More silly guys who worried that slavery would tear the country apart

[Scooter_B]

Or worse.

You are right, but I have not had breakfast yet so bacon weighs heavy on my mind.

 

[WJC]

The US Civil War was nothing compared to the revolutions in China, Russia, France, Germany, and Italy where millions died.

Thanks for your response.
That certainly is a comforting thought. Too bad those affected in 1861-1865 can't appreciate it.

 

[WJC]

The enslavement of other human beings? Southern servents powered the development of the United States. The sweat and blood of their labor made the US into a nation instead of a few insignificant British Colonies on the Atlantic coast

Thanks for your response.
Does that justify slavery?

 

[WJC]

Real History supporting the Southern Tradition is often missed

Rather than bewail this vacuum, why not provide some sources where we all can learn "real history"?

 

[Andersonh1]

Exactly. Right up there with reunification by the sword.

And afterwards it got turned into this lovely little myth where "We the People" founded a nation all in perfect accord with each other, when in reality it was a "my way or the highway" ultimatum by the United States to Rhode Island.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Southern servents powered the development of the United States.

"Southern Servents"? Seriously. Talk about lipstick on a pig.

 

[CSA Today]

How on earth does eating watermelon or not have anything to do with the Constitution? Whether or not one eats watermelon has no bearing on the nation, the constitution, or its constituent states. What a silly comparison. Likening the break up of a nation of constituent states whose people had all ratified the constitution as the supreme law on the land to eating a popular picnic food is quite foolish, yet expected, along with the poster’s chioce of food to use in the failed analogy.

That was the point I wanted to make when I said ridiculous, neither watermelons nor is secession mentioned in the constitution. Neither are illegal simply because they aren't mentioned.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

"Ratification due to bullying by the Union"

There was also..."self-interest" involved with "Rouge" Island's reluctance to participate as well as ratify The Constitution.

H/T, @jgoodguy, Bold is mine.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/state-sovereignty-question.153866/post-1974322

On May 29, 1790, “the rogue’s” persistent efforts to defy the national government finally failed, and it became the last state to ratify the Constitution, more than a year after it went into effect.​

​

Ironically, Rhode Island played a key role in advancing the Constitution it strongly opposed. In 1786, an electoral revolution took place in Rhode Island that swept the populist Country Party into power. Infuriated by the prospect of a national tax, this faction opposed the expansion of the national government and favored an inflationary monetary policy.​

​

In a single month, the legislature printed 100,000 pounds worth of paper currency. The resulting rampant inflation made Rhode Island—for many Americans—a dark symbol of what ailed the Confederation. Opponents of state-issued paper currency called for a new Constitution that would ban it. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, no state was more reviled than Rhode Island—the only no-show​

​

Between September of 1787 and January of 1790, Rhode Island’s legislature rejected 11 attempts to ratify the Constitution. ​

​

(Snip)​

​

Threatened and divided, Rhode Island finally ratified the Constitution on May 29, 1790, by a vote of 34 to 32.​

​

Still hoping to limit federal power, the state attached a list of 18 human rights and 21 amendments with its ratification, requesting a ban on poll taxes, the draft, the importation of slaves, and curiously, for Congress not to “interfere with any one of the States in the redemption of paper money.”​

​

One newspaper reported that when Rhode Island joined “the Great American Family,” bells rang across the town of Newport.​

​

Three months later, in August of 1790, “Rogue Island’s” only representative in Congress arrived—fashionably late.​

​

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov...nd-the-last-state-to-ratify-the-constitution/​

​

​

 

[Copperhead-mi]

That was the point I wanted to make when I said ridiculous, neither watermelons nor is secession mentioned in the constitution. Neither are illegal simply because they aren't mentioned.

Neither is assassinating the president mentioned.

 

[CSA Today]

It is a perfectly good analogy, you just won't admit it. The Confederacy formed in the absence of war. All the States that wanted to participate did so. Not all were invited.
But for just a moment consider a 'what if ';
If the Northern States had decided that they no longer wanted to be associated with an immoral society and seceded from the Union, would the Southern States have attacked, conquered and subjugated the North? No. The Northern States decided that they were the arbitrators of good and exercised power not granted them by the Constitution.

Not likely, the South would have been glad to see them go.

 

[CSA Today]

Neither is assassinating the president mentioned.

Assassination is a crime, secession and eating watermelon are not.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Assassination is a crime, secession and eating watermelon are not.

What difference does that make? Traitorous actions against the United States is a crime and it is mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Andersonh1]

There was also..."self-interest" involved with "Rouge" Island's reluctance to participate as well as ratify The Constitution.

H/T, @jgoodguy, Bold is mine.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/state-sovereignty-question.153866/post-1974322

On May 29, 1790, “the rogue’s” persistent efforts to defy the national government finally failed, and it became the last state to ratify the Constitution, more than a year after it went into effect.​

​

Ironically, Rhode Island played a key role in advancing the Constitution it strongly opposed. In 1786, an electoral revolution took place in Rhode Island that swept the populist Country Party into power. Infuriated by the prospect of a national tax, this faction opposed the expansion of the national government and favored an inflationary monetary policy.​

​

In a single month, the legislature printed 100,000 pounds worth of paper currency. The resulting rampant inflation made Rhode Island—for many Americans—a dark symbol of what ailed the Confederation. Opponents of state-issued paper currency called for a new Constitution that would ban it. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, no state was more reviled than Rhode Island—the only no-show​

​

Between September of 1787 and January of 1790, Rhode Island’s legislature rejected 11 attempts to ratify the Constitution. ​

​

(Snip)​

​

Threatened and divided, Rhode Island finally ratified the Constitution on May 29, 1790, by a vote of 34 to 32.​

​

Still hoping to limit federal power, the state attached a list of 18 human rights and 21 amendments with its ratification, requesting a ban on poll taxes, the draft, the importation of slaves, and curiously, for Congress not to “interfere with any one of the States in the redemption of paper money.”​

​

One newspaper reported that when Rhode Island joined “the Great American Family,” bells rang across the town of Newport.​

​

Three months later, in August of 1790, “Rogue Island’s” only representative in Congress arrived—fashionably late.​

​

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov...nd-the-last-state-to-ratify-the-constitution/​

​

​

Even calling the state "Rogue" Island implies that they should have been toeing the line all along, and how dare they even think about going their own way. There's a mindset there that's very telling.

 

[CSA Today]

What difference does that make? Traitorous actions against the United States is a crime and it is mentioned in the Constitution.

I'm not surprised the traitorous former secessionists responsible for the US Constitution were purposely noncommittal on secession being either illegal or treasonous.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

indulgence.

Is often in the "eye" of the beholder, of out-dated sources. And, the few that you have provided proves such, so far.

 

[WJC]

I'm not surprised the traitorous former secessionists responsible for the US Constitution were purposely noncommittal on secession being either illegal or treasonous.

As I've pointed out before, the Founders were very open about committing treason: they fully expected the worst possible punishment if the failed.
They were not "noncommittal" on secession or other treasonous acts. They certainly saw no need to burden the document with details that were well understood: they intentionally followed the 'KISS principle'.

 

[CSA Today]

As I've pointed out before, the Founders were very open about committing treason: they fully expected the worst possible punishment if the failed.
They were not "noncommittal" on secession or other treasonous acts. They certainly saw no need to burden the document with details that were well understood: they intentionally followed the 'KISS principle'.

Let's just say they set a precedent for the Confederate Founding Fathers. Nobody, I repeat nobody went to war in 1861 over how open they were.

 

[CSA Today]

Slavery wasn't an easy issue to solve. The issue still hasn't been solved today. The Civil War far from solving the problem only created more even worse problems. The Civil War robbed an entire Nation of its property, and rights -- taking the very States that belonged to her.

Good points.

 

[Rïmer]

The enslavement of other human beings? Southern servents powered the development of the United States. The sweat and blood of their labor made the US into a nation instead of a few insignificant British Colonies on the Atlantic coast perhaps a part of the magnificent nation of Canada. .

A Nation is defined in Black's law dictionary 6th edition as “A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.”

Its not really honest to say that the slaves and servants of the South formed us into a Nation -- they might, you could argue anyway, formed us into a country, or an empire but certainly not into a Nation. The vast majority of the Southern slaves and servants belong either to different Nations or are just members of tribes and bands of people who don't constitute a Nation of their own. The way people throw around State, Country and Nation so appalling and misleading.

 

[WJC]

Nobody, I repeat nobody went to war in 1861 over how open they were.

Thanks for your response.
Yet they were very open in explaining their rationale in the various letters, speeches and the secession documents. It was only after their defeat that they 'revised' their reasons.