Common Misconceptions/Myths

[Dave DuBrucq]

Couldn't have been about slavery. That was not illegal in America yet. You do understand that, don't you? Lincoln didn't want them in the North. He said the South could keep their slaves.

I will never understand why every Confederate apologist refuses to address the evil that was slavery, eschewing the comments of Confederate leadership and their own secession commissioners who proclaimed it a "great truth" instead blaming everyone else for an institution the South went to war to preserve. Just blame Lincoln who was not a slave owner and who worked tirelessly to pass the 13th Amendment to abolish it.

 

[Rebforever]

I will never understand why every Confederate apologist refuses to address the evil that was slavery, eschewing the comments of Confederate leadership and their own secession commissioners who proclaimed it a "great truth" instead blaming everyone else for an institution the South went to war to preserve. Just blame Lincoln who was not a slave owner and who worked tirelessly to pass the 13th Amendment to abolish it.

We will do what we can to try to educate TOV group concerning historical facts they don't want to hear.
Lincoln did't like slavery but he did't want them living with him. Consider colonization up until a few months before he was assassinated. Little bit of **** maybe.

 

[Dave DuBrucq]

We will do what we can to try to educate TOV group concerning historical facts they don't want to hear.
Lincoln did't like slavery but he did't want them living with him. Consider colonization up until a few months before he was assassinated. Little bit of **** maybe.

Speaking of historical facts you don't want to hear seems to be a hallmark of your arguments. That will be my last word on the subject, because despite what is obvious, you remain in denial. Continuing this would be an exercise in futility.

 

[Rebforever]

Speaking of historical facts you don't want to hear seems to be a hallmark of your arguments. That will be my last word on the subject, because despite what is obvious, you remain in denial. Continuing this would be an exercise in futility.

Thanks for proving my point. You haven't shown anything of historical content in any of your post. It has been all you opinions and personal attacks.

 

[lurid]

Well sure, when political reality stands in the way of some self-serving doctrine about legal rebellion, it's all a bunch of BS. But you still have the Constitution backwards. It's a fundamental law enacted by the people of the US. No one else can alter or abolish it, or the more perfect Union and government it in turn establishes, unless the sovereign people grant them such authority via the Constitution. If it ain't there, it ain't constitutional, and unilateral secession ain't there. Works the same for the Union as it does for the states.

However, if a lack of political know-how leaves that unclear, any and all unilateral state interference with the Fed in the performance of its constitutional responsibilities is prohibited: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

And then there's that Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You just described Republicanism, nothing more. In that case, the south might have had a right to secede somewhat, or partially. The Plebeians seceded five times from Rome(secessio plebis,) and it worked every time. Albeit, the south was hasty and their grievances were rather self-serving, crude and encroached liberties, but they might have had a case. According to you, no one else can alter or abolish the Constitution, unless the sovereign people grant them such authority via the Constitution. Therefore, there might be merit for secession if the sovereign people initiated it. However, the Plebeians secession equated to strike, they just left Rome and went to the hills until their grievances we meant, so I don't know the same kind of secession was initiated in the south, and it is obvious the south's secession was to divide the country and sustain slavery, so its hard to get a fix on a reasonable cause for secession. Nevertheless, under a 'Republic' ideals secession might not be so taboo and it might not have been frowned upon, like during the Rome Republic days.

Like the Plebeians of Rome, the southern people could have exited the south and went to another country, but the southern aristocracy and their makeshift government tried to steal US territory. Consequently, this runs unparalleled to the Monroe Doctrine, so secession in the south during the Antebellum era wasn't the correct method of secession., perhaps. But there's no clarity about secession or the degrees of secession. None. In theory, the Plebeians had a good reason to reason to secede because their reasons had to do with class warfare oppression. The south's reasons for secession seem illogical and were potentially detrimental to the continental USA.

Comparing the secessions of the Plebeians and the Confederacy, the former had a legit cause and the latter did not. Nobody in this thread gave a definitive reason or an exact answer to whether secession was legitimate or not, no matter the reasons. All I read in this thread was a bunch of rhetoric, and opinion and speculation. You personally said it was the will of the people to amend the Constitution, but I don't recall if they had a referendum on the south's secession to determine the will of the people. Hmm..

 

[CSA Today]

Anyone can read the US Constitution. If you can cite case law to support your assertion that somehow Secession is legal that would make for a more powerful argument.
Of course one can always open fire on a federal installation and use the argument the 10th Amendment gives one the right to do so and see how it goes.
Leftyhunter

The 10th amendment was a good argument for secession, Independence is a good argument to fire on a hostile power occupying a fort in the harbour of a major port city.

 

[CSA Today]

Anyone can read the US Constitution. If you can cite case law to support your assertion that somehow Secession is legal that would make for a more powerful argument.
Of course one can always open fire on a federal installation and use the argument the 10th Amendment gives one the right to do so and see how it goes.
Leftyhunter

The 10th amendment was a good argument for secession, Independence is a good argument to fire on a hostile power occupying a fort in the harbour of a major port city. ​

"If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."
Wade Hampton ​

 

[Sgt. Tyree]

"If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake.......​

Interesting quote. At one time I believed it. No longer. Too many reasons to list them all here. But I'll offer a few thoughts below.

.......and the revolution to which it led was a crime.​

I believe the Revolution was a crime against the Crown. Not unjust, but a crime. The Revolution was right but it wasn't lawful. I believe secession was neither right or lawful. You believe it was both.

If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."​
Wade Hampton ​

Washington was a rebel to the Crown and a patriot to his fellow colonists. Lee was a rebel to the United States and a patriot to his fellow Virginians. But they are and will continue to be remembered differently. A certain group of bored belles tried to change that with monuments and school book indoctrination and achieved partial success on a regional level for a while.

 

[Trevfo]

I am quoting from an article by Brion McClanahan. "Delegated powers are still retained by the people of the States at large for their exercise if they chose to rescind that delegation. Sovereignty can never be divided or surrendered in part. If the states had it in 1776 as Jefferson wrote, then they maintain that sovereignty to this day and thus can exercise that sovereignty through an act of interposition or withdraw." It was mentioned above about "stealing" federal property, you cannot steal something that is yours already. The cause was as legitimate as the people felt they were being mistreated or seeing their economy taken away. An economy partly established by their northern brothers who then questioned how it was conducted.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Sovereignty can never be divided or surrendered in part.

Well, he is just soo wrong.

Surrendering sovereignty is done all the time.
The moment a state join a organization with other states they give up some sovereignty.
(NATO, EU, UN, world trade organization... or the German federation... to take a pre civil war example. The list is pretty long)

Many treaties between two states do the same, be that trade deals or military alliances.

Western great powers repeatedly imposed uneven treaties on states like china and Japan... where western citizens was not subject to local laws and similar examples of lost sovereignty.

 

[CSA Today]

Interesting quote. At one time I believed it. No longer. Too many reasons to list them all here. But I'll offer a few thoughts below.

I believe the Revolution was a crime against the Crown. Not unjust, but a crime. The Revolution was right but it wasn't lawful. I believe secession was neither right or lawful. You believe it was both.

Washington was a rebel to the Crown and a patriot to his fellow colonists. Lee was a rebel to the United States and a patriot to his fellow Virginians. But they are and will continue to be remembered differently. A certain group of bored belles tried to change that with monuments and school book indoctrination and achieved partial success on a regional level for a while.

There is always an alternative, for proud descendants of Confederate heroes it definitely wasn't going to be Yankee indoctrination.

"The South is not ashamed of the Lost Cause, which can never be lost as long as men preach patriotism, glorify valor, and worship sacrifice."

Reverend James S. Vance, 1897

 

[leftyhunter]

The 10th amendment was a good argument for secession, Independence is a good argument to fire on a hostile power occupying a fort in the harbour of a major port city. ​

"If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."​
Wade Hampton ​

Tell you what you and your friends here can fire on a federal installation and when you go to trial see if your arguments work. Please get back to us on how well the arguments persuaded the judge and jury.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I am quoting from an article by Brion McClanahan. "Delegated powers are still retained by the people of the States at large for their exercise if they chose to rescind that delegation. Sovereignty can never be divided or surrendered in part. If the states had it in 1776 as Jefferson wrote, then they maintain that sovereignty to this day and thus can exercise that sovereignty through an act of interposition or withdraw." It was mentioned above about "stealing" federal property, you cannot steal something that is yours already. The cause was as legitimate as the people felt they were being mistreated or seeing their economy taken away. An economy partly established by their northern brothers who then questioned how it was conducted.

Yet the Supreme Court disagreed with that line of thought. Yes the Supreme Court can change its mind if only some of our members will fire on a federal installation and have their attroney or they can represent themselves pro per and see if the judge and jury buys their argument.
Leftyhunter

 

[Trevfo]

Nations withdraw from treaties, associations etc. all the time. If you feel that your best interests are being denied or removed, you may not have any other recourse. An individual firing on a federal institution would be in trouble yes, but I am not so sure about a state that has held a convention, an election of the people and decided to act.

 

[lurid]

Interesting quote. At one time I believed it. No longer. Too many reasons to list them all here. But I'll offer a few thoughts below.

I believe the Revolution was a crime against the Crown. Not unjust, but a crime. The Revolution was right but it wasn't lawful. I believe secession was neither right or lawful. You believe it was both.

Washington was a rebel to the Crown and a patriot to his fellow colonists. Lee was a rebel to the United States and a patriot to his fellow Virginians. But they are and will continue to be remembered differently. A certain group of bored belles tried to change that with monuments and school book indoctrination and achieved partial success on a regional level for a while.

Okay, but you forgot the important point here? Why wouldn't Washington and Lee be looked at differently in United States of America history? Are we discussing the United States of America history, or are we discussing British history? Because the fact is Lee was a traitor to the United States of America, and Washington was a traitor to English empire. All the difference in the world. Washington and Lee are not synonymous in the United States of America. Just like they are not synonymous in British history. Washington is looked at as traitor in British history, but in United States history he is looked at the father of the USA. Washington being a traitor to England is irrelevant when discussing USA history. Lee was a traitor to the United States of America, and we discussing USA history and that's why Lee and Washington are not synonymous in USA history. Therefore, your propaganda theory about monuments and indoctrination is implausible, it's not even relevant to USA history.

 

[Sgt. Tyree]

Therefore, your propaganda theory about monuments and indoctrination is implausible, it's not even relevant to USA history.

The actions of the UDC and their practical effect on how the Civil War has been viewed for generations are a propaganda theory and not relevant to USA history?

Textbooks about happy slaves and benevolent masters? None of this is relevant to USA history?

 

[lurid]

The actions of the UDC and their practical effect on how the Civil War has been viewed for generations are a propaganda theory and not relevant to USA history?

Textbooks about happy slaves and benevolent masters? None of this is relevant to USA history?

I must have read your post incorrectly. I was responding to this excerpt: Washington was a rebel to the Crown and a patriot to his fellow colonists. Lee was a rebel to the United States and a patriot to his fellow Virginians. But they are and will continue to be remembered differently. A certain group of bored belles tried to change that with monuments and school book indoctrination and achieved partial success on a regional level for a while.

I took your above excerpt as you were down playing Lee's treason and claiming it was alright because Washington did basically the same thing. My bad..

 

[DanSBHawk]

"If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."​
Wade Hampton ​

I would say that Wade Hampton's bias and extreme racist views disqualify his opinion about 1776.

Not to mention that he betrayed the country founded from the 1776 effort.

 

[Sgt. Tyree]

I would say that Wade Hampton's bias and extreme racist views disqualify his opinion about 1776.

Not to mention that he betrayed the country founded from the 1776 effort.

I admire Hampton for his abilities as a hunter, horseman, and commander of cavalry.

But I disagree with his comparison of Washington and Lee.

 

[lurid]

The 10th amendment was a good argument for secession, Independence is a good argument to fire on a hostile power occupying a fort in the harbour of a major port city. ​

"If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."​
Wade Hampton ​

Whomever Wade Hampton is he has a problem with discerning US history from British history. This is part of his excerpt: If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel." Considering you brag on the internet that you embrace factual information, then maybe you can embrace the factual definition of patriotism: devotion to and vigorous support for one's country. George Washington did not support England, but was fully devoted to the United States of America because the USA was his country, and that's patriotism. Lee's country was the United States of America, but secession proved he was not a patriot because he lacked devotion and vigorous support for the USA, which means he was a rebel. It's that simple...

Here's another part of his excerpt: "If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. That makes no sense whatsoever. How can that Hampton character have equated blame for something the south did to the USA, not Great Britain? The USA rebelled against the Brits, not against the United States of America. The south was a part of the USA, so in essence it was the USA who rebelled against the USA. The revolution was a so-called crime towards the crown, therefore it was crime in British history, not in USA history. Conversely, the south's rebellion was a crime against the United States of America, which means it was a crime in USA history.