I have, a couple things to say. Some of you, believe that it is unconstitutional, for a state to secede. Where in the Constitution does it say that? Also if the South couldn't secede from the United States in, 1861, then, logically, we should have been unable to declare independence, i.e.
secede from Great Britain, in 1776. After all, it says in the Declaration of Independence, "That they are endowed by their Creator, with certain, unalienable rights, that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and to protect these rights, governments are instituted amongst men, and when any government becomes destructive of these rights it is
the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such a way as to them shall seem most like to effect their safety and happiness."
The Declaration also says, "Prudence indeed will dictate, that governments long established for light and transient causes, and that men are more disposed to, suffer, while evils are sufferable, rather than to right the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses, pursuing invariably the same Object, invinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to lay new guards for their future security."
Now I do realize that the Declaration of Independence isn't law, but it does show that there is a precedent, supporting the South. Also there is a quote by
Lincoln himself, when he was speaking to Congress in 1848.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848 speech in Congress (If I'm not mistaken 13 states did this and a war was waged against them, now ain't that something.)
Also Lincoln said on several occasions that he had no intention of freeing any slaves. The only reason he would have for freeing slaves was to preserve the Union. He said that, numerous times. He also, was no fighter for equality. He said that he believed that the white and black races, would
never be able to live together peacefully, and equally, and that he felt that since one would have to be dominant, that it should be the whites that were dominant. Now I'm not saying he was right, quite frankly I think that was disgusting. But anyway, also his famous "Emancipation Proclamation" that earned him the title of "The Great Emancipator" didn't free a single slave! it said ,that only the slaves, in those state still in rebellion would be freed. Thus he was freeing slaves in an area he had no power over! In fact, the slaves in the slave states of Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and Delaware (None of which seceded by the way) weren't freed. They weren't freed, until the 13th Amendment was passed! General Grant himself, owned slaves, in Missouri, and until the 13th Amendment was passed, after the war, and Lincoln's death, they were still slaves! The only reason he wrote that, was 1. To convince any European nations that were sympathetic to the Confederacy, that the South was evil, and was only fighting to keep slavery, which Europe abhorred. and 2. To encourage, slaves in the Confederacy to try and rebel against their masters, which considering there were only the women, children, elderly, and infirm, left, would have been incredibly easy for the slaves to do. On reason 1....he succeeded. However, on reason number 2....he failed, completely. Also if the war was just over slavery, why did 80,000 to 100,000 blacks fight for the Confederacy, of which, over half of them were already free men! And, several of them, who were slaves, had their masters killed in battle or die of disease, and they reenlisted after that! And while it was technically illegal, according to the law in the Confederacy, most of the recruiters, didn't care! If you could fight, and you were willing to fight, they would let you fight, and it wasn't until the Confederate Congress allowed legal recruitment of blacks, that they had segregated units, before then, the black who were int the C.S. army, were all integrated, i.e. Even though, de jure, it was illegal for Black to fight for the Confederacy until a few weeks before Lee surrendered, it was de facto,
very legal. Also supporting that it wasn't slavery, is one General Grant. He said, at one point, "This war, is to preserve the Union, and only for that reason. If I believed that it was for slavery, I'd resign my commission and bring my sword over to the other side."
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by MichiganConfederate1994
Subscribe to our Forum RSS Feed!