve the needs of the States and the people then it should (and can be) abolished and broken up.

No State has left because the Federal government wages harsh war on those that do.

"We kill you if you try to leave"

---

It was not an artificial union, maybe Hawaii teaming up with Lithuania would be. The states were closely related from the moment each colony was formed.

---

Not only were they settled by different people groups with different folkways and religious views….hundreds of years later it's still noticeable

Idle speculation that can never be proved or disproved. Any such argument would have been worthless because the South started the war and they were traitors. However, as I just mentioned, the South did win the propaganda war to some extent after the war.

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process…!

---

Just interesting that "kill them if they leave" was not necessarily the majority opinion of Northerners in 1861


Again you are very interested in the idea of a "process"…but you don't need a process to assert your rights. And the right to independence is the great right of all

---

Again, what if 1 state wanted to leave and the others said no? .

---

No state has a right to tell another state what to do.

And certainly no state has a right to make war on another to keep them inside an artificial political union.

---

The United States is an artificial political union?

No state has ever successfully left.

.

---

You think it's organic? It's a created political union like the EU…it's not somehow holy or created by God to be eternal. If it does not serve the needs of the States and the people then it should (and can be) abolished and broken up.

No State has left because the Federal government wages harsh war on those that do.

"We kill you if you try to leave"

---

The states were closely related from the moment each colony was formed.

---

Totally incorrect.

In many cases the various colonies were very different from one another.

For example Georgia was founded as a penal colony.

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process…!

---

Just interesting that "kill them if they leave" was not necessarily the majority opinion of Northerners in 1861


Again you are very interested in the idea of a "process"…but you don't need a process to assert your rights. And the right to independence is the great right of all

---

Again, what if 1 state wanted to leave and the others said no? .

---

No state has a right to tell another state what to do.

And certainly no state has a right to make war on another to keep them inside an artificial political union.

---

The United States is an artificial political union?

No state has ever successfully left.

.

---

You think it's organic? It's a created political union like the EU…it's not somehow holy or created by God to be eternal. If it does not serve the needs of the States and the people then it should (and can be) abolished and broken up.

No State has left because the Federal government wages harsh war on those that do.

"We kill you if you try to leave"

---

The states were closely related from the moment each colony was formed.

---

Totally incorrect.

In many cases the various colonies were very different from one another.

For example Georgia was founded as a penal colony.

---

And Massachusetts was a radical Puritan theocracy.


Huge huge differences between those Colonies (States)

Massachusetts was NOT a theocracy. Civil & religious leaders were distinct groups of men although they were of the same faith and did agree on many issues.

The Vatican is a theocracy because the religious leader is also the head of state. Iran, arguably is one as well because the mullah a run the government. True theocracies are very rare.

historian said:

---

Idle speculation that can never be proved or disproved. Any such argument would have been worthless because the South started the war and they were traitors. However, as I just mentioned, the South did win the propaganda war to some extent after the war.

---

The southerners were no more 'traitors ' than George Washington.

The only difference was George won his war.

( Due in part to extensive and timely French aid )

historian said:

---

Massachusetts was NOT a theocracy. Civil & religious leaders were distinct groups of men although they were of the same faith and did agree on many issues.

.

---

Good point.

I should have said Massachusetts was a pseudo-theocracy


And New York (new Amsterdam) under Petrus Stuyvesant was run like a Dutch Company.


So much variation and diversity.

Read the Constitution. It's the Supreme law of the land and it defines treason unambiguously. There is no question that the confederates meet the definition.

On George won the War for Independence. Another lost it.

historian said:

---

On George won the War for Independence. Another lost it.

---

At least you admit the South was fighting a war of independence.

p.s.

Secession is not treason per the Constitution and no Confederate was ever convicted of such a thing….and Lincoln knew he could not get a conviction

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process, what would it look like if 49 said no? Would the 1 state post this jpg at its borders and say cya!

---

the 10th said anything not in there was a states right.. we found out that isnt quite true and it hasnt been ever since

4th and Inches said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process, what would it look like if 49 said no? Would the 1 state post this jpg at its borders and say cya!

---

the 10th said anything not in there was a states right.. we found out that isnt quite true and it hasnt been ever since

---

Unfortunately paper constitutions are often useless against raw power.

I did no such thing. I was talking about George Washington & George III.

However, in the minds of the Confederates it was a war for independence. They saw it as another American Revolution.

I never said secession was treason. Read my words and don't try to put other words in my mouth. According to the constitution, "levying War against" the U.S. is treason. Read it for yourself.

historian said:

---

in the minds of the Confederates it was a war for independence. They saw it as another American Revolution.

.

---

Because it was.

You can support the right of Virginia to break off from the UK in 1776 and then not support the right of Virginia to break off from the USA in 1861.


They both stem from the same fundamental right and spirit of fierce independence

Maybe emotionally, but not legally. Lincoln made a strong case against secession in his first inaugural address.

In the end it doesn't matter, because the Union won the war over 150 years ago.

historian said:

---

Maybe emotionally, but not legally. Lincoln made a strong case against secession in his first inaugural address.

.

---

Of course he did.

Because symbolically he was standing in the same place as George III was 90 years before…..those dastardly rebels needed to be kept in line and under control.


Of course it just makes Lincoln more of a hypocrite that he was making war when secession was NOT illegal by US law at the time. While secession was illegal under British law.

The British at least had the law on their side…Lincoln did not

Lincoln had the law on his side: it's called the constitution, the "supreme law of the land."

historian said:

---

Lincoln had the law on his side: it's called the constitution, the "supreme law of the land."

---

cite it.. what article

historian said:

---

Lincoln had the law on his side: it's called the constitution, the "supreme law of the land."

---

Come on historian…you know very well that no where in the U.S. Constitution is secession forbidden


(In 1861 there was not even a Congressional law against it or a Supreme Court case forbidding it)

"Reading a new book about the 1913 Gettysburg reunion. It is full of quotes like this about reconciliation, and how the Union vets respected the Southern reason they fought, and how Confederate vets respected the Union reason they fought. Not slavery in either case."

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Lincoln had the law on his side: it's called the constitution, the "supreme law of the land."

---

Come on historian…you know very well that no where in the U.S. Constitution is secession forbidden


(In 1861 there was not even a Congressional law against it or a Supreme Court case forbidding it)

---

You are obsessed with the subject of secession and that's not what I've been talking about. I even quoted the constitution.

Stop acting like a troll and actually read my post before responding. Otherwise you are wasting my time!

Besides, Baylor MBB is playing tonight!

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Lincoln had the law on his side: it's called the constitution, the "supreme law of the land."

---

Come on historian…you know very well that no where in the U.S. Constitution is secession forbidden


(In 1861 there was not even a Congressional law against it or a Supreme Court case forbidding it)

---

You are obsessed with the subject of secession and that's not what I've been talking about. I even quoted the constitution.

Stop acting like a troll and actually read my post before responding. Otherwise you are wasting my time!

Besides, Baylor MBB is playing tonight!

---

Man I am really not trying to be a troll.

I just honeslty don't think secession is illegal (or at least pre-1869, when the Supreme Court finally weighed on the subject, in it was not illegal)

I do think you have a stronger case about "waging war against the United States" but that is kind of a chicken and an egg thing.

Secession necessitates a struggle to get free of the central power if it will not let you go….but that certainly opens you up to charges that you having waged war

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Every few months the Civil War gets rehashed around here.



Bottom line




A. Economically the South had little choice but to risk going to war with northern abolitionists as a disproportionate amount of southern capital was tied up in slaves

B. Educated southerners realized that without aid from England and France the South stood little chance of winning a protracted war with the North

C. The North effectively destroyed the South and it took almost a century for the region to recover.

D. Winners write the overwhelming number of history books of any war and so dominate later interpretations of which side was ' right ' and which side was ' wrong '.


E. The South lost. Game over.

---

Strangely, for many years after the Civil War the dominant historical narrative was that of the Lost Cause, treating them South as victims in the "war of northern aggression." A masterpiece of propaganda, essentially written by the losing side. I think at least part of the reason for that was racism in the north.

---

My friend we could have a very long, mutually informative conversation on this subject.

But just keep in mind one thing.

American 'patriots' committed treason against their lawful king and Parliament. If they had lost the war signers of the Declaration of Independence would have been hung if caught.

However thanks to massive French assistance ; victory resulted in cherished 'patriots' rather than scorned 'traitors'.

If the South had received similar such aid from France; it is highly possible the likes of Jefferson Davis would likewise be described as 'patriots'.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Maybe emotionally, but not legally. Lincoln made a strong case against secession in his first inaugural address.

.

---

Of course he did.

Because symbolically he was standing in the same place as George III was 90 years before…..those dastardly rebels needed to be kept in line and under control.


Of course it just makes Lincoln more of a hypocrite that he was making war when secession was NOT illegal by US law at the time. While secession was illegal under British law.

The British at least had the law on their side…Lincoln did not

---

It is the cause for secession and rebellion in both instances that is at issue. The Declaration of Independence laid out the reason for rebellion from England, just as the Declaration of Causes laid out the secession from the United States. This semantic legal argument is a distraction from the clear fact slavery drove the decision and rebellion. It is the Commerce Clause that this dispute origin should be viewed, and the Confederate states were in violation for years leading up to secession.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Maybe emotionally, but not legally. Lincoln made a strong case against secession in his first inaugural address.

.

---

Of course he did.

Because symbolically he was standing in the same place as George III was 90 years before…..those dastardly rebels needed to be kept in line and under control.


Of course it just makes Lincoln more of a hypocrite that he was making war when secession was NOT illegal by US law at the time. While secession was illegal under British law.

The British at least had the law on their side…Lincoln did not

---

It is the cause for secession and rebellion in both instances that is at issue. The Declaration of Independence laid out the reason for rebellion from England, just as the Declaration of Causes laid out the secession from the United States. This semantic legal argument is a distraction from the clear fact slavery drove the decision and rebellion...

---

But in all honesty that is not the issue.

For good reasons or bad…whenever a sovereign political entity (and the people) wish to dissolve the bonds which have connected them to another..they may do so.


Independence is the prime goal and right


"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's God entitle them…" -American Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776

"…the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness…" - New York Ratifying Convention, July 26, 1788

"we are struggling for constitutional freedom. We are upholding the great principles which our fathers bequeathed us, and if we should succeed, and become, as we shall, the dominant nation of this continent, we shall perpetuate and diffuse the very liberty for which Washington bled, and which the heroes of the Revolution achieved. We are not revolutionists we are resisting revolution. We are upholding the true doctrines of the Federal Constitution. We are conservative. Our success is the triumph of all that has been considered established in the past." - James Henley Thornwell


"The Earth is littered with the ruins of empires that once believed they were eternal."
-Percy Shelley