Do States Have The Right To Secession & State Sovereignty? - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: Do States Have The Right To Secession & State Sovereignty?

  1. #21

    The So-Called Civil War Was Not Fought Over Slavery

    The So-Called Civil War Was Not Fought Over Slavery

    The War for Southern Independence (or as the U.S. Congress officially declared it to be The
    War Between the States; it was not a "civil war") was fought over slavery, with the North fighting to free Southern slaves and the South fighting to keep her slaves.

    This is, of course, not true.

    First of all, all thirteen original states which seceded from England in 1776 and which formed the United States of America, from Maine (a part of Massachusetts at that time) to Georgia, owned slaves. Was the First American Revolution fought over slavery. If not, then neither was the Second American Revolution fought over slavery when the Southern states withdrew from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. Is the Fourth of July a racist holiday because all thirteen original colonies had slaves? If not, then neither are our Confederate holidays. Is the U.S. flag a racist flag because all thirteen original states had slaves? If not, then neither is the Confederate battle flag a racist flag or do these intolerant individuals and the news media advocate taking down the U.S. flag as well? If they do, then they will need to take down nearly every national flag in the world, starting with the flag of Nigeria in Africa. What blatant bigotry to call the Confederate flag racist!

    During the War for Southern Independence, many in the North also had slaves, but refused to free their slaves until after the War. People in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, and even Washington, D.C., owned slaves; these states never seceded and were under the control of the United States throughout the course of the entire War. However, they were not required to free their slaves by the U.S. government. The U.S. Congress in 1862 even refused to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, when the only Senators and Representatives in Congress were from the North (all Southerners had left Congress to form their own nation). How could the North be fighting the War to free Southern slaves when they would not free their own, such as Ulysses S. Grant's personal slave or Abraham Lincoln's father-in-law's slaves? What hypocrisy! Even worse, Lincoln and the U.S. Congress offered to pass a constitutional amendment for the South, guaranteeing permanent slavery forever in the slave states, if only the Southern states would return to the Union. The South refused the offer.

    Northern slaves were even exempt from Lincoln's So-Called Emancipation Proclamation (http://www.dixiescv.org/emancipation.html). Furthermore, captured Southern slaves on the Mississippi River were forced to work on the plantations as slaves for the United States Army, growing cotton for Northern factories, rather than being set free. Also, during the War, just as many Union soldiers owned slaves as Confederate soldiers. Is the U.S. flag a symbol of slavery because the North owned slaves during the War? If not, then neither is the Confederate battle flag a symbol of slavery. How could the War have been fought over slavery when both sides had slaves?

    The War for Southern Independence was fought over local self-government by the South versus centralist government by the North; the centralist government won and the local self government lost. The Confederate battle flag is the symbol of the right of the local people and the states to govern themselves and is flown in memory and honor of our Confederate ancestors and veterans who gave their lives for less government, less taxes, and Southern independence.

    In his inaugural address of March 4, 1861, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln stated, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Furthermore, Union General U.S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side."

    A war over slavery? Not hardly!

    The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer. The term "free state" meant free from Blacks. Northerners did not want to live with Blacks, slave or free, and many Northern states and territories actually passed laws prohibiting free Blacks from entering into them. Lincoln himself stated the opinion of the Northern people during a meeting with a group of Black leaders during the War, saying, "There is an unwillingness on the part of our people [Northern Whites] to live with you free colored people. Whether this is right or wrong, I am not prepared to discuss, but it is a fact with which we must deal. Therefore, I think it best for us to separate." Acting upon this sentiment, Abraham Lincoln and the United States Congress purchased land, passed laws, and started shipping free Northern Blacks out of the country down to poverty stricken Haiti. Lincoln put together several such schemes to remove free Blacks from the United States, to send some back to Africa and some to Central and South America. At the end of the War, a few weeks before Lincoln was assassinated, Union General Benjamin Butler asked him what he was going to do with all the recently free Southern Blacks. To this Lincoln replied, "I think we should deport them all."

    Meanwhile, down South, Confederate States President Jefferson Davis and his wife Varina were adopting an eight year old free Black orphan boy named Jim Limber. After his mother died, little Jim was placed with a free Black family as foster parents. However, this family badly mistreated him to such a degree that the news reached the ears of the President and Mrs. Davis, who, in the middle of the War, took the time and effort to intercede and rescue Jim from this child abuse. Little Jim's wounds were doctored and he was welcomed into the Confederate White House as a member of the Davis family. President Davis himself went to court in Richmond and had free papers registered on Jim Limber, so he would always be free. Even when our President was on his way to prison for trying to obtain independence and self-government for the Southern people, he made arrangements and provided for Jim Limber's future education and care. In the Old South it was not uncommon for Blacks to take in orphaned Whites or for Whites to take in orphaned Blacks. There was a relationship between Blacks and Whites that Northerners even today do not understand or appreciate.

    The War for Southern Independence was fought over the right of the local people to govern themselves versus a centralist government by the few, the rich, and the powerful. The South wanted less government, less taxes, independence, and decisions made at the local level where the people have control. The North wanted more taxes, more government, and centralism, with a compulsory union at bayonet point and decisions made in Washington D.C. rather than by the local people. The South stood on the principles of the Southerner Thomas Jefferson, who in the Declaration of Independence, stated, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government." In other words, the people should control the government, not the government controlling the people. The North stood on the principles of the Northerner Alexander Hamilton, who believed that government should be ruled by an intellectual aristocracy, maintained by the enlightened self-interest of the wealthy rather than the common people, governing themselves. Northern Abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, burned the U.S. Constitution in the streets, calling it "a pact with the devil." Lincoln likewise brutally violated nearly every article and amendment to the U.S. Constitution, throwing over 35,000 Northern Citizens in prison as political prisoners, including state legislators, without cause or trial, as well as, violently closing a dozen opposition newspapers and suppressing freedom of speech.

    President Jefferson Davis and the Confederate States Congress never did such things. The Southern people took the U.S. Constitution with them when they voluntarily withdrew from the voluntary Union and brought forth upon this continent, a new nation, where the right of the local people to govern themselves was protected.

    Just as with the War for American Independence of 1776, the War for Southern Independence of 1861 was fought over "taxation without representation." The North was constantly trying to raise taxes on Southerners through high tariffs on imported goods, in order to protect the inefficient big businesses in the North which could not compete with manufactured goods from England and France with whom the South traded cotton. The South did not have factories and had to import most finished products.

    The Industrial Revolution allowed England and France to produce and ship across the Atlantic products that were cheaper than the products Northern manufacturers, who refused to modernize, could produce with their White child labor ten year old children working sixteen hours a day in "sweat shops" for mere pennies and sleeping in the streets. Slaves in the South were treated much better than child laborers in the North.

    When the taxes on imports were rejected, rich big businessmen in the North were promised that, if elected, Lincoln would drastically raise the import tax. That is why the Southern states quickly began to escape from the tax net that Lincoln was spreading. Within Lincoln's first month in office, the U.S. Congress had passed the Morrill Tariff, which was the highest import tax in U.S. history, more than doubling the import tax rate from 20% to 47%, which was enough to bankrupt many Southerners. This oppressive tax was what pushed Southern states to legally withdraw from the voluntary Union, not slavery.

    Since the Southerners had escaped the tax by withdrawing from the Union, the only way the North could collect this oppressive tax was to invade the Confederate States and force them at gunpoint back into the Union. It was to collect this import tax to satisfy his Northern industrialist supporters that Abraham Lincoln invaded our South and not to free any slaves. Lincoln's war cost the lives of 600,000 Americans.

    When Lincoln invaded Charleston and then Virginia, all Southerners, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Indians, Orientals, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, rich and poor, male and female almost to a person rose up and volunteered their services in defense of the Confederate States of America because all were going to suffer from this horrible federal tax. Nowhere in the history of movements of independence and self-government have a people been so united in purpose and dedicated to the cause of Independence. No, not even in 1776 did the thirteen colonies receive such support and sacrifice by the people, and that war was fought over a 3% tax on tea!

    My fellow Americans, the South was right! The Confederate battle flag represents all Southerners and even Northern Confederates from states such as Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and others, who supported the South and who even tried to secede from the Union and form their own nation but whose efforts for freedom were crushed by Lincoln's troops. Confederate Indians, Hispanics, Blacks, and Whites all received Confederate pensions after the War and attended Confederate veterans' reunions together, year after year, just as they had suffered and fought together during the War. The Confederate battle flag represents all Confederates, regardless of race or religion, and is the symbol of less government, less taxes, and the right of a people to govern themselves. It is flown in memory and honor of our Confederate ancestors and veterans who willingly shed
    their blood for Southern independence.

    Believe It or Not
    You Decide!

    What did Lincolns So-called Emancipation Proclamation do?
    it only freed slaves in the southern states that had seceded from the Union, not one single Northern slave was freed by the so-called Emancipation Proclamation; he did what Obama & Company and the progressives have done all along; they polarized an issue and demonized those fighting for Constitutional Liberty and made the war about something it was never about...

    Lincolns Executive Orders & War Crimes



    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  2.   
  3. The Constitution is in the way for the bedwetters... always in the way of the leftist agenda.* The Tenth Amendment, though largely ignored, looms as a threat to the liberal dream of an all-powerful centralized government – that antiquated document written by white men.* All it would take is one or two new Supreme Court justices who believe the 10th Amendment actually means what it says to turn the liberal big-government agenda on its head and return the bulk of American governance to the states, where it belongs. Getting involved on the local level will have much more impact.
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."Frederic Bastia

  4. #23
    Bohemian - Did you write that or where did you get it. I don't know how factual it is but it does demonstrate the actual cause of the War for Southern Independence much better than any I have ever read before and whether or not completely factual it is close. During the war Grant owned a slave (his wife's that she refused to free) whereas one of the first things Lee did when his father died was to free all of his slaves. As in the article the economics of slavery in the north did not work out as in the factories they could get child labor and indentured servants much cheaper than slaves. Segregation, integration, acceptance of other races etc. was and is to this day much different in the South than the North. As a black man once told me that he knew all about segration growing up in the South but until he moved up north he never knew about bigotry. He decided to move back south.

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    Bohemian - Did you write that or where did you get it. I don't know how factual it is but it does demonstrate the actual cause of the War for Southern Independence much better than any I have ever read before and whether or not completely factual it is close. During the war Grant owned a slave (his wife's that she refused to free) whereas one of the first things Lee did when his father died was to free all of his slaves. As in the article the economics of slavery in the north did not work out as in the factories they could get child labor and indentured servants much cheaper than slaves. Segregation, integration, acceptance of other races etc. was and is to this day much different in the South than the North. As a black man once told me that he knew all about segregation growing up in the South but until he moved up north he never knew about bigotry. He decided to move back south.
    It is 100% factual and I sourced it...

    Notwithstanding, the war crimes trial of President Lincoln & General Sherman have been published for sometime now, which concur and Lincoln acquiesced to; that he violated the Constitution...

    Moreover, what are a few of the first things the feds did following the South being forced to rejoin the Union at gunpoint?

    • They disarmed them...
    • They removed the text books from West Point and elsewhere by William Rawl (cited in o/p) and others that taught that secession was allowed under the Constitutional Republic we were founded as...
    • Proceeded to write the victors version of history to be taught... thus polluting generations Americans with the notion of slavery being the cause for the so-called civil war; and associating a stigma of bigotry with secession and the states right to secede and state sovereignty. When it was always a fundamental tenet to the inherent liberty the Constitutional Republic we were founded as was intended to protect.
    • The still Northern majority of Congress proceeded to make the Constitution & the Bill of Rights ambiguous by adding the 14th amendment and others; leaving us open to over a century of footnotes and interpretations and Constitution trampling that continue to this day. Without Lincolns trampling of the Constitution that has yet to be ratified, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, W. Bush and Barack Obama and others would not have been able to get away with the unchecked expansion of centralized government and other constitutional infringements, such as end-running congress and conducting war without congress, suspending habeas corpus, 22,000 and counting Second Amendment infringements...
    • The Lincoln appointed SCOTUS wrote the one and only opinion on States right to Secession ... Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).

    The last echoing the very warnings of Thomas Jefferson...

    As Jefferson warned:

    They [the judges] are … in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate.

    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 of 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 ….


    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  6. Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    I think the American Civil War decided this one.
    Like others said, it only decided who was more powerful, not who was in the right. Legally, the way I read it, the secession states were in the right. Faced with a tough situation Lincoln decided that the negatives of splitting up were great enough that it was worth violating the law over. Not the decision that I believe I would have made, but it's the way things went down. I believe that we probably are better off for that decision, yet, I can't justify it and find it morally reprehensible. Typical clash between a "ends justify the means" person and someone like me that believes the means as well as the end must be proper. Not sure if it was the first time that we had a President that committed war crimes, certainly wasn't the last. Might just be one of those necessary evils to keep society from degrading into anarchy? :-)

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueMR2 View Post
    Like others said, it only decided who was more powerful, not who was in the right. Legally, the way I read it, the secession states were in the right. Faced with a tough situation Lincoln decided that the negatives of splitting up were great enough that it was worth violating the law over. Not the decision that I believe I would have made, but it's the way things went down. I believe that we probably are better off for that decision, yet, I can't justify it and find it morally reprehensible. Typical clash between a "ends justify the means" person and someone like me that believes the means as well as the end must be proper. Not sure if it was the first time that we had a President that committed war crimes, certainly wasn't the last. Might just be one of those necessary evils to keep society from degrading into anarchy? :-)
    I will agree to disagree that we are better off for Lincolns decisions or that is was one of those necessary evils...

    IMHO Lincolns constitution trampling created a precedent for such activities, not withstanding a unchecked, unlimited in power, centralized federal government, that would not have been possible otherwise...

    Consolidation Destroys Liberty

    "What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate. And I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that man shall never be free (and it is blasphemy to believe it), that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence by a synthetical process, to higher and higher orders of functionaries, so as to trust fewer and fewer powers in proportion as the trustees become more and more oligarchical." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:421

    "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332

    "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. ME 17:445

    Jefferson on Politics & Government: Against Consolidated Government

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokinLawyer View Post
    Actually, BC1, the War Between the States (incorrectly called a civil war) proved only that, in a prolonged conflict, an agrarian nation of 11 million people is unlikely to militarily defeat an industrialized nation of 34 million people and, further, that the winner writes the history and makes the rules. Nothing of a legal nature was proven nor was any legal precedent set one way or the other concerning secession.
    Well, it sure ended the issue. I doubt any state will ever try it again.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueMR2 View Post
    Like others said, it only decided who was more powerful, not who was in the right. Legally, the way I read it, the secession states were in the right. Faced with a tough situation Lincoln decided that the negatives of splitting up were great enough that it was worth violating the law over. Not the decision that I believe I would have made, but it's the way things went down. I believe that we probably are better off for that decision, yet, I can't justify it and find it morally reprehensible. Typical clash between a "ends justify the means" person and someone like me that believes the means as well as the end must be proper. Not sure if it was the first time that we had a President that committed war crimes, certainly wasn't the last. Might just be one of those necessary evils to keep society from degrading into anarchy? :-)
    Enslaving people was consdered being in the right? I'm sorry, weren't those slaves protected by a consitiutional right? Look up the Dred Scott case.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  10. #29
    Above, someone noted that there is no firm "ruling" on the matter.

    For instance, when the States "signed on" to the Articles of Federation, there was language incorporated in the document that alluded to the signees signed "in perpetua". In other words, once in.... ALWAYS "IN"! You see how long that lasted.

    During the Constitutional Convention there was some discussion as to whether or not the "in perpetua" language would be incorporated into the Constitution. It was discussed at some length and the decision was to leave it out. Thus, technically, leaving a loophole for those wanting to leave the Union, somewhere in the future (unforseen), to do so.

    This makes perfect sence to me. An agreement freely entered into, should, if the ideal is for Liberty to prevail, have an option to withdraw freely from the agreement, conditions and public opinion warrenting.

    Like someone noted above.... The Civil War settled that question. It only settled a force of arms contest, IMHO. It did NOT settle, from a legal perspective, the right (or not) of a State to withdraw from the Union if deemed prudent by the citizens of that State.

    If one can step above the moral implications of slavery for a moment, what one can see is the Southern States beginning to chaff from what they considered Federal interference in their everyday way of life. Moreover, the Northern "agenda" had the population (hence the votes) to force feed Federal Level "fixes" on all. One size fits all Government and legislation.

    Given that the tenth ammendment reiterates and reinforces the idea of "limited government", which was what the Fed was designed to be, originally. I can understand why the South was beginning to think of the North as rather oppressive. So they tried to leave the Union, which was NOT strictly forbidden.

    I contend that the exact same situation is rearing it's ugly head at the present time. The more Liberal States, having the population to have the votes go their way, are getting the Government to force feed legislation to affect ALL States, regional differences be damned, in the hopes of curing various social problems more promenent in the overcrowded and Liberal States. Oh, and making the other States' citizens pay for it.

    Thus you get "rebellious" talk from "Tea Party" types, talk of succession from other groups..... a general sence of unrest and disquiet.

    All because the Fed decided, over the years, to keep getting it's fingers into pies that the Constitution never intended it to. Thus our "limited Government" has evolved into an all powerful Government, 10th Ammendment be damned, and any person who has a modicum of freedom and liberty left in his/her makeup is beginning to realize that.

    Lesson to be learned: One size does NOT fit all!

    So..... in the long analysis, which is better? Letting the Country separate, to each his/her own Governmental "style", or to go into a full scale rebellion? Which would be MOST messy these days.

    Either way it goes (if it goes that way at all), you can rest assured that the US of A's days as an economical and international power will be gone.

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  11. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Well, it sure ended the issue. I doubt any state will ever try it again.
    I think that it is only a matter of time before a multitude of States declare they are seceding from the Socialist States of America; because they cannot afford any more hope & change and progressivism...
    http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/






    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast