Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
What you have here is a Governor acting illegally. No matter how you describe it, Jeff Davis is either a) the leader of a rebellion against the US (if there is no "right of secession") or b) the leader of a foreign nation at war with the US (if there is a "right of secession"). The actions of the Governor at this point are clearly Treason under the US Constitution.
Heretofore you have had no problem with the illegal acts of 'Unionists' in the State of Missouri which amount to at least conspiracy to commit treason.
*Lincoln cronies sending money for arms and equipment.
*The Governor of Illinois sending arms.
All of this was illegal and I wouldn't be surprised if Lincoln was involved himself...all of this happened before he was inaugurated as president.
Any of your complaints about 'illegalities' elsewhere will be ignored.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
A privately formed company in conspiracy against the governor and government of the State of Missouri cannot be considered 'normal.' They started these companies before the Confederacy was formed.
Actually, the 'pro-secessionist' legislature had voted against secession.
Wonder why no one of them ever voted to be rid of their incumbent 'Second Parties'?
Many Conservatives still had a slight advantage, at the time... THIS was the real cause of the Civil War, NOT SLAVERY! SLAVERY NOT THE CAUSE, KEMOSABE. Ask Davis. NOT THE CAUSE, BUT AN INCIDENT.
That, and the fact that Ole and others refuse to eat hot buttered grits and mellow out enough to actually have a real Union!
Heretofore you have had no problem with the illegal acts of 'Unionists' in the State of Missouri which amount to at least conspiracy to commit treason.
*Lincoln cronies sending money for arms and equipment.
*The Governor of Illinois sending arms.
All of this was illegal and I wouldn't be surprised if Lincoln was involved himself...all of this happened before he was inaugurated as president.
Any of your complaints about 'illegalities' elsewhere will be ignored.
Actually, neither of those things was illegal. That is simply your imagination and desire talking. However, receiving stolen arms from Jeff Davis and conspiring to seize the St. Louis Arsenal would be illegal under US law and the Constitution beyond the shadow of a doubt.
But again, Ole has asked us to restrict this thread to discussions of slavery. If you want to talk about all this again, either reactivate the old thread where we went through it, or start a new one please.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Does Hanny agree with Jackson's and Webster's reasoning on the relationship of the the state and people? Does Hanny agree with everything that Madison wrote concerning the constitution? Does Hanny know what Madison's thoughts were concerning the Hartford Convention? The fact that Hanny thinks the Magna Charta allows the people to overthrow the crown, seems to be unique to himself or, at least, not commonly accepted by even most British scholars.
Of Course the DoI sanctions secession, it's called Revolution and is commonly accepted as also applying in the Constitution.
In 1804, in answer to an inquiry of Noah Webster concerning the source of movement to eliminatge the AC and adopt the Constitution (in particular reference to the part played by Alexander Hamilton) Madison wrote "The change in our government like most other important improvements ought to be ascribed rather to a series of causes than to the efforts of a single agent. It is certain that the general idea of revising and enlarging the scope of the federal power, so as to answer the necessary purposes of the Union, grew up in many minds...." Later in the same letter, Madison again writes "In common with others I derived from my service in the old Congress during the latter stages of the Revolutionary war, a deep impression of the necessity of invigorating the federal authority."
Should ANY government even try to control every aspect of the actions of future generations (even if they could) or should the past bury its own dead? Was that not the purpose of the Constitution being so short?
Does Hanny agree with Jackson's and Webster's reasoning on the relationship of the the state and people?
Since Webster and jackosn held different views i cannot agree with both, but i do agree with webster on the relationship of those in the compact and i agree with jackosn that when congress authorises a foirce act he is duty bound to infoce it.
Neither would agre with Abe that POTUS can recognise secesion as insurection and treat it as treason.
Quote:
Does Hanny agree with everything that Madison wrote concerning the constitution?
Since Madison had such a large input its hard to disagree with him, except for some small matters.
Quote:
Does Hanny know what Madison's thoughts were concerning the Hartford Convention?
yes as well as websters, who threatened secesion and nullification "The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal," he declared, hinting at nullification by New Hampshire. "It will be the solemn duty of the state governments to protect their own authority over their own militia and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power"
Webster defeated a motion to make conscription legal, he defeated it as it being unconstitional.
Quote:
The fact that Hanny thinks the Magna Charta allows the people to overthrow the crown, seems to be unique to himself or, at least, not commonly accepted by even most British scholars.
taught throught the word that the UK crown was not above the law, but would rule acording to the law, or face legal use of force to constrain the crown to do just that.
Quote:
Of Course the DoI sanctions secession, it's called Revolution and is commonly accepted as also applying in the Constitution.
So you think haveing had to use force to empower a peacfulllegal right, ment that the constition they then crafted required not legaly setting out this right can be used without the use of force, as used to end the AoC, and before in the GR, and preventing the federal army to a size that made it not possible to prevent a states secesion, means revolution must contain the use of force, it does not, such was the case in 1689 when secesion of the crown changed the relationship in the colonies from one sov to another, just as it did in the UK. the only time force is required is when the right to be governed by consent is excercised by those not authorised to do so, like in the AWI.
Skipped the non relavent 1804 Madison part as it says nothing at all.
Quote:
Should ANY government even try to control every aspect of the actions of future generations (even if they could) or should the past bury its own dead?
thast your argument as i understand it, some 15% of the us citizens created a set of laws that bind not only the whole bqck then when it was 13 states but the 290 million of today to a system that cannot end unless all states agree, you know like the taliban, your in and cant get out, and if you try we kill you and take all that is yours.
Quote:
Was that not the purpose of the Constitution being so short?
the purpose of theonstition was to provide a framework of government of the Union, not to provide a prison and inmate relationship, but one of vol union to achieve whatthe preamble sets out. the purpose of law, which is what the constition is, is to protect the mebers of society, from each other, and from governemnt claiming a section can de stripped of their political rights, their property, and their lives if they resist. Countys that breed men who will not resist such, see lines of people heading into ovens, fourtunatly the US was not such a country, but there are those who think patriots are traitors in the US, despite not haveing any court case to show that anyone was ever convicted as a traitor.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Buchanan was quite clear that shooting at Sumter would be regarded as a hostile act and the US would have to respond in kind.
There was nothing peaceful about that.
Whether or not it was a right at the time was never, so far as I've read, tried in court.
The fact remains, the fire-eaters had one issue on their minds.
One.
I swear, it's like arguing with 9 year olds. "You didn't tell me I couldn't put my muddy shoes on that part of the couch." ... "I wasn't hitting my brother, I was just, uh, poking him."
Etc.
I aware that you new here, so will have missed my doing so already on other threads, and dont feel like rehashing it so soon, but ill cut to the chase, for something to be unconstional, it was be prohibated in the constition, flying a kite on a weds is not itemised, so its not unconstional. If as the article suggest, secesion is not constional, you can point out where the constition makes or implies that to be the case, instead of makeing or implying that is is by what the constition actually contains.
Read Madison, he shows that the article is bad history, and worse constional law.
Try j R grahem A Constitionl history of secesion, and F McDonald State rights and the Union, and A Comparative reading of Constitional Theory.
From a non US citizen pov, Dino and Claremont are held in the same disrepute the world over, being as they both show the appaling state of US histography, as you feel about Dino as how Europe feels about him and Claremont, not helping history but hindering it.
Since I have no reason to re-read things I have already read in an attempt to prove your point, Hanny, I'll take your response as a dismissal.
__________________ "In leaving this unpretentious record, therefore, I seek to do simply what I would have had my fathers do for me.
KINSMEN OF THE COMING CENTURIES, I BID YOU HAIL AND GODSPEED!"
[From his Introduction to "Memoirs of a Volunteer," by John Beatty - published in 1879
Just moved a whole bunch of posts into neverneverland. It's a shame as many of them had interesting and valuable information. Unfortunately, none of them were about "Slavery, THE Cause?". All of them were posted after I asked pretty please to return to the subject or start a new thread.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
You are a saint with a thankless job. I don't know how you do it, and will support your decisions however you exercise your discretion. Forget the coffee; after eleven hours what you need is a drink (gin and tonic here).
This is not a fun part of the mod-job. This thread has survived some over 3,000 posts and, lately, has detriorated into a smeary smudge of sludge. Tomorrow, after I've had my coffee, I will take the time to "unaprove" a number of posts and hope that the webmasters do not decide to delete a fool or two.
This thread has survived because it may very well be the number one subject of discussion. And if we don't have a number one, can there be a number two?
So,today, I've spent 11 hours on the road. Tomorrow, at or about after my coffee, an egg, a handful of hashbrowns and a piece of toast (with real butter and grape jelly. No, I don't eat grits.), I'll have thought about the value of this thread and the buttheads who use it as if all of the previous 3,020 posts are negligible twaddle.
Write this down: This thread is about "Slavery, THE Cause?". It WILL remain so. Tomorrow morning, before I wash the bug juice off the car, it will be back on topic and all the crap will go missing.
ole
I vote to just lock it! If it has turned to muddy thoughts....
I hate threads being pulled....
My thoughts on the subject......
Drive safe...
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
