The Civil War (no offense meant)

[ScottM]

Ray: I've read that and posted some reference to it; thanks for clarifying matters. Did you notice the President threatened to send gun boats to SC to enforce the tariffs? Certainly evidence of a rift to me <g>
I believe I've read SC had either more slaves, or more per capita than any other Southern State (I'd have to find a reference if you wanted it.)

In this tragic conflict, we killed over 2% of the free citizenry. Certainly a transformational time for our nation and the national character.

Best,

Dave

The Constitutional issue of the Federal government having the right to impose tariffs is a no brainer, all one has to do is read Article 1 Section 8. Indeed the 2nd piece of legislation that Congress ever took up was tariffs acts. John C. Calhoun was very much for the use of tariffs after the War of 1812 to help support industry. But when the south needed access to new markets for their raw goods he became much more of a free trader and proposed a shockingly unusual bit of political theory. That is that a state has the right to ignore any federal law they deem not in their interests. SC played out that theory with the nullification of, you guessed it, a tariff law. The tariff that they nullified was one that was seen to favor northern industrial issues over southern agricultural ones.

The issue of economics was the central issue and the south needed cheap labor. The tariff compromise that had been forced helped solve one problem, but the bigger problem was labor costs and Calhoun stated very clearly that this was the next issue in his speech in 1837:

I might well challenge a comparison between them and the more direct, simple, and patriarchal mode by which the labor of the African race is, among us, commanded by the European. I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe—look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse. But I will not dwell on this aspect of the question; I turn to the political; and here I fearlessly assert that the existing relation between the two races in the South, against which these blind fanatics are waging war, forms the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable political institutions. It is useless to disguise the fact. There is and always has been in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization, a conflict between labor and capital. The condition of society in the South exempts us from the disorders and dangers resulting from this conflict; and which explains why it is that the political condition of the slaveholding States has been so much more stable and quiet than that of the North

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Slavery_a_Positive_Good

Very clearly he lays out the economic issue is cheap labor NOT state's rights.

 

[ScottM]

The idea of state nullification goes back into the 18th Century at least, and to no lesser an individual as Thomas Jefferson, with his authorship of the Kentucky Resolutions with respect to the Alien and Sedition Act.

Yep that is where he based them on. But he was the one that took it to a new level in that he actually was able to force legislation as a result of his theory. After his death his ideas was reused by the pro-session movement to justify the continued economic labor issue of slavery.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

David: And you're doing a wonderful job! Excellent comments.

What a nice thing to say - thank you!

The sentiment is mutual.

Unfortunately, as with so many complex issues, there are reasonable grounds to disagree.

For sure, and I don't mean to say that issues of Federalism weren't at work. What I object, like you also wrote, is the gross simplification of the origins of the conflict - to just say "states' rights" is...well, a simplification.

Slavery certainly was a central, divisive issue (and maybe THE issue as you so well state). Southerners grew up with it and needed it to continue their way of life and to expand. The north had more urban areas and manufacturing which wasn't dependent on slavery. It was a change in the power structure of the nation and a way of life. The South saw their entire future changing and didn't want it to. The North was expanding at a hurried pace and was getting more power and control. Lincoln not even being on the ballot in Southern states made them feel they weren't even being represented.

Slavery was wrong; we all know that. I is just a shame there couldn't be some reasonable transition. There were several compromises that eventually didn't work out.

While I'm not sure that there could be any acceptable "transition" except for "immediate cessation" when talking about enslavement (note: "immediate cessation" would have had to have come with strings attached in terms of compensation, because even though slavery was and is as amoral as it gets, it nevertheless was something guaranteed by a Constitution which had been ratified by all states), I agree absolutely with what you wrote.

The resort to war, as opposed to something like, I don't know, working it out without killing 2% of the population, is something that each of us should remember.

Here's another fact I didn't know.
In 1869 Davis became president of the Carolina Life Insurance Company in Memphis, Tennessee. He turned down the opportunity to become the first president of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (now Texas A&M University).

I don't know much about him, but I do know that Jefferson Davis was an interesting person. Unfortunately, the extent of my knowledge about him is, at least as of the moment, confined to knowing that he was in the Mexican War and that he was the President of the CSA.

I think we all benefit from discussions like this; you've made excellent points and I agree with most. Some seem to overly simplify: with that I take issue.

Best,

Dave

Agreed.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

There are two reasons to start a war. Money and Power. It's not that hard to see which motivated the leaders of each side.

 

[RMCN172RG]

There are two reasons to start a war. Money and Power. It's not that hard to see which motivated the leaders of each side.

There is a third, property.

 

[JeffDG]

There is a third, property.

Property is money...

My favourite description comes from Tom Clancy "War is armed robbery writ large."

 

[Ghery]

Was it still the "war of Northern aggression" when Lee was marching in Pennsylvania?

It was "The War for Southern Independence" at that point.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

It was "The War for Southern Independence" at that point.

Ghery: I hear it referred to in several manners: the most well-mannered is the War between North and South. I hear the Second War for Independence often. As a matter of fact, Foote refers to Patton making the comment we have never lost a war in WWII speeches. Foote points out that Southerners did lose a war.

Opinions can vary based on one's role, how they did or didn't participate, family and friends lost; property seized or destroyed.

What was fair about someone up North being able to replace their service for a fee of $300 if they didn't want to serve? Another would go and they were off the hook for the rest of the war. Yes, the other went in their stead voluntarily because they really needed the money, but anyone that had $300 or more available could just avoid war service completely.

Folks in places that were on the wrong end of Sherman's advance to the sea lost all they had and suffered a first hand look at a devastating war. Most folks up North may have lost a loved one, but didn't have an army of occupation that raised everything sweep through their home on top of that. When Lee saw the Northern Army shell Fredricksburg, he exclaimed how it was a moral violation of the rules of war.

The Texas Constitution addressed some things after the war: a homestead law was passed because property was being ceased for non payment of taxes. Many carpet baggers came south to make their fortune. A military governor was appointed. Texas had just become independent in 1836 and the war with Mexico continued at sea into the 1840s. Texans still had a very independent spirit. One should also be aware of how the northern border of Texas was drawn and why <g>

Not saying anyone was right or wrong; one just needs to walk a mile in the other's shoes to understand some of the deep, hurtful, emotional feelings that still linger.

Did you watch Foote's interview where he commented to relatives of Forest that the was produced two geniuses: Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forest? They didn't think much of Forest's name being associated with Mr. Lincoln!


Best,

Dave

 

[steingar]

What was fair about someone up North being able to replace their service for a fee of $300 if they didn't want to serve? Another would go and they were off the hook for the rest of the war. Yes, the other went in their stead voluntarily because they really needed the money, but anyone that had $300 or more available could just avoid war service completely.

I recall the South having its own version, if you owned a given number of slaves or could pay sufficient coinage you could get out of it. Probably saw it on Burns' documentary.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I recall the South having its own version, if you owned a given number of slaves or could pay sufficient coinage you could get out of it. Probably saw it on Burns' documentary.

I haven't see that but Foote's book does bring out Davis having a real fight in Congress to get Conscription passed in the South at Lee's request. This sheds more light on it. It seems the Union troops were mostly substitutes. In the South, they didn't have that ability; that is a lot of substitutes seem to be immigrants and there were may more up North.

=====================================================
he Confederate president Jefferson Davis proposed the first conscription act on March 28, 1862, and the act was passed into law the next month;[4] resistance was both widespread and violent, with comparisons made between conscription and slavery. Both sides permitted conscripts to hire substitutes. In the Union, many states and cities offered bounties and bonuses for enlistment. They also arranged to take credit against their quota for freed slaves who enlisted. Although both North and South resorted to conscription , in neither nation did the system work effectively. The Confederate congress on Apr. 16, 1862, passed an act requiring military service for three years from all males aged eighteen to thirty-five not legally exempt, and it later extended the obligation. The U.S. Congress followed on July 17, 1862, with an act authorizing a militia draft within a state when it could not meet its quota with volunteers. This state-administered system failed in practice and on Mar. 3, 1863, Congress passed the first genuine national conscription law, setting up under the Union army an elaborate machinery for enrolling and drafting men between twenty and forty-five years of age. Quotas were assigned in each state, the deficiencies in volunteers to be met by conscription. But men drafted could provide substitutes or, until mid-1864, avoid service by paying commutation money. Many eligibles pooled their money to cover the cost of anyone drafted. Families used the substitute provision to select which man should go into the army and which should stay home. There was much evasion and overt resistance to the draft, especially in Catholic areas. The great draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish men who had been signed up as citizens to swell the machine vote, not realizing it made them liable for the draft. Of the 168,649 men procured for the Union through the draft, 117,986 were substitutes, leaving only 50,663 who had their personal services conscripted.
The problem of Confederate desertion was aggravated by the inequitable inclinations of conscription officers and local judges. The three conscription acts of the Confederacy exempted certain categories, most notably the planter class, and enrolling officers and local judges often practiced favoritism, sometimes accepting bribes. Attempts to effectively deal with the issue were frustrated by conflict between state and local governments on the one hand and the national government of the Confederacy.[5]

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Ghery: I hear it referred to in several manners: the most well-mannered is the War between North and South. I hear the Second War for Independence often. As a matter of fact, Foote refers to Patton making the comment we have never lost a war in WWII speeches. Foote points out that Southerners did lose a war.

Apparently Patton (or whoever wrote the script for the movie) forgot about the war of 1812 as well.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

What was fair about someone up North being able to replace their service for a fee of $300 if they didn't want to serve? Another would go and they were off the hook for the rest of the war. Yes, the other went in their stead voluntarily because they really needed the money, but anyone that had $300 or more available could just avoid war service completely.

....

A lot of names that are now household references took advantage of it. For instance, TR's father paid for a substitute....

 

[dmccormack]

Apparently Patton (or whoever wrote the script for the movie) forgot about the war of 1812 as well.

Lots of battle losses, but no loss in the win/lose victory sense.

Besides, the War of 1812 gave us the Star Spangled banner, "Don't Give Up the Ship," the Rush-Bagot Treaty, and an independent Canada.

All "wins," IMHO.

 

[JeffDG]

Apparently Patton (or whoever wrote the script for the movie) forgot about the war of 1812 as well.

The War of 1812 was, at worst, a draw...and I say that as a Canadian.

It was pretty much pointless...nobody really achieved anything, but the US did get the Brits to end impressment of US Citizens on the high seas, which was one of the reasons (some say pretexts) for the war.

 

[RMCN172RG]

Property is money...

My favourite description comes from Tom Clancy "War is armed robbery writ large."

I was thinking more along the lines of "I don't want that worthless piece of dirt but I'll be D####d if I'll let you have it."

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Lots of battle losses, but no loss in the win/lose victory sense.

Besides, the War of 1812 gave us the Star Spangled banner, "Don't Give Up the Ship," the Rush-Bagot Treaty, and an independent Canada.

All "wins," IMHO.

Don't forget the oppurtunity to build a new capital...

The War of 1812 was, at worst, a draw...and I say that as a Canadian.

It was pretty much pointless...nobody really achieved anything, but the US did get the Brits to end impressment of US Citizens on the high seas, which was one of the reasons (some say pretexts) for the war.

It turned out to be pointless - after all, the U.S. failed to 'liberate' what is now Canada...

Impressment pretty much died with the end of the Napoleonic wars. So the Russians (who did a Sherman on Moscow (to get it back a little closer to the topic)) get a good part of the credit for that one.

The English let us off...

 

[JeffDG]

It turned out to be pointless - after all, the U.S. failed to 'liberate' what is now Canada...

Impressment pretty much died with the end of the Napoleonic wars. So the Russians (who did a Sherman on Moscow (to get it back a little closer to the topic)) get a good part of the credit for that one.

The English let us off...

That's true about the liberation of Canada, but the Brits didn't get anything out of the war either. The border remained status quo ante, so they gained no territory.

 

[steingar]

The War of 1812 was, at worst, a draw...and I say that as a Canadian.

It was pretty much pointless...nobody really achieved anything, but the US did get the Brits to end impressment of US Citizens on the high seas, which was one of the reasons (some say pretexts) for the war.

I must disagree, only in the aspect that the young United States achieved all of its war goals, something we have yet to do in this century.

 

[RyanShort1]

After you read Foote's book Douglas Southell Freeman's book on RE Lee titled 'Lee' is a must read. The complexities of that man are truly amazing.

A truly excellent suggestion! It's a long read, but well worth it.

Two of my relatives were in Pickett's Charge. One, a great-great-great grandfather from Virginia, died as part of a unit that made it across the wall before being forced back. I've been to most of the battlefields and find them very sobering. Sharpsburg is also sobering. The same relative was also there and it was a sad thing. Did I mention that the good folks up in Minnesota still won't give his unit's battle flag back?

We do care a bit more about the history down here.

I've read all the states rights / slavery comments with some amusement. I do think that there was more sentiment towards states rights than some folks here are willing to acknowledge. Especially in Virgina, where a lot of folks were actually pro-Union, until after Lincoln's call for the invasion of the offending states. If you read some of the better books about Lincoln it's pretty clear that he, and other important men around him had goals far beyond slavery, and I personally think that folks in the South really did see beyond the slavery issue to the implications for the future. It's a pity that the slavery issue was pushed in the wrong direction by the abolitionist terrorists instead of being worked through by more proper means.

Remember that most of the slave owners by 1861 were second, third, or fourth-generation and it really would have taken some significant changes to sort the situation in a peaceable manner. I still think that if Mr. Lincoln had been a responsible fellow, he would have made the effort to reconcile peaceably, calling out the South for slavery being the real issue. Instead, his re-enforcement of Ft. Sumter and call for volunteers to invade confirmed the Southerner's suspicions of further intentions beyond slavery. I think that's what drove Virginia finally to the South's side.

Very sad times indeed.

Ryan

 

[ScottM]

I still think that if Mr. Lincoln had been a responsible fellow, he would have made the effort to reconcile peaceably, calling out the South for slavery being the real issue. Instead, his re-enforcement of Ft. Sumter and call for volunteers to invade confirmed the Southerner's suspicions of further intentions beyond slavery. I think that's what drove Virginia finally to the South's side.

I little nit to pick.

The fortification of Ft. Sumter started prior to Lincoln taking office. In December 1860 was when Maj Anderson fell back to the FT after SC had seceded. If there be any blame for inaction it would have to be levied upon President Buchanan. He basically displayed no leadership nor ideas in the years leading up to session.

When Lincoln did take office he could not retreat from the US owned Ft. Sumter. To do so would be to acknowledge that session might be valid.

 

[RyanShort1]

I little nit to pick.

The fortification of Ft. Sumter started prior to Lincoln taking office. In December 1860 was when Maj Anderson fell back to the FT after SC had seceded. If there be any blame for inaction it would have to be levied upon President Buchanan. He basically displayed no leadership nor ideas in the years leading up to session.

When Lincoln did take office he could not retreat from the US owned Ft. Sumter. To do so would be to acknowledge that session might be valid.

Fair enough, but if worded properly, it could've been said something like: In the interests of reconciliation, not causing offense, and a show of good faith, we're pulling the garrison out of the fort, and calling on SC to come back to the table... BTW, there's this little moral issue that you're wrong about.

Ryan

 

[wanttaja]

The War of 1812 was, at worst, a draw...and I say that as a Canadian.

It was pretty much pointless...nobody really achieved anything, but the US did get the Brits to end impressment of US Citizens on the high seas, which was one of the reasons (some say pretexts) for the war.

Well... the Brits *did* cancel the orders in council that had triggered the greatest opposition. But they did it only two days before the US declared war; by that time we were committed.

Keep in mind, too, that Napoleon had many of the same policies as the British. Not impressment, but certainly similar provisions in restraint of trade. However, in comparison, Napoleon couldn't *enforce* this policies, and when he canceled them, got lots of good press at no cost.

As others have mentioned, by 1815, most of the public-relation causes for the war were gone...the British didn't need to press our sailors any more, and they didn't have the war as an excuse to restrain our trade.

I've always looked at the War of 1812 like fighting the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "All right, we'll call it a draw...." Land actions greatly in favor of the British side, sea actions moderately favored the Americans (but with no real impact on the Brits), no net change in boundaries.

One long-term factor to keep in mind, though: The war did bring about the death of a great pro-British Indian leader (Tecumseh), and this destroyed a major Indian alliance. Postwar western expansion was eased a bit.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...
I still think that if Mr. Lincoln had been a responsible fellow, he would have made the effort to reconcile peaceably, calling out the South for slavery being the real issue. Instead, his re-enforcement of Ft. Sumter and call for volunteers to invade confirmed the Southerner's suspicions of further intentions beyond slavery. I think that's what drove Virginia finally to the South's side.

Very sad times indeed.

Ryan

The South seceded, and fired first. I'm not sure how that can be turned into "Mr. Lincoln" not doing enough to ensure peace.

Those "suspicions of further intentions" certainly came to fruition, too.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Fair enough, but if worded properly, it could've been said something like: In the interests of reconciliation, not causing offense, and a show of good faith, we're pulling the garrison out of the fort, and calling on SC to come back to the table... BTW, there's this little moral issue that you're wrong about.

Ryan

Are you as equally willing to say that the blame rests on the United States for Pearl Harbor?

 

[dmccormack]

Land actions greatly in favor of the British side, sea actions moderately favored the Americans (but with no real impact on the Brits), no net change in boundaries.

Two words: Leopard and Niagara

 

[RyanShort1]

The South seceded, and fired first. I'm not sure how that can be turned into "Mr. Lincoln" not doing enough to ensure peace.

Those "suspicions of further intentions" certainly came to fruition, too.

Hmm. If you had an apparently hostile garrison, who'd been asked to leave, smack dab in your state's biggest harbor with knowledge that it was being deliberately re-enforced, I'd say it was all but an act of war, without a shot being fired. That's certainly how the South Carolinians viewed it. I still think they were unwise to fire first, but not unjustified.

Are you as equally willing to say that the blame rests on the United States for Pearl Harbor?

I'm not sure on what issue the Japanese could've really claimed moral superiority except possibly American racism. We certainly provoked it a bit, but only from the standpoint that we were calling them out on their wrong actions in the Far East.
To me there was still no reason to call for an invasion. Virginia would have likely not seceded and might have been a significant pro-reconciliation factor on other states if a different tack had been taken. For that matter, there were strong efforts even here in Texas by Sam Houston and others against secession.

Ryan

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Hmm. If you had an apparently hostile garrison, who'd been asked to leave, smack dab in your state's biggest harbor with knowledge that it was being deliberately re-enforced, I'd say it was all but an act of war, without a shot being fired. That's certainly how the South Carolinians viewed it. I still think they were unwise to fire first, but not unjustified.

I guess we'll just leave aside the whole seceding thing, then. Also, based on the rest of your post, you're clearly not willing to apply the same rule to other incidents in history that, if the issue were to be approached without the blinders, would require the same rule.

I'm not sure on what issue the Japanese could've really claimed moral superiority except possibly American racism.

Interestingly, the same thing applies to the Confederacy, unless human bondage qualifies one for "moral superiority." Even more interestingly, the Confederacy also started a long and bloody war.

We certainly provoked it a bit, but only from the standpoint that we were calling them out on their wrong actions in the Far East.

We do care a bit more about the history down here.

Interesting.

To me there was still no reason to call for an invasion.

I guess we'll just leave the whole secession, rendering of the Union, etc., aside. Again.

Virginia would have likely not seceded and might have been a significant pro-reconciliation factor on other states if a different tack had been taken.

What different tack? Like if the Union hadn't started a war or something?

For that matter, there were strong efforts even here in Texas by Sam Houston and others against secession.

Ryan

That's probably because Sam Houston had some sense.

 

[RyanShort1]

I guess we'll just leave aside the whole seceding thing, then. Also, based on the rest of your post, you're clearly not willing to apply the same rule to other incidents in history that, if the issue were to be approached without the blinders, would require the same rule.

New York, Maine, Massachusetts, and other states had all considered secession a legitimate option at one point.

Interestingly, the same thing applies to the Confederacy, unless human bondage qualifies one for "moral superiority." Even more interestingly, the Confederacy also started a long and bloody war.

Huh? Remember, there were still slaves in the North for a while after the war was over. It's well documented. I also don't remember in history where the South tried to invade the North or tell the North what to do. One thing everyone forgets is the original definition of "state." Put that into the context even today, where we have our State Department dealing with other States, and you should get the drift. I don't think that they were really trying to start a war even at Ft. Sumter. It was more like the Boston Tea Party where a wrong action was being opposed by lower magistrates (the Doctrine of Interposition was much better understood back then). The troops there were no longer serving their intended purpose to defend the people, were legally asked to leave, refused, and didn't and were driven out. Even Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania was largely driven by lack of provisions in Virginia.

What different tack? Like if the Union hadn't started a war or something?

Maybe if Lincoln had proven their suspicions wrong and had been willing to try a peaceful solution rather than immediately calling for a invasion force to deal with the problem? Maybe if he hadn't also done things in the North like threatening other members of the government including the Supreme Court, he would've been taken more seriously in a peaceful manner.

That's probably because Sam Houston had some sense.

I agree. I personally think it was OK for Texas to secede and revert to being a Republic, but a very bad idea to join the Confederacy.

I personally consider that Virginia's position was probably the best. Only deciding to side with the south after the call for invasion. At that point, the most likely hope of preventing the federal government from taking powers unintended by the founders was in Lincoln's army being stopped.

Oh, and if the South really wanted to be taken seriously, they should have taken the painful step of setting in motion a deliberate plan for emancipation. From what I understand, there were actually some actions taken in that direction, but not nearly enough.

Ryan

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Grant has now landed south of Vicksburg and moved east to Jackson; he's abandoned his supply lines and decided to live off the land (local farmers). The action is completely unexpected. He give Sherman orders to destroy the rail roads and infrastructure that makes Jackson a RR and supply hub.
..for that matter, had it ever been his custom to deny his soldiers a chance at relaxation they had earned, even though that relaxation sometimes took a rather violent form. His purpose was to destroy all public property such as might be of possible comfort to the Confederacy. This applied especially to the railroads...But that other facilities were not neglected was observed by a witness who testified that "foundries, machine shops, warehouses, factories, arsenals, and public stores were fired as fast as flames could be kindled.
Volume II; p 365 middle.

Best,

Dave

 

[SCCutler]

NB (and further to my prior comments, inarticulate though they may have been), the subjugation and destruction continued long after the war ended.

 

[NC Pilot]

Huh? Remember, there were still slaves in the North for a while after the war was over. It's well documented.

Ryan

Don't forget that the Emancipation Proclamation did not name border states that had not declared secession. (Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and Delaware), thus slavery was still allowed in those states during The War.

 

[JeffDG]

I agree. I personally think it was OK for Texas to secede and revert to being a Republic, but a very bad idea to join the Confederacy.

Interestingly, all the talk about "Well Texas used to be a Republic, so they could secede while the others could not..."

Texas is actually the only state whose secession was actually considered by the US Supreme Court after the war in Texas v. White, and that the Union was indeed perpetual and no state had a right of secession.

 

[dmccormack]

Bumper Sticker Revisionist history spotted a week ago:

We won, You lost, get over it.

 

[wanttaja]

Land actions greatly in favor of the British side, sea actions moderately favored the Americans (but with no real impact on the Brits), no net change in boundaries.

Two words: Leopard and Niagara

Even today, 200 years later, it's amazing how much arrogance was exhibited by the Leopard affair.

Leopard was politically important to the US declaring war...but not a proximate cause. It happened five years before war was actually declared. It's like the sinking of the Lusitania; a lot of folks claim that's what brought the US into WWI, but it happened almost two years prior to the declaration of war.

The nautical victory exemplified by the Niagara merely compensated for the more-usual incompetence of the land forces in losing Detroit in the first place. Control of the lake after Perry's victory lead to the victory of Amherstberg and the death of Tecumseh.

And without that, General Sherman wouldn't have had a middle name. :wink2:

Ron Wanttaja

 

[RyanShort1]

Interestingly, all the talk about "Well Texas used to be a Republic, so they could secede while the others could not..."

Texas is actually the only state whose secession was actually considered by the US Supreme Court after the war in Texas v. White, and that the Union was indeed perpetual and no state had a right of secession.

Which was wrong of the Supreme Court to decide. In so doing, they had to completely ignore the founding of the United States, Texas, etc... The matter of separation should not be taken lightly, but to disallow it, is to ignore the clear statements in the Declaration of Independence regarding political ties and situations as well as other important documents and events that brought about the very Constitution and "Union" they allegedly hold so dear.

Ryan

 

[JeffDG]

Which was wrong of the Supreme Court to decide. In so doing, they had to completely ignore the founding of the United States, Texas, etc... The matter of separation should not be taken lightly, but to disallow it, is to ignore the clear statements in the Declaration of Independence regarding political ties and situations as well as other important documents and events that brought about the very Constitution and "Union" they allegedly hold so dear.

Ryan

Actually, that part of the ruling is quite interesting and well reasoned.

The Constitution is an amendment to the Articles of Confederation...well...to be precise, the "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union", along with the Constitution's purpose being to create "a more perfect Union" never repudiated the perpetual nature of the Articles.

 

[RyanShort1]

Actually, that part of the ruling is quite interesting and well reasoned.

The Constitution is an amendment to the Articles of Confederation...well...to be precise, the "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union", along with the Constitution's purpose being to create "a more perfect Union" never repudiated the perpetual nature of the Articles.

All I have to say to that is that do you really think that the men who wrote the Articles of Confederation really would have disallowed their State's own reasoning in the Declaration of Independence if it was deemed necessary?

Ryan

 

[JeffDG]

All I have to say to that is that do you really think that the men who wrote the Articles of Confederation really would have disallowed their State's own reasoning in the Declaration of Independence if it was deemed necessary?

Ryan

Their intent is forever lost to the ages, however their words are clear that the Union was perpetual and indissoluble.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?


But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

 

[RyanShort1]

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Ryan

 

[ScottM]

From the Declaration of Independence:

Ryan

But as jeff showed you the later document known as the Articles of Confederation clearly show that when it came to the United States that the union was indisolvable.

"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."

Their words, if you can believe them also showing their intent, was that the marriage of the colonies was forever.