Should the Founders Be Blamed for the Civil War?

Should the Founders be blamed for the Civil War?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Partially


Results are only viewable after voting.

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
Actually the founding fathers almost entirely believed in the right of secession. Read the federalist papers and The papers written by their opposition. I cant think of the name yet. Our Constitution was meant to be a union of Sovereign states. read the writing of many of the prominent founding fathers. It was never meant to be a bond that could never be broken. In fact, Jefferson spoke that eventually even this government would need to be overthrown. It is man's nature to have governments become dictatorial.
I do not see the word "sovereign" anywhere in the Constitution. It occurs in the Articles of Confederation.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
Our Constitution was meant to be a union of Sovereign states.
Then the writers where the worst writers of a legal text in recorded history.

The DoI list acts that was considered central to what a sovereign state can do...
"and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

And SC's declaration of causes repeat the same list.
" and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. "


Section 10 of the Constitution stop a state from all of this. Making it clear that a the US federal states are not Sovereign states. (but an administrative subdivision of the sovereign state called USA)
And the fact that no sovereign state in the world ever recognized a US state as one after the 1889 make this completely clear.
 

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
I wish to address two responses I take disagreement with.
First. Lincoln was a devout racist. He stated in may speeches that negroes were not the equal of the white man and should never be treated the same or ever be allowed to hold sway power over a white man. Lincoln said if he could save the union and not free any of the slaves he would gladly continue slavery. The founding fathers did not cause the Civil War. The Whig party are at fault for the Civil War. They wanted an all powerful central government with the ability to tax and control everything. They wanted a central bank so they could control the money and choose who they could give the money too. Lincoln believed himself following in the footsteps of Henry Clay and in turn Alexander Hamilton. Lincoln supported the fugitive slave act. He in fact voted for it. Lincoln during his presidency worked diligently towards the removal of all negroes from America. He supported the removal of all the negroes to Liberia which was the request from the LIberian president but he favored the establishment of a colony in central America for all the negroes the idea was even tossed up for naming the colony, "Lincolnia". The real reason for the Civil war from the southern view point was fighting against the super high taRIFFs that were in place and the fear that Lincoln WAS GOING TO IMPOSE EVEN EVER HIGHER TARIFFS. As his mentor Henry Clay had always tried to do. CLay got passed through Congress the sharp tariff increase of tariffs in 1824. Then in 1828 Clay fought hardest of any to pass the "Tariff of Abominations". "Clay argued because the 1824 rates "fell short of what many of my friends wished". South Carolina voted to nullify the tariff and not collect it so the federal government backed down and did not pass the tariff of 1828. Lincoln wanted, just as Clay fought to do, to bring the british mercantilist system to America. I could go on as to the true reasons behind the Civil WAR But I wont. I have gotten things from many sources but most importantly and including the quote I marked from "The Real Lincoln" written by Thomas J. Dilorenzo
Secondly, The real question that oft gets ignored is, Why did we fight a Second Revolutionary War over Slavery. It was Not A Civil War. the Southern states were not rising up to over throw and take over the federal government They fought for their independence from a government they saw as taking away their Constitutional right to self governance and States Rights and Sovereignty. The truth be told the founding fathers founded the united States as a union of Sovereign States. Sorry I diverged. Back to slavery. Every other major nation and their colonies and already freed their slave without any violence. Many other nations eradicated slavery with very little violence. Why were we so disgraceful as to destroy so much of our own economy and kill off so many of our own citizens to free the slaves when it could have been done so easily just like other nations had. It would have even cost less money to do so if the federal government had just purchased the freedom from the owners as some countries had done. The plan had be out there to do so. In fact the southern states under the Confederacy had even made the plans to slowly eradicate slavery themselves. Do the real research read the Constitution they wrote for themselves. PBS television even di a documentary where they showed that the Confederacy had sent word to England and France that for recognition they would free all their slaves. France ansd England were afraid to become involved on the side of the Southern states.
Sorry I went on so long.
"The founding fathers did not cause the Civil War."
Your opinion is noted. If you review the poll results, you will find consideration disagreement with this statement.

"The Whig party are at fault for the Civil War."
Lots of people and parties are at fault for the ACW. You admit as much in subsequent statements.

"The real reason for the Civil war from the southern viewpoint was fighting against the super high taRIFFs that were in place and the fear that Lincoln WAS GOING TO IMPOSE EVEN EVER HIGHER TARIFFS."
The South was only concerned with tariffs? Not concerned about Lincoln's election and its consequences, such as not being able to extend slavery into the territories? Not concerned about constant harassment by abolitionists and their continued petitions to Congress?

"I could go on as to the true reasons behind the Civil WAR But I wont."
You already said the tariffs were the cause. Please tell us more about the "true reasons" behind the ACW.

"I have gotten things from many sources but most importantly and including the quote I marked from "The Real Lincoln" written by Thomas J. Dilorenzo"
I suggest that you read a few other authors before you decide on the reasons for the ACW.

"Secondly, The real question that oft gets ignored is, Why did we fight a Second Revolutionary War over Slavery. It was Not A Civil War. the Southern states were not rising up to overthrow and take over the federal government They fought for their independence from a government they saw as taking away their Constitutional right to self governance and States Rights and Sovereignty. "
Yes, the South fought for independence, but it is still a Civil War or War Between the States, or whatever else one wants to call it.

"The truth be told the founding fathers founded the united States as a union of Sovereign States."
The states were sovereign from July 2, 1776 (not July 4) when the Congress voted for secession from England (Declaration of Independence) until they signed up to the 1787 Constitution. There is no "sovereign" word in the Constitution.

"Back to slavery. Every other major nation and their colonies and already freed their slave without any violence. Many other nations eradicated slavery with very little violence. Why were we so disgraceful as to destroy so much of our own economy and kill off so many of our own citizens to free the slaves when it could have been done so easily just like other nations had."
The answer to your question is that different folks have different ways of dealing with slavery and other issues. What makes you think that task was so easy for other nations? Have you really studied their efforts over many years to do that? It was debated in England's Parliament for years.

"In fact the southern states under the Confederacy had even made the plans to slowly eradicate slavery themselves."
I never read about this. References please.

"Do the real research read the Constitution they wrote for themselves."
Where in the CSA Constitution does it say that the CSA planned to eradicate slavery?

"PBS television even did a documentary where they showed that the Confederacy had sent word to England and France that for recognition they would free all their slaves."
Please quote the PBS references.
 
Last edited:

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
"The Real Lincoln" written by Thomas J. Dilorenzo
You just lost any respectability you had.
Dilorenzo is a modern political hack who happily misquote, falsify sources and invent things to promote his modern political agenda.


Just to take two examples from this topic:

Here's a quick and easy example of DiLorenzo's typical deception.

DiLorenzo, quoting Lincoln:

“I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery . . . because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so.”

- Thomas DiLorenzo

Source: <<http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/06/thomas-dilorenzo/the-real-lincoln-2/

What Lincoln actually said:

"I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists, because the Constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so."

The actual Lincoln quote is from DiLorenzo's own source: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3 (page 460), but DiLorenzo, as is his wont, chose to leave out the part that doesn't mesh with his agenda.


[Reposting one of my posts from another thread:]

Here's a classic example of DiLorenzo fraudulence. This is an article he wrote after the release of Steven Spielberg's movie "Lincoln", in which he asserts that the events of the movie "never happened according to the foremost authority on Lincoln among mainstream Lincoln scholars, Harvard University Professor David H. Donald":

Steven Spielberg’s new movie, Lincoln, is said to be based on several chapters of the book Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns-Goodwin, who was a consultant to Spielberg. The main theme of the movie is how clever, manipulative, conniving, scheming, lying, and underhanded Lincoln supposedly was in using his "political skills" to get the Thirteenth Amendment that legally ended slavery through the U.S. House of Representatives in the last months of his life. This entire story is what Lerone Bennett, Jr. the longtime executive editor of Ebony magazine and author of Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, calls a "pleasant fiction." It never happened.

It never happened according to the foremost authority on Lincoln among mainstream Lincoln scholars, Harvard University Professor David H. Donald, the recipient of several Pulitzer prizes for his historical writings, including a biography of Lincoln. David Donald is the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time who began writing award-winning books on the subject in the early 1960s. On page 545 of his magnus opus, Lincoln, Donald notes that Lincoln did discuss the Thirteenth Amendment with two members of Congress – James M. Ashley of Ohio and James S. Rollins of Missouri. But if he used "means of persuading congressmen to vote for the Thirteeth Amendment," the theme of the Spielberg movie, "his actions are not recorded. Conclusions about the President’s role rested on gossip . . ."

Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that even one Democratic member of Congress changed his vote on the Thirteenth Amendment (which had previously been defeated) because of Lincoln’s actions. Donald documents that Lincoln was told that some New Jersey Democrats could possibly be persuaded to vote for the amendment "if he could persuade [Senator] Charles Sumner to drop a bill to regulate the Camden & Amboy [New Jersey] Railroad, but he declined to intervene" (emphasis added). "One New Jersey Democrat," writes David Donald, "well known as a lobbyist for the Camden & Amboy, who had voted against the amendment in July, did abstain in the final vote, but it cannot be proved that Lincoln influenced his change" (emphasis added). Thus, according to the foremost authority on Lincoln, there is no evidence at all that Lincoln influenced even a single vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, in complete contradiction of the writings of the confessed plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin and Steven Spielberg’s movie (See my review of Goodwin’s book, entitled "A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").


- Thomas DiLorenzo

Source: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo245.html

The problem with this is that it's a flat out lie. As usual, DiLorenzo gets the source reference wrong. It's not page 545 of Donald's "magnus [sic] opus"; it's pages 553 - 554. And looking at those pages, we can clearly see why DiLorenzo didn't list the correct pages. Because the claims he makes about Donald are utterly false. Here's what Donald REALLY said:

In the spirit of conciliation Lincoln reached out for the support of Democrats as well as Republicans. His annual message contained an earnest plea to political opponents to support the proposed constitutional amendment abolishing slavery throughout the United States. In the previous session of Congress his measure had failed to secure the required two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives, because all but four of the Democratic members voted against it. At Lincoln's urging, the National Union convention had made the amendment a central plank in the platform on which he and a heavy Republican majority in the next Congress were elected. He now asked the lame-duck session of the Thirty-eighth congress to reconsider the amendment. "Without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition," the President urged the Democrats to rethink their position. "Of course," he admitted, "the abstract question is not changed: but an intervening election shows, almost certainly, that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not." Since adoption was simply a matter of time, he asked, "may we not agree that the sooner the better?" Arguing that "some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority, simply because it is the will of the majority, " he appealed for support of the amendment now.

Not content with rhetorical exhortation, Lincoln used his personal authority and considerable charm to influence Democratic and border-state congressmen whose votes were in doubt. Not since 1862, when he tried hard to persuade border-state congressmen to support his gradual emancipation plan, had the President been so deeply involved in the legislative process. He worked closely with James M. Ashley of Ohio, the principal sponsor of the amendment in the House, to identify members who might be persuaded to support the amendment and invited them to the Executive Mansion. For instance, he had a long talk with Representative James S. Rollins of Missouri, who had voted against the amendment in June, and entreated him as an old Whig and follower of "that great statesman, Henry Clay," to join him now in supporting the measure. When Rollins said that he was ready to vote for the amendment, Lincoln pressed him to use his influence with the other congressmen from his state. "The passage of this amendment will clinch the whole subject," the President assured him: "it will bring the war, I have no doubt, rapidly to a close."

If Lincoln used other means of persuading congressmen to vote for the Thirteenth Amendment, his actions were not recorded. Conclusions about the President's role rested on gossip and later recollections like those of Thaddeus Stevens, who remarked, "The greatest measure of the nineteenth century was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America." Lincoln was told that he might win some support from New Jersey Democrats if he could persuade Charles Sumner to drop a bill to regulate the Camden & Amboy Railroad, but he declined to intervene, not on grounds of priciple but because, he said, "I can do nothing with Mr. Sumner in these matters." One New Jersey Democrat, well known as a lobbyist for the Camden & Amboy, who had voted against the amendment in July, did abstain in the final vote, but it cannot be proved that Lincoln influenced his change.

Whatever the President's role, in the final ballotting more than two-thirds of the House members voted for the Thirteenth Amendment and submitted it to the states for ratification. Celebrating, the House adjourned after inadvertently sending the resolution to the President, who happily signed it on February 1. He was untroubled when senators pointed out that, according to a Supreme Court decision of 1798, presidential approval was not required for constitutional amendments. He was convinced that, with or without his signature, the Thirteenth Amendment would root out "the original disturbing cause" of the rebellion and would fully settle all questions about the legal validity of the Emancipation Proclamation. Finally the country had "a King's cure for all the evils."


- David Herbert Donald, Lincoln, pp. 553 - 554

Anyone who saw the movie will recognize it as virtually identical to Donald's description of events, in complete contrast to DiLorenzo's shameless, deliberate fabrication.
 

Carronade

Captain
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Location
Pennsylvania
The DoI list acts that was considered central to what a sovereign state can do...
"and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

We might also remember that the individual states never did any of these things. Actions of sovereignty like the alliance with France or the treaty with Britain were entered into as the United States.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The Declaration of Independence addresses that concern; after stating the right of a people to separate from a government which they consider no longer to represent their interests, it reminds us that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes".

It is simply not accurate to imply that the only alternatives are inviolate perpetual union maintained by force and total collapse any time the states have a spat.

However it would seem a stretch to call the very condition one insisted on as a condition of joining the Union at all. a "light and transient cause".

Unless joining the Union itself was a light and transient cause as it was a express condition of joining at all for 2 of the bodies.....Not sure how the "any form of government" could violate that condition without also violating their consent.......
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Edited. You are ignoring what the AoR states. DoI is just a declaration of independence. It is not an official govt document. Did we have a right to secession from Great Britain? No. We only had the natural right to revolution which on their end is rebellion and treason for doing so. The FFs knew this. I think the Southerners at the end of the ACW **** well knew this as well. They knew they were rebelling and if they do not win they would be hung.

These same founders founded the AoR as a perpetual union. That is literally what it says. They pondered over if they could legally move from the AoR to the Constitutional govt. Is that not secession? They saw the word and said let us open a dictionary. ****, how do we legally secede from the AoR to ratify the US Constitution. Hmmm, dilemma. Oops, we will punt that one and just chalk it up as necessity over legality.

Definition of perpetual

1a: continuing forever : EVERLASTINGperpetual motion
b(1): valid for all timea perpetual right
(2): holding something (such as an office) for life or for an unlimited time
2: occurring continually : indefinitely long-continuedperpetual problems
3: blooming continuously throughout the season

So you are saying they were clueless what this word meant? And again there is NO protection for Slavery in either the AoR OR the US Constitution. Pinky swears do not count. There is protection for property BUT we are talking of defining humans as property. And why only those particular humans? So why can't anyone enslave anyone else then? Why can't white people be enslaved?

I think SC and GA were not bright bulbs by not getting it put into writing while the Federalists were smart not to put it down in writing as to punt the ball further down the field. SC and GA agreed to a document that was ever lasting while not getting in writing what they wanted. Besides what was the actual agreement? That anti slavery folks would stop their anti slavery talk? We pinky swear. The writing I am talking about is the actual govt document. Sure we can look at outside documentation to get some intent but that just means it was discussed. If not put into the final script then it was never a part of the movie.

And again look at sovereignty. This word is used a lot and I do not think those who use it who think that anyone can just leave the Union anytime they want actual read the context. So read article 2 again.

Article II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Right there States do not have supreme power but ONLY in the context of powers not delegated to the national power which IS supreme and all the states must follow. That was that first word I bolded in my last post. Where in the AoR does it even state one can just say dude I am out of here and everyone else says see ya bud. The US Constitution does give the national govt more powers than many believe. Since resources gathered by slaves cross state and international borders this means that trade comes under the US Constitution.

Really dont see how one could read the DOI and walk away thinking the founders didn't believe in both secession, and no form of government is actually perpetual unless it caters to the bodies governed to maintain their consent

All you are giving is opinion of what might be thought processes. Edited

Yes one should view all the steps IMO...….the DOI, the CC's, and US Constitution all constitute the thoughts and belief's of the founders, would think looking at the thought processes through all three gives a more complete picture and context of their beliefs then any one.

Would seem rather silly to assume or say the founders didn't really mean the philosophies they expressed in the DOI or the CC"s, Its a sequence and the DOI would seem to represent the fundamental philosophy that started it all. And at the heart of the DOI is no form of government is perpetual without maintaining the consent of the bodies being governed......and to "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." if that consent is violated.

Its hard to read the DOI and walk away thinking the founders didnt believe in both secession, and that government couldn't be perpetual unless it catered to the bodies governed to maintain their consent.....as they surely didn't believe the colonies should cater to the mother country.......
 
Last edited:

W. Richardson

Captain
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
Go ahead, tell us. I dare you.

I will whisper it very lowly....................LINCOLN.

I don't lay ALL blame on him, but"history" lies when it expresses that Lincoln was the man of peace, or Lincoln himself saying he was for peace and that no man alive did more for peace. lol

Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
I have always held that the Civil War is proof that the greatest failure of the Constitution was its inability to foresee that a nation founded on secession would eventually breed new secessionists. Had the founders simply addressed the issue, by either outlining a clear and legal path for an aggrieved state to leave, or by enumerating the illegality of secession in no uncertain terms then I think there's decent odds the war wouldn't have happened. Instead the waters were left murky enough that both sides had a good case to make that they were heirs to the founders' tradition. This led me to vote partially.

In a nutshell
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
In the interest of full disclosure let me first say that I was born in 1950 in the deep south. I grew up idolizing Lee and Jackson, Stewart and Jeff Davis. And if my mother had ever heard the word D##N or G##D##N out of my mouth I would still be tasting soap to this day--UNLESS it was appended to Yankee, Lincoln or Sherman. As I began to read and learn more about the Civil War, I would be internally screaming at Lee--"don't do that" when some great mistake was about to be made.

However and it took decades I did come to the realization (and I am an ordained deacon and ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church) that it would have been better for Jesus Christ never to have been born, crucified or raised from the dead than for the Confederacy to have prevailed. Likewise it would have been as bad or worse for the Founders to have failed to ratify the Constitution.

The very act of calling for the Constitutional Convention in the first place was an implicit understanding that the existing government was not working and could not work. Without the new US government to replace the old, it is not difficult to see the 13 states falling apart into 3 or 4 different separate states if not 13 separate "nations". That being the case Britain never actually fulfills the terms of the peace treaty and gives up control of the old Northwest territory. After all it took Britain over 2 decades to fulfill it's treaty obligations in real time. Spain and/or France blocks expansion of the Southern states into Tennessee/Kentucky and Alabama/Mississippi. Even if individuals from the original states did migrate, they would not have had the support of the US government as Texas as it gained independence or later to fight a war against Mexico to incorporate the overwhelming majority of the Southwest. Needless to say no Louisiana purchase.

As for the original 13, they and the Confederation were essentially bankrupt. I am not a great Hamilton fan, but the greatest contribution he made to the history of the US was to persuade Washington and Congress to assume the Revolutionary war debts. Without that act, intervention by one or more European states to extract that money a la the US gunboat diplomacy against Latin America was almost a certainty.

But to return to the original premise of mistaken Founders, nobody (and forgive me if I missed your post making this point) has brought up the single greatest point for not blaming them. Who could have predicted Eli Whitney and his infamous invention the cotton gin. Sans the gin there not only would not have been, there could not have been any Wade Hamptons. Overnight this infernal machine allowed Joe Blow and his brothers and kin Tom, Dick and Harry to become instant millionaires (who incidentally all loved slavery).

As others have mentioned there were many Southerners who were already against slavery. Western Virginia, Eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, parts of North Carolina were all antislavery. As the 18th century progressed immigration would have been more evenly distributed north and south. Almost all of those immigrants would have been anti-slavery. Each new immigrant would be another dilution of the power of the old aristocracy. Maybe there would have been no great 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution to extend civil rights but slavery would have ended de facto if not de jure about the time of the Civil War.
 
Last edited:

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
I will whisper it very lowly....................LINCOLN.

I don't lay ALL blame on him, but"history" lies when it expresses that Lincoln was the man of peace, or Lincoln himself saying he was for peace and that no man alive did more for peace. lol

Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries
View attachment 321739
"Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. If there be, all our labor is lost, and, ere long, must be done again… The tug has to come & better now, than any time hereafter." Lincoln as U.S. President-Elect, December 10, 1860.

I admit, them's fighting words.
 

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
I posted multiple references. The biggie well known was the Hartford Convention. Please look at my last post
From Wiki's Hartford Convention that you referenced:

"Some delegates may have been in favor of New England's secession from the United States and forming an independent republic, though no such resolution was adopted at the convention. Historian Samuel Eliot Morison rejected the notion that the Hartford convention was an attempt to take New England out of the Union and give treasonous aid and comfort to Britain."

Sorry, no secession talk there.
 
Last edited:

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
I have found some time to get records. This should give you a good look at what I discuss.
wikipedia has "Aaron Burr, the incumbent Vice President of the United States. Although a Democratic-Republican, Burr was backed by members of the Federalist Party who wanted to see New York join the New England states in an independent confederation (see Essex Junto). This scheme was opposed by High Federalist Alexander Hamilton, the party's national leader. Lewis won the election handily and Burr subsequently killed Hamilton in a duel."
also check out
From Wiki's 1804 Essex Junto in the Presidential Election of 1804:

"They supported the Hartford Convention's disaffection with the War of 1812 and it has been claimed that they seriously proposed secession of New England, but that is not considered historically accurate."

Sorry, no talk of secession here.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
"Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. If there be, all our labor is lost, and, ere long, must be done again… The tug has to come & better now, than any time hereafter." Lincoln as U.S. President-Elect, December 10, 1860.

I admit, them's fighting words.
And heres the odd thing to me, while he ran on limiting the expansion of slavery, and here he is saying it as president elect.......I've never heard a historian argue how he had any authority to do so. Yet historians seldom note he didn't either.......

Looking at article Two of the US constitution not seeing where the executive branch had any authority to regulate trade or law in US territories which would assume includes slavery, if anything it would seem to be the legislative branch, which didn't have any either after 1857 as settled by the US Supreme Court.....and not seeing where the executive branch has any authority to unilaterally overturn the Judicial branch and Supreme Court either.........

I reckon Congress could have overturned the court with an Amendment, but no historian argues they had the votes, instead they acknowledge the whole purpose of originally trying to limit slavery was to stack a 2/3 vote down the road in the future, because they didn't have it
 
Last edited:

W. Richardson

Captain
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
"Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. If there be, all our labor is lost, and, ere long, must be done again… The tug has to come & better now, than any time hereafter." Lincoln as U.S. President-Elect, December 10, 1860.

I admit, them's fighting words.

And he repeated that a couple more times. That isn't all either........lol

Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 

Southern Unionist

First Sergeant
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Location
NC
I've never heard of a country winning its independence and changing the cornerstone of its economy at the same time. It's too much to attempt all at once. We had to free ourselves of England first, and then deal with the slavery issue.

I find it very interesting that President Madison didn't have anything good to say about slavery, but didn't advocate for freeing them, musing that there was so much racism in America that he didn't think free blacks and whites could ever peacefully coexist.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
The Declaration of Independence addresses that concern; after stating the right of a people to separate from a government which they consider no longer to represent their interests, it reminds us that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes".

It is simply not accurate to imply that the only alternatives are inviolate perpetual union maintained by force and total collapse any time the states have a spat.

Do not ignore this.

You are ignoring what the AoR states.


DoI is just a declaration of independence. It is not an official govt document. Did we have a right to secession from Great Britain? No. We only had the natural right to revolution which on their end is rebellion and treason for doing so. The FFs knew this. I think the Southerners at the end of the ACW knew this as well. They knew they were rebelling and if they do not win they would be hung. Jefferson believed in revolution ever so often with blood needing to be spilled on the altar of freedom.

These same founders founded the AoR as a perpetual union. That is literally what it says. They pondered over if they could legally move from the AoR to the Constitutional govt. Is that not secession? They saw the word and said let us open a dictionary. How do we legally secede from the AoR to ratify the US Constitution. Hmmm, dilemma. Oops, we will punt that one and just chalk it up as necessity over legality.

Definition of perpetual

1a: continuing forever : EVERLASTINGperpetual motion
b(1): valid for all timea perpetual right
(2): holding something (such as an office) for life or for an unlimited time
2: occurring continually : indefinitely long-continuedperpetual problems
3: blooming continuously throughout the season

So you are saying they were clueless what this word meant? And again there is NO protection for Slavery in either the AoR OR the US Constitution. Pinky swears do not count. There is protection for property BUT we are talking of defining humans as property. And why only those particular humans? So why can't anyone enslave anyone else then? Why can't white people be enslaved?

I think SC and GA were not bright bulbs by not getting it put into writing while the Federalists were smart not to put it down in writing as to punt the ball further down the field. SC and GA agreed to a document that was ever lasting while not getting in writing what they wanted. Besides what was the actual agreement? That anti slavery folks would stop their anti slavery talk? We pinky swear. The writing I am talking about is the actual govt document. Sure we can look at outside documentation to get some intent but that just means it was discussed. If not put into the final script then it was never a part of the movie. Your rough drafts of your book report do not count. What does count is what your actual book report says.

And again look at sovereignty. This word is used a lot and I do not think those who use it who think that anyone can just leave the Union anytime they want actual read the context. So read article 2 again.

Article II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Right there States do not have supreme power but ONLY in the context of powers not delegated to the national power which IS supreme and all the states must follow. That was that first word I bolded in my last post. Where in the AoR does it even state one can just say dude I am out of here and everyone else says see ya bud. The US Constitution does give the national govt more powers than many believe. Since resources gathered by slaves cross state and international borders this means that trade comes under the US Constitution.

All you are giving is opinion of what might be thought processes.

WHY was the DoI cast in the first place? Because Colonists had no say in Parliament. They had no voice. No representation. So which is it? Govt does not represent you when you have no vote in the decision or simply because the vote does not go your way? How can any country have any cohesion if members threaten to pull out when their votes are in the minority?
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Yes one should view all the steps IMO...….the DOI, the CC's, and US Constitution all constitute the thoughts and belief's of the founders, would think looking at the thought processes through all three gives a more complete picture and context of their beliefs then any one.

Would seem rather silly to assume or say the founders didn't really mean the philosophies they expressed in the DOI or the CC"s, Its a sequence and the DOI would seem to represent the fundamental philosophy that started it all. And at the heart of the DOI is no form of government is perpetual without maintaining the consent of the bodies being governed......and to "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." if that consent is violated.

Its hard to read the DOI and walk away thinking the founders didnt believe in both secession, and that government couldn't be perpetual unless it catered to the bodies governed to maintain their consent.....as they surely didn't believe the colonies should cater to the mother country.......


The word secession is thrown around TOOOO much. DoI was REVOLUTION. It was armed conflict. Colonists were enacting their natural right to revolution as they had no means to change anything in the British govt.

It would seem rather silly for people too keep saying it would be rather silly while ignoring the actual words of the actual govt documents these men signed. The DoI is NOT a govt document btw. It is our intent to revolt against British rule and why.

Articles of Confederation WAS a govt document. The 2nd govt was the ratification of the Constitution which replaced it. The latter is the CURRENT govt document.

Let us look at the AoR.


Preamble:


To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names, send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, did, on the 15th day of November, in the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia in the words following, viz. "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia".

Silly silly men must not know what the word perpetual means as they signed this document. As I have said twice before they argued over the legality of leaving the AoR for the Constitution over that ONE word. Instead they punted the legality of it over necessity to create a more PERFECT union.

Article II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Well which is it? Are the states sovereign or subordinate to the Confederation? It reads more like they were sovereign only WITHIN their own states and to NOT what was delegated to the national authority.

Article IV.
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them. If any Person guilty of, or charged with treason, felony, — or other high misdemeanor in any state, shall flee from Justice, and be found in any of the united states, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power, of the state from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the state having jurisdiction of his offence. Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.

Perpetuate? Hmm. How does that retain this: sovereignty, freedom, and independence? That almost sounds like a nation-state.


Article VI.
No state, without the Consent of the united states in congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference agreement, alliance or treaty with any King prince or state; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united states, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state; nor shall the united states in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the united states in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No state shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the united states in congress assembled, with any king, prince or state, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such state, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the united states in congress assembled can be consulted: nor shall any state grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the united states in congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or state and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the united states in congress assembled, shall determine otherwise.

How does that retain this: sovereignty, freedom, and independence?

Article IX.
A lot more only the US Congress can do.

Article XIII.
Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.

Here are the men who signed the above document. Did these men not read this? Any of it? Did these men not understand words? I am not allowed to bring up about courts but hey.


On the part of & behalf of the State of New Hampshire:

  • Josiah Bartlett
  • John Wentworth. Junr; August 8th, 1778


On the part and behalf of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations:

  • William Ellery
  • Henry Marchant
  • John Collins


On the part and behalf of the State of New York:

  • Jas Duane
  • Fra: Lewis
  • Wm Duer
  • Gouvr Morris


On the part and behalf of the State of Pennsylvania:

  • Robert Morris
  • Daniel Roberdeau
  • Jon. Bayard Smith
  • William Clingan
  • Joseph Reed; 22d July, 1778


On the part and behalf of the State of Maryland:

  • John Hanson; March 1, 1781
  • Daniel Carroll, do.


On the part and behalf of the State of North Carolina:

  • John Penn; July 21st, 1778
  • Corns Harnett
  • Jno Williams


On the part and behalf of the State of Georgia:

  • Jno Walton; 24th July, 1778
  • Edwd Telfair
  • Edwd Langworthy


On the part of & behalf of the State of Massachusetts Bay:

  • John Hancock
  • Samuel Adams
  • Elbridge Gerry
  • Francis Dana
  • James Lovell
  • Samuel Holten


On the part and behalf of the State of Connecticut:

  • Roger Sherman
  • Samuel Huntington
  • Oliver Wolcott
  • Titus Hosmer
  • Andrew Adams


On the Part and in Behalf of the State of New Jersey, November 26th, 1778:

  • Jno Witherspoon
  • Nathl Scudder


On the part and behalf of the State of Delaware:

  • Thos McKean; Febr 22d, 1779
  • John Dickinson; May 5th, 1779
  • Nicholas Van Dyke


On the part and behalf of the State of Virginia:

  • Richard Henry Lee
  • John Banister
  • Thomas Adams
  • Jno Harvie
  • Francis Lightfoot Lee


On the part and behalf of the State of South Carolina:

  • Henry Laurens
  • William Henry Drayton
  • Jno Mathews
  • Richd Hutson
  • Thos Heyward, junr.

Are all these men silly? I do not see Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson etc names?

"it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." if that consent is violated."

Isn't that what they did by going from the AoR to the Constitution? They abolished the former to go to the latter and they did so peacefully. There is NO language in the AoR OR the US Constitution that states any State can just leave because it is not getting its way. I am seeing constantly people stating outside words as relevant to the lack of words within the actual govt documents which is just ignoring there is no word secession but perpetual is in there not once but twice. And the Constitution was creating a more PERFECT union.

Perfect to what? What was meant by that? They were fixing what they saw wrong with the AoR.

The US Constitution has an amendment process as well which follows this: Right of the People to alter. There is even a means to call up a constitutional convention which follows this: Right of the People ... to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

There is nothing in there that states if one does not like how something was voted that they could unilaterally secede. The Natural Right to Revolution is what the DoI is addressing and any state has that to this day. No State to date have ever tried to leave by going to Congress and asking them to vote on it. The South did its Natural Right to Revolution as it thought itself the 2nd American Revolution.

"if that consent is violated" Violated how? Those Southern states had no issue with the passing of the Federal Fugitive Slave Act which did it not violate the sovereignty of those Northern States? Only when Northern States denied compliance did Southern Sates whine of their consent being violated as the Federal govt was not putting a boot heel down on the North. So they demanded the Federal govt do thy bidding because they were in the majority vote? Yet when not in the majority vote they are going to whine their consent is being violated. Sounds like someone wants their cake and eat it too.
 
Top