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.
Jefferson Davis - THE RISE & FALL OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT
It is time to allow the man to speak for himself, and this new thread, beginning with his preamble, shall begin to enlighten those who have ascribed unto him many facts which may, or may not, have actually been in evidence: Emphasis, where found, is mine.
Mr. President, your excellency, you have the floor:
The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government
By
Jefferson Davis
PREFACE.
The object of this work has been from historical data to show that the Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from a Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that the denial of that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that the war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disregard of the limitations of the Constitution, and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
The author, from his official position, may claim to have known much of the motives and acts of his countrymen immediately before and during the war of 1861-'65, and he has sought to furnish material far the future historian, who, when the passions and prejudices of the day shall have given place to reason and sober thought, may, better than a contemporary, investigate the causes, conduct, and results of the war.
The incentive to undertake the work now offered to the public was the desire to correct misapprehensions created by industriously circulated misrepresentations as to the acts and purposes of the people and the General Government of the Confederate States. By the reiteration of such unappropriate terms as "rebellion" and "treason," and the asseveration that the South was levying war against the United States, those ignorant of the nature of the Union, and of the reserved powers of the States, have been led to believe that the Confederate States were in the condition of revolted provinces, and that the United States were forced to resort to arms for the preservation of their existence. To those who knew that the Union was formed for specific enumerated purposes, and that the States had never surrendered their sovereignty it was a palpable absurdity to apply to them, or to their citizens when obeying their mandates, the terms "rebellion" and "treason"; and, further, it is shown in the following pages that the Confederate States, so far from making war or seeking to destroy the United States, as soon as they had an official organ, strove earnestly, by peaceful recognition, to equitably adjust all questions growing out of the separation from their late associates.
Another great perversion of truth has been the arraignment of the men who participated in the formation of the Confederacy and who bore arms in its defense, as the instigators of a controversy leading to disunion.. Sectional issues appear conspicuously in the debates of the Convention which framed the Federal Constitution, and its many compromises were designed to secure an equilibrium between the sections, and to preserve the interests as well as the liberties of the several States. African servitude at that time was not confined to a section, but was numerically greater in the South than in the North, with a tendency to its continuance in the former and cessation in the latter. It therefore thus early presents itself as a disturbing element, and the provisions of the Constitution, which were known to be necessary for its adoption, bound all the States to recognize and protect that species of property. When at a subsequent period there arose in the Northern States an antislavery agitation, it was a harmless and scarcely noticed movement until political demagogues seized upon it as a means to acquire power. Had it been left to pseudo-philanthropists and fanatics, most zealous where least informed, it never could have shaken the foundations of the Union and have incited one section to carry fire and sword into the other. That the agitation was political in its character, and was clearly developed as early as 1803, it is believed has been established in these pages. To preserve a sectional equilibrium and to maintain the equality of the States was the effort on one side, to acquire empire was the manifest purpose on the other. This struggle began before the men of the Confederacy were born; how it arose and how it progressed it has been attempted briefly to show. Its last stage was on the question of territorial governments; and, if in this work it has not been demonstrated that the position of the South was justified by the Constitution and the equal rights of the people of all the States, it must be because the author has failed to present the subject with a sufficient degree of force and clearness.
In describing the events of the war, space has not permitted, and the loss of both books and papers has prevented, the notice of very many entitled to consideration, as well for the humanity as the gallantry of our men in the unequal combats they fought. These numerous omissions, it is satisfactory to know, the official reports made at the time and the subsequent contributions which have been and are being published by the actors, will supply more fully and graphically than could have been done in this work.
Usurpations of the Federal Government have been presented, not in a spirit of hostility, but as a warning to the people against the dangers by which their liberties are beset. When the war ceased, the pretext on which it had been waged could no longer be alleged. The emancipation proclamation of Mr. Lincoln, which, when it was issued, he humorously admitted to be a nullity, had acquired validity by the action of the highest authority known to our institutions—the people assembled in their several State Conventions. The soldiers of the Confederacy had laid down their arms, had in good faith pledged themselves to abstain from further hostile operations, and had peacefully dispersed to their homes; there could not, then, have been further dread of them by the Government of the United States. The plea of necessity could, therefore, no longer exist for hostile demonstration against the people and States of the deceased Confederacy. Did vengeance, which stops at the grave, subside? Did real peace and the restoration of the States to their former rights and positions follow, as was promised on the restoration of the Union? Let the recital of the invasion of the reserved powers of the States, or the people, and the perversion of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by the Constitution, answer the question. For the deplorable fact of the war, for the cruel manner in which it was waged, for the sad physical and yet sadder moral results it produced, the reader of these pages, I hope, will admit that the South, in the forum of conscience, stands fully acquitted.
Much of the past is irremediable; the best hope for a restoration in the future to the pristine purity and fraternity of the Union, rests on the opinions and character of the men who are to succeed this generation: that they maybe suited to that blessed work, one, whose public course is ended, invokes them to draw their creed from the fountains of our political history, rather than from the lower stream, polluted as it has been by self-seeking place-hunters and by sectional strife.
THE AUTHOR.
__________________ If the South accepted Sectional Left Wing Republican Rule, their property would be devalued, by being outlawed unconstitutionally in the territories, and suffer terrorism by Brown's mob ,... their economy would be in shambles... The effect is that the South is not any longer an equal part of the Union.
If the South tried to gain independence from these Left wing Republicans, the North will destroy them all... and curse their memory for all eternity....
Failure of the Peace Congress.—Treatment of the Commissioners.—Their Withdrawal.—Notice of an Armed Expedition.—Action of the Confederate Government.—Bombardment and Surrender of Fort Sumter.—Its Reduction required by the Exigency of the Case.—Disguise thrown off.—President Lincoln's Call for Seventy-five Thousand Men.—His Fiction of "Combinations."—Palpable Violation of the Constitution.—Action of Virginia.—Of Citizens of Baltimore.—The Charge of Precipitation against South Carolina.—Action of the Confederate Government.—The Universal Feeling.
The Congress, initiated by Virginia for the laudable purpose of endeavoring, by constitutional means, to adjust all the issues which threatened the peace of the country, failed to achieve anything that would cause or justify a reconsideration by the seceded States of their action to reclaim the grants they had made to the General Government, and to maintain for themselves a separate and independent existence.
The Commissioners sent by the Confederate Government, after having been shamefully deceived, as has been heretofore fully set forth, left the United States capital to report the result of their mission to the Confederate Government.
The notice received, that an armed expedition had sailed for operations against the State of South Carolina in the harbor of Charleston, induced the Confederate Government to meet, as best it might, this assault, in the discharge of its obligation to defend each State of the Confederacy. To this end the bombardment of the formidable work, Fort Sumter, was commenced, in anticipation of the reënforcement which was then [pg 297] moving to unite with its garrison for hostilities against South Carolina.
The bloodless bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter occurred on April 13, 1861. The garrison was generously permitted to retire with the honors of war. The evacuation of that fort, commanding the entrance to the harbor of Charleston, which, if in hostile hands, was destructive of its commerce, had been claimed as the right of South Carolina. The voluntary withdrawal of the garrison by the United States Government had been considered, and those best qualified to judge believed it had been promised. Yet, when instead of the fulfillment of just expectations, instead of the withdrawal of the garrison, a hostile expedition was organized and sent forward, the urgency of the case required its reduction before it should be reënforced. Had there been delay, the more serious conflict between larger forces, land and naval, would scarcely have been bloodless, as the bombardment fortunately was. The event, however, was seized upon to inflame the mind of the Northern people, and the disguise which had been worn in the communications with the Confederate Commissioners was now thrown off, and it was cunningly attempted to show that the South, which had been pleading for peace and still stood on the defensive, had by this bombardment inaugurated a war against the United States. But it should be stated that the threats implied in the declarations that the Union could not exist part slave and part free, and that the Union should be preserved, and the denial of the right of a State peaceably to withdraw, were virtually a declaration of war, and the sending of an army and navy to attack was the result to have been anticipated as the consequence of such declaration of war.
On the 15th day of the same month, President Lincoln, introducing his farce "of combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings," called forth the military of the several States to the number of seventy-five thousand, and commanded "the persons composing the combinations" to disperse, etc. It can but surprise any one in the least degree conversant with the history of the Union, to find States referred to as "persons composing combinations," [pg 298] and that the sovereign creators of the Federal Government, the States of the Union, should be commanded by their agent to disperse. The levy of so large an army could only mean war; but the power to declare war did not reside in the President—it was delegated to the Congress only. If, however, it had been a riotous combination or an insurrection, it must have been, according to the Constitution, against the State; and the power of the President to call forth the militia to suppress it, was dependent upon an application from the State for that purpose; it could not precede such application, and still less could it be rightfully exercised against the will of a State. The authorities on this subject have been heretofore cited, and need not be referred to again.
Suffice it to say that, by section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution, the United States are bound to protect each State against invasion and against domestic violence, whenever application shall have been made by the Legislature, or by the Executive when the Legislature can not be convened; and that to fail to give protection against any invasion whatsoever would be a dereliction of duty. To add that there could be no justification for the invasion of a State by an army of the United States, is but to repeat what has been said, on the absence of any authority in the General Government to coerce a State. In any possible view of the case, therefore, the conclusion must be, that the calling on some of the States for seventy-five thousand militia to invade other States which were asserted to be still in the Union, was a palpable violation of the Constitution, and the usurpation of undelegated power, or, in other words, of power reserved to the States or to the people.
It might, therefore, have been anticipated that Virginia—one of whose sons wrote the Declaration of Independence, another of whose sons led the armies of the United States in the Revolution which achieved their independence, and another of whose sons mainly contributed to the adoption of the Constitution of the Union—would not have been slow, in the face of such events, to reclaim the grants she had made to the General Government, and to withdraw from the Union, to the establishment of which she had so largely contributed.
[pg 299]
Two days had elapsed between the surrender of Fort Sumter and the proclamation of President Lincoln calling for seventy-five thousand militia as before stated. Two other days elapsed, and Virginia passed her ordinance of secession, and two days thereafter the citizens of Baltimore resisted the passage of troops through that city on their way to make war upon the Southern States. Thus rapidly did the current of events bear us onward from peace to the desolating war which was soon to ensue.
The manly effort of the unorganized, unarmed citizens of Baltimore to resist the progress of armies for the invasion of her Southern sisters, was worthy of the fair fame of Maryland; becoming the descendants of the men who so gallantly fought for the freedom, independence, and sovereignty of the States.
The bold stand, then and thereafter taken, extorted a promise from the Executive authorities that no more troops should be sent through the city of Baltimore, which promise, however, was only observed until, by artifice, power had been gained to disregard it.
Virginia, as has been heretofore stated, passed her ordinance of secession on the 17th of April. It was, however, subject to ratification by the people at an election to be held on the fourth Thursday of May. She was in the mean time, like her Southern sisters, the object of Northern hostilities, and, having a common cause with them, properly anticipated the election of May by forming an alliance with the Confederate States, which was ratified by the Convention on the 25th of April.
The Convention for that alliance set forth that Virginia, looking to a speedy union with the Confederate States, and for the purpose of meeting pressing exigencies, agreed that "the whole military force and military operations, offensive and defensive, of said Commonwealth, in the impending conflict with the United States, shall be under the chief control and direction of the President of the said Confederate States." The whole was made subject to the approval and ratification of the proper authorities of both governments respectively.
To those who criticise South Carolina as having acted precipitately in withdrawing from the Union, it may be answered that intervening occurrences show that her delay could not [pg 300] have changed the result; and, further, that her prompt action had enabled her better to prepare for the contingency which it was found impossible to avert. Thus she was prepared in the first necessities of Virginia to send to her troops organized and equipped.
Before the convention for coöperation with the Confederate States had been adopted by Virginia, that knightly soldier, General Bonham, of South Carolina, went with his brigade to Richmond; and, throughout the Southern States, there was a prevailing desire to rush to Virginia, where it was foreseen that the first great battles of the war were to be fought; so that, as early as the 22d of April, I telegraphed to Governor Letcher that, in addition to the forces heretofore ordered, requisitions had been made for thirteen regiments, eight to rendezvous at Lynchburg, four at Richmond, and one at Harper's Ferry. Referring to an application that had been made to him from Baltimore, I wrote: "Sustain Baltimore if practicable. We will reënforce you." The universal feeling was that of a common cause and common destiny. There was no selfish desire to linger around home, no narrow purpose to separate local interests from the common welfare. The object was to sustain a principle—the broad principle of constitutional liberty, the right of self-government.
The early demonstrations of the enemy showed that Virginia was liable to invasion from the north, from the east, and from the west. Though the larger preparation indicated that the most serious danger to be apprehended was from the line of the Potomac, the first conflicts occurred in the east.
The narrow peninsula between the James and York Rivers had topographical features well adapted to defense. It was held by General John B. Magruder, who skillfully improved its natural strength by artificial means, and there, on the ground memorable as the field of the last battle of the Revolution, in which General Washington compelled Lord Cornwallis to surrender, Magruder, with a small force, held for a long time the superior forces of the enemy in check.
__________________ If the South accepted Sectional Left Wing Republican Rule, their property would be devalued, by being outlawed unconstitutionally in the territories, and suffer terrorism by Brown's mob ,... their economy would be in shambles... The effect is that the South is not any longer an equal part of the Union.
If the South tried to gain independence from these Left wing Republicans, the North will destroy them all... and curse their memory for all eternity....
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Last edited by unionblue : 03-29-2008 at 05:03 AM.
Contrasting Davis's resolutions in 1860 and his later memoirs in very interesting. Its almost as if Davis trying to airbrush his vigorous defense of slavery and his advocacy of its expansion out of history.
Comparing contemporary accounts and later memoirs is always interesting, I think. Does later reflection add wisdom, as Davis writes in his peramble? Or does the urge to justify oneself to history lead a writer to present his best case and pass over their less worthy motives and actions?
Rule of thumb: if you look better, not worse, in your memoirs than in your contemporary writings, lector caveat.
It's interesting that the two best regarded figures of the War, Robert E. Lee and Abraham Lincoln never had the chance to write their memoirs, self serving or otherwise.
Jefferson Davis - THE RISE & FALL OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT
As just one example of Davis' use of the historical airbrush. SC did not act precipitately; it was the so-called confederate states government, headed by Jefferson Davis.
Okay, Blue. Here they are. Lets take a look at what you are referring to:
Jefferson Davis' Resolutions on
the Relations of States
Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol, February 2, 1860
Mr. DAVIS submitted the following resolutions:
(Emphasis Mine, as usual...)
1. Resolved, That in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent sovereignties, delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government for the increased security of each, against dangers domestic as well as foreign; and that any intermeddling by any one or more States, or by a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions of the others, on any pretext, whether political, moral, or religious, with the view to their disturbance or subversion, is in violation of the Constitution, insulting to the States so interfered with, endangers their domestic peace and tranquillity--objects for which the Constitution was formed--and, by necessary consequence, serves to weaken and destroy the Union itself.
2. Resolved, That negro slavery, as it exists in fifteen States of this Union, composes an important portion of their domestic institutions, inherited from their ancestors, and existing at the adoption of the Constitution, by which it is recognized as constituting an important element of the apportionment of powers among the States; and that no change of opinion or feeling on the part of the non-slaveholding States of the Union in relation to this institution can justify them or their citizens in open and systematic attacks thereon, with a view to its overthrow; and that all such attacks are in manifest violation of the mutual and solemn pledges to protect and defend each other, given by the States, respectively, on entering into the constitutional compact which formed the Union, and are a manifest breach of faith and a violation of the most solemn obligations.
(This, I assume, refers to Lincoln's threats to provide political patronage to his abolitionist elements and be a constant threat to overthrow Southern society in the tampering with Slavery, its relation to other states, and its increased agreement with the criminal element known as the Underground railroad, as well as the threat to the South, itself, which was geographically full to the brim with both freed and slave negroes, and to have such a man as Lincoln as president would have constituted a standing threat to the safety of everyone at the South. So far, Blue, right with you, buddy!)
3. Resolved, That the union of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members, and that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the States in their sovereign capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to person or property, so as, in the Territories--which are the common possession of the United States--to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not equally secured to those of every other State.
4. Resolved, That neither Congress, nor a Territorial Legislature, whether by direct legislation or legislation of an indirect and unfriendly nature, possess the power to annul or impair the constitutional right of any citizen of the United States to take his slaver property into the common Territories; but it is the duty of the Federal Government there to afford for that, as for other species of property, the needful protection; and if experience should at any time prove that the judiciary does not possess power to insure adequate protection, it will then become the duty of Congress to supply such deficiency.
(Ahem)...
5. Resolved, That the inhabitants of an organized Territory of the United States, when they rightfully form a constitution to be admitted as a State into the Union, may then, for the first time, like the people of a State when forming a new constitution, decide for themselves whether slavery, as a domestic institution, shall be maintained or prohibited within their jurisdiction; and if Congress shall admit them as a State, "they shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."
(Can I get an AMEN?)
6. Resolved, That the provision of the Constitution for the rendition of fugitives from service or labor, "without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed," and the laws of 1793 and 1850, which were enacted to secure its execution, and the main features of which, being similar, bear the impress of nearly seventy years of sanction by the highest judicial authority, have unquestionable claim to the respect and observance of all who enjoy the benefits of our compact of Union; and that the acts of State Legislatures to defeat the purpose, or nullify the requirements of that provision, and the laws made in pursuance of it, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, revolutionary in their effect, and if persisted in, must sooner or later lead the States injured by such breach of the compact to exercise their judgment as to the proper mode and measure of redress.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President [Vice President John C. Breckinridge], I have presented these resolutions not for the purpose of discussing them, but with a view to get a vote upon them severally, hoping thus, by an expression of the deliberate opinion of the Senate, that we may reach some conclusion as to what is the present condition of opinion in relation to the principles there expressed. The expression even of the resolutions is, to a great extent, not new. The first and second are substantially those on which the Senate voted in 1837-38, affirming them then by a very large majority. I trust opinion to-day may be as sound as it was then. There is also and assertion of an historical fact, which is drawn from the opinion of Judge Story, in the decision of the ruling case of Prigg vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It was my purpose to rest the propositions contained in these resolutions upon the highest authority of the land, judicial as well as other; and if it be possible to obtain a vote on them without debate, it will be most agreeable to me To have them affirmed by the Senate without contradiction, would be an era in the recent history of our country which would be hailed with joy by every one who sincerely loves it. I ask that the resolutions may be printed, and be made a special order, for the purpose which I have indicated, for such day as the Senate may choose to name. I have no choice as to time, having no wish to discuss the resolutions, unless it shall be necessary by remarks which shall be made by others. I therefore would like any one to suggest a time when it will be probably agreeable to the Senate to take them up for consideration. Next Wednesday is suggested. I ask, then, that the resolutions may be printed for the use of the Senate, and made the special order for Wednesday next, at half past one o'clock.
From The Papers of Jefferson Davis, Volume 6, pp. 273-76. Transcribed from the Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 658-59.
Blue, I am straining at the leads, here, but you actually submitted this? As with Vallandigham, from Ohio, there may be hope for you, yet!
Beowulf
__________________ If the South accepted Sectional Left Wing Republican Rule, their property would be devalued, by being outlawed unconstitutionally in the territories, and suffer terrorism by Brown's mob ,... their economy would be in shambles... The effect is that the South is not any longer an equal part of the Union.
If the South tried to gain independence from these Left wing Republicans, the North will destroy them all... and curse their memory for all eternity....
Contrasting Davis's resolutions in 1860 and his later memoirs in very interesting. Its almost as if Davis trying to airbrush his vigorous defense of slavery and his advocacy of its expansion out of history.
Comparing contemporary accounts and later memoirs is always interesting, I think. Does later reflection add wisdom, as Davis writes in his peramble? Or does the urge to justify oneself to history lead a writer to present his best case and pass over their less worthy motives and actions?
Rule of thumb: if you look better, not worse, in your memoirs than in your contemporary writings, lector caveat.
It's interesting that the two best regarded figures of the War, Robert E. Lee and Abraham Lincoln never had the chance to write their memoirs, self serving or otherwise.
(I take it that you have not read LEE all that closely. Like Jefferson, there is a decided attempt at the North, and
at the Left, to assimilate these two, or portions thereof, into the Union Borg Collective... But, it always fails scrutiny, I must warn you in advance. Neither would back either the North, (those 'people') or the Left, on anything. Ever).
As to Mr. Lincoln, I think his views were well-documented... and his inflation of an inferior political position to the ruling class of the North is ample epitaph to his intentions, both foreign and domestic.
IN RE: Jefferson Finis Davis:
I fail to see a decided difference in his writings. In the one instance, he is speaking for the South, and in the other, he is explaining these decisions in retrospect. Both concur, unless I am missing something. Both provide that the South, as sovereign parties to the compact of Union, are not being treated fairly by the certain left wing designing
troublemakers at the North, and they have had their way with the vote, now, and a professed WHIG is at the helm, and at this point in time, Abolition is in bed with common Whiggery... and a great danger is posed.
I do not see where Davis changed his mind on this in his
nearly-deathbed confessional known as the RISE AND FALL...
Could you please provide chapter and verse wherein you disagree with the agreement of these writings?
As an aside, Davis NEVER attempted to JUSTIFY himself, nor to ASK FOR PARDON for what clearly was NOT A CRIME (hence his release)...
He literally BEGGED to be charged and tried, and if possible, convicted and hanged as a martyr for his country!
He REFUSED to deal with his captors, and told Johnson what he could do with his asking Davis to 'request a pardon', and it was NORTHERN POST WAR OUTRAGE at his treatment which was mounting because of the cowardice of his captors to own up to their own unconstitutional activities which killed 700,000 plus-plus-plus Americans!
But you might consider showing me where you think he FLIP-FLOPS! And again, I warn, sir, flip-flopping is not a CONSERATIVE symptom, so this might take you awhile to conjecture and/or concoct!
Beowulf
__________________ If the South accepted Sectional Left Wing Republican Rule, their property would be devalued, by being outlawed unconstitutionally in the territories, and suffer terrorism by Brown's mob ,... their economy would be in shambles... The effect is that the South is not any longer an equal part of the Union.
If the South tried to gain independence from these Left wing Republicans, the North will destroy them all... and curse their memory for all eternity....
As just one example of Davis' use of the historical airbrush. SC did not act precipitately; it was the so-called confederate states government, headed by Jefferson Davis.
Airbrushes blend things together, and take out imperfections. Would you care to elaborate where he did this? Your line is out of context, and wants explaining....
Thanks!
Beowulf
__________________ If the South accepted Sectional Left Wing Republican Rule, their property would be devalued, by being outlawed unconstitutionally in the territories, and suffer terrorism by Brown's mob ,... their economy would be in shambles... The effect is that the South is not any longer an equal part of the Union.
If the South tried to gain independence from these Left wing Republicans, the North will destroy them all... and curse their memory for all eternity....
"The object of this work has been from historical data to show that the Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from a Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that the denial of that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that the war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disregard of the limitations of the Constitution, and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence."
The very first paragraph of Davis' Preamble has several important mistakes in it.
The United States of America was indeed a Union as it was spelled out in the US Constitution ratified 1788.
The word, compact, appears nowhere in the US Constitution to refer to the Union, except to deny states from joining one.
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
The Declaration of Independence after 1788 became a dead document with no legal force of law in the United States.
If Davis cannot even write his very first paragraph without several mistakes in it why would anyone want to waste their time reading what is almost certain to follow, many more mistakes?
__________________
"Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
"The object of this work has been from historical data to show that the Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from a Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that the denial of that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that the war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disregard of the limitations of the Constitution, and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence."
The very first paragraph of Davis' Preamble has several important mistakes in it.
The United States of America was indeed a Union as it was spelled out in the US Constitution ratified 1788.
The word, compact, appears nowhere in the US Constitution to refer to the Union, except to deny states from joining one.
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
The Declaration of Independence after 1788 became a dead document with no legal force of law in the United States.
If Davis cannot even write his very first paragraph without several mistakes in it why would anyone want to waste their time reading what is almost certain to follow, many more mistakes?
Not so fast, there. Fred! Hold up, brother!
In answer to your perceived mistakes...
In backward order, because I cannot resist the urge!
The Declaration of Independence NEVER had any authority
as a writ, nor as a writing. It was a declaration, which, like the protestant reformation Martin Luther banged upon the doors of the Catholic church, was absolutely meaningless and powerless; it was a declaration; which runs the gamut - in status - between an Apologia and an outright Proclamation.... but none of these things is worth the paper they are written on! None of them! (Not even your blessed 'EP"!).
And the reason that none of these is worth a 'continental' is because they don't have the other side's consent. Not a one of these things is a Magna Carta, nor a forced Amendment after the war, or anything of any substance!
(Note please: Not that a magna carta nor a forced amendment mean anything if the ruling power loses its political strength and the lesser side decides to take back their authority surrendered under duress, a la the Confederate government!)...
(In other words, if the Confederacy decided to 'rise again', and defend the old order of union, and create a sovereign states Union, it would be as legal as the original founding fathers created against Britain...).
So, let's put paid to that, shall we?
NO STATE (in the Union) SHALL do this, or that... Seceded States are no longer 'states' in the Union.
The South was actually invaded by the very people charged with its protection (Patrick Henry - The King had put us out of his protection!).
or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
All of the Confederate states first withdrew from the UNION, (which were actually CONSERVATIVE states withdrawing from a Liberal Left Wing Union....)
So, no state 'in the Union' 'entered into a compact' with any confederate state, while a member of the Union!
Letter of the law, my friend!
Now the Union is a compact of Union until the yankee victory destroyed that eternally, and forced us into what Davis calls an empire. You will note that every Confederate to this day sees himself as being a
conquered province as the Liberal RR Congress had deemed it to be, when Reconstruction was descended upon the several captured states.
Your refusal to see this, notwithstanding. It is a fact of history.
Davis saw the rise of Liberal Collectivism as a threat to the compact of the original agreement of Union.
The North's adoption of Abolition and their own (2008) styled morality is a thin disguise to the true purposes of those at the North, at that time.
The Constitution only refers to states in the Union. The South played by those rules, but denied the mob-rule democracy of the North to rule over them for even a single moment.
That is to their eternal credit, sir!
Own up to it. The North changed the government into an empire, as Davis says.
Stop thinking that we are still your perverted idea of some sort of "union"...
That idea died a very silent death a very long time ago.
The Southern states are conquered provinces, nothing more and nothing less. They were through with the North forever...
They were forced to accept consolidationalism and
empire as the settled order. If any one of your side would admit to this, I should have worlds of respect for that, and him, and applaud you accordingly. You WON that.
Be proud of that!
But don't keep saying the South was wrong to try and defend the old order of Union...
You can't have it all! The Northern Radicals changed the government forever. It was not 'our finest hour' by any stretch of the 'imagined nation' (imagination)...
Admit to that, and we of the South will simply nod YES, and say, "That's what happened!"
Like Davis absolutely DEMANDS that you do!
I have but begun to read his voluminous tome RISE AND FALL, but understand what a hero of the Old Union he was, and still is, to this moment!
And to this day, to the South's eternal credit, they go along with the empire formed, and
accept the loss of their country, accordingly.
(Still, in courtrooms in Georgia, you still see the Confederate battle flag on one side of the presiding judge. And over every WalMart and Burger King and McDonalds in Mississippi, there is the Confederate battle flag in the design of their state flag!
I saw it just last year at the 145th Shiloh event! God love those people!).
Beowulf
__________________ If the South accepted Sectional Left Wing Republican Rule, their property would be devalued, by being outlawed unconstitutionally in the territories, and suffer terrorism by Brown's mob ,... their economy would be in shambles... The effect is that the South is not any longer an equal part of the Union.
If the South tried to gain independence from these Left wing Republicans, the North will destroy them all... and curse their memory for all eternity....
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Jefferson Davis - THE RISE & FALL OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT 
Linear Mode
