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.
If you think otherwise, look at the text and improve your "understanding" to note that the treaty itself says the treaty is "between the two countries" -- not between Britain and thirteen individual countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Well since the title of the contratc treads thus " Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America.
we can assume your posting twaddle and wanting to post on matters you have not had the slightest education on or intrest in.
Hanny, you are wrong. I assume this is at least partially an honest mistake by you here, but you do this so consistently it becomes increasingly hard to believe.
At absolutely no point in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 between Britain and the United States will you find the quote you provided: "Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America". It simply is not there. Your example is a false one.
The reason is clear as well. The link you provided is to a treaty between the King of France and the United States in 1782.
It is also clear from that document that the treaty is between two countries: France and the United States. No individual state is mentioned in it.
Stop all personal attacks. We'd appreciate it if you read the documents you reference before filling the ether with all this silliness.
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.
Last edited by ole; 05-19-2008 at 12:47 PM.
Reason: Removed combative language.
The scholars I've read all agree the right was implied. In fact, this thread is the first time I've actually read the point of view taken by Lincoln apologists.
Lincoln actually admitted he destroyed the Republic.
And what have I been saying since I started posting here?
Quote:
If you think otherwise, look at the text and improve your "understanding" to note that the treaty itself says the treaty is "between the two countries" -- not between Britain and thirteen individual countries.
Quote:
Well since the title of the contratc treads thus " Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America.
"Between the two countries" and "Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America" appear to mean the same thing. If the states were indeed as soverign as some would like us to believe, why didn't he lend money to the states individually? Recommended reading -- to me it's clear that the king considered the states united. (And what legal bearing did the treaty have on US anyway? I saw nothing in there imposing political terms.)
Added: The title is as stated in the link provided. But it was, in fact, a treaty between the French king and the 13 United States.
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
The scholars I've read all agree the right was implied.
A name or two of the "scholars" would be nice. Better still, a specific reference.
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
Hi Ole, actually no reason to dig out any books. The Confederate Constitution has a very clear definition of treason, and leaving isn't part of it.
Sec. 3. (I) Treason against the Confederate States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The proposed constituion and draft treaty of Lisbon 'may'contain explicit provision for the voluntary withdrawal of any member state. But, no EU charter or laws 'currently' in place, even mention EU withdrawal.
IF and When, the Treaty of Lisbon is acceptd by all its members, Then the difference between the EU and the US will be as night and day; as far as secession is concerned.
The fact that the Treaty of Lisbon will provide for a 'unilateral' secession for the EU membership is interesting but has no relevance to the United States of 1860, whose own Constitution did Not provide for such a eventuality.
Hi Ole, actually no reason to dig out any books. The Confederate Constitution has a very clear definition of treason, and leaving isn't part of it.
Sec. 3. (I) Treason against the Confederate States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
So we can now see the Confederacy in a way no historian could until these present times.
The Confederacy was a precursor to the EU. Enter by application, leave by choice.
How is the EU doing compared to us I wonder......
thats taken directly from the USA constiton ( most of the CSA isa verbatim copy of the US constition) on what constitues treason.
The EU has had 3 natioanal votes to regect the latest EU constition and is currtly sulking, well the centralist politicians are sulking, the people simply want stand for ther nonsense and refuse to vote up ther poorly thought of constition.
the EU comes from buissiness, in post ww2 the coal and steel giants all got together and from that economic incentive the EU was born, and the fore runner of the CSA was the USA constion and it contained the right of secesion just as did the CSA, and both were preceded by the AOC which was ended by a mass secesion of all but 2 states from the only constiton that contains the perpetual Union lines in the body of the constition and was left out of the next Union constition, after everyone ignored the perpetual Union, requiring all ststes consent to leave, and secceded from it at will individually and seperatly.
__________________ "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
I assume this is at least partially an honest mistake by you here, but you do this so consistently it becomes increasingly hard to believe.
No need to make asumption, still less contradict you own asumption.
Quote:
At absolutely no point in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 between Britain and the United States will you find the quote you provided: "Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America". It simply is not there. Your example is a false one.
No thats exactly what the title is between the French king and the 13 states, try and pay attention to whats posted and stop makeing unfounded asumptions, still less take posts out of context and attempt to twist others posts.
"If you think otherwise, look at the text and improve your "understanding" to note that the treaty itself says the treaty is "between the two countries" -- not between Britain and thirteen individual countries."
Thats eaxctly who the TOP was betweem the UK crown and 13 seperate former colonies, sovriegnty passed from crown, the 13 seperate states who only by virtue of being sovriegn bodies were able to legitimise any actions they then undertook as sov bodies, since they claimed such sovrignty to have been surendered, and repalced at state level, and achived by force of arms this to have occured and been acpted by the former sovriegn, they were now sovriegns in all circamstances.
So back to the ToP which was between 13 former colonies and the UK crown, being the parties in thje dispute, the USA was not a party to the dispute and had nothing to do with the treaty, as the SC rulled in Ware v Hylton "I consider this as a declareation not that joinmtly in a collective capacity were indepedent states etc, but that each of them was a seperate and sovriegn stste, that is each of them hada right to govern itself by its own authority without any control by any power on earth."
and in the TOP the Uk crown granted 13 seperate states as free and sovriegn states, named them and defined the geographical limits of each to which land tiltel wa sto pass from crown to each former colony, not to the US congress to do with what it would, but to each seperate colony was land title passed, as was to each seperate colony the former subject of the UK crown passed to each seperate state the subject it now had, not to the US congress but to the seperate states, since there was not a single USA citizen, nor was there even a USA party to ther TOP, your again posting complet nonsense.
Quote:
The reason is clear as well. The link you provided is to a treaty between the King of France and the United States in 1782.
yes thats what i posted it would contain, and who it was between.
Quote:
It is also clear from that document that the treaty is between two countries: France and the United States. No individual state is mentioned in it.
No it is not clear, to be a country requires that is has subject, the 13 states each had subject, the USA had none of its own and only had states who had subject with equal rights, which is why the french deraly with 13 states who had not created a country, only a Union, which is not a country with subjects who have pasports, which was why the 13 coloinies all hade sperate passports not one passport as a single county would havve had. What is clear is who the parties are, the french crown and 13 states, clear and explicit, not 2 countries at all.
Quote:
Stop all personal attacks. We'd appreciate it if you read the documents you reference before filling the ether with all this silliness.
Pot calls kettle, if you dont like me doing it to you, dont do it to others and you want get back what you seem eager to dish out, but dont like getting in return, lastly i gave you the TOP and the French and US act, you twisted the two for your own purpose, so you earn all i give you, with how you post. which is is to butcher history into whatever shape you want it to be rather than acept it and compalin about being called on it, now if you stop buchering history i cant very well point out your doing it, so the answer your after is to up your posts content and stop posting twaddle, and you want get squared away for doing so.
__________________ "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
Seems we're chomping on crumbs and ignoring the roast beef.
The subject "CSA Constitution did not permit Secession" has devolved into some sort of imprimatur granted to US by France and England which somehow proves that the states were soverign entities in a loose conglomeration called the United States of somewhere over there. And therefore withdrawal from this loose confederacy was just fine.
It is, essentially off topic, but we've rolled across 11 pages so it no longer matters. But I see the whole subject as irrelevant. What England and France said in the late 18th Century has little or nothing to do with the state of the union in the middle 19th Century. No legal obligation to what they said. The important parts of thoughts and legality come into play well without those treaties.
I don't much care about the legal obligations imposed by France and England at the close of the Revolutionary War. Irrelevant.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
