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
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.
I think that most scholars will say that under the Articles, each state was sovereign except for those specific rights that it perpetually assigned to the Union.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I think that most scholars will say that under the Articles, each state was sovereign except for those specific rights that it perpetually assigned to the Union.
However to be perpetual, the government has to maintain the consent of the state, or it would trigger the right to revolution
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
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.
Again its a process, a sequence of events that shows all their thought. And in any process the most important thought is the fundamental ones that start the process in the first place.

The DOI remains the fundamental philosophy of the founders, without it no other step even occurs, Its the basis of their thoughts on government, which clearly was no government is perpetual, without out maintaining the consent of the bodies governed, as it triggers the right to revolution or secession from the government........

Nothing occurs without the founders thoughts expressed in the DOI, again to dismiss their thoughts and philosophy in the DOI would seem folly to me, you can disagree if you wish. If so God save the Queen however......

Personally I believe there was a reason they stated ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT in the DOI, because anything created by men, can be corrupted, and that includes the government they went on to create as well........corruption in politics is rather timeless
 
Last edited:

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
However to be perpetual, the government has to maintain the consent of the state, or it would trigger the right to revolution
I think that your statement needs clarification. If you are referring the the gov't under the Articles, then each state being sovereign, it could secede at any time, by definition, and withdraw its rights. If the other states under the Articles proposed to prevent it with war, then could try to subjugate the errant, but that was not likely because of their economic and military weaknesses.

If you are referring to the gov't under the Const., then two possibilities exist because sovereignty is not mentioned in that document:

1. As stated in a previous post, the framers intended that the Union be perpetual for each state; IOW, no state can secede. (It also intended that Federal laws cannot be nullified by any state.) Otherwise, the Constitution and the laws promulgated under it would be flouted at any convenient time by a state, thus making them mockeries.) But that intention assumed that the Constitution and its laws would be created and implemented in a democratic way.

2. However, there was always the possibility that the government would become monarchical or oligarchical, and promulgate laws undemocratically that would be harmful to a large segment of the citizens. After all, the government was new and different than any other at that time, especially with a powerful executive, which did not exist under the Articles, and no one could predict how this government would behave. (That was why the substance of what later became the Amendments were proposed, but rejected by the majority of the framers.) In this case, the aggrieved states would justifiably want out.

From the above statements, I think that the South was not justified in seceding, because the Const. and its laws were democratically created and implemented. However, the South (meaning the planters, who held the levers of power) thought that eventually Federal politics under Lincoln and the Republican Party would prevent them from extending cotton production with slave labor into the territories. (I don't know why, since the SCOTUS with its Dred Scott decision allowed it.) So, they gambled on secession and lost.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I think that your statement needs clarification. If you are referring the the gov't under the Articles, then each state being sovereign, it could secede at any time, by definition, and withdraw its rights. If the other states under the Articles proposed to prevent it with war, then could try to subjugate the errant, but that was not likely because of their economic and military weaknesses.

If you are referring to the gov't under the Const., then two possibilities exist because sovereignty is not mentioned in that document:

1. As stated in a previous post, the framers intended that the Union be perpetual for each state; IOW, no state can secede. (It also intended that Federal laws cannot be nullified by any state.) Otherwise, the Constitution and the laws promulgated under it would be flouted at any convenient time by a state, thus making them mockeries.) But that intention assumed that the Constitution and its laws would be created and implemented in a democratic way.

2. However, there was always the possibility that the government would become monarchical or oligarchical, and promulgate laws undemocratically that would be harmful to a large segment of the citizens. After all, the government was new and different than any other at that time, especially with a powerful executive, which did not exist under the Articles, and no one could predict how this government would behave. (That was why the substance of what later became the Amendments were proposed, but rejected by the majority of the framers.) In this case, the aggrieved states would justifiably want out.

From the above statements, I think that the South was not justified in seceding, because the Const. and its laws were democratically created and implemented. However, the South (meaning the planters, who held the levers of power) thought that eventually Federal politics under Lincoln and the Republican Party would prevent them from extending cotton production with slave labor into the territories. (I don't know why, since the SCOTUS with its Dred Scott decision allowed it.) So, they gambled on secession and lost.

I agree somewhat, why I said Lincoln ran on basicly an unconstitional platform as it should have been settled if going by law and the constitution in 1857..... But I can see if it looked like the government wasnt going to honor the sole condition of you giving consent to join the Union, why one would want released from the government if it appears faithless in its assurances and promises it had made to gain your consent

It was the perfect storm, an emotional issue, a questionable platform, and then being elected despite over 60% rejected it, not sure it couldn't happen again if the perfect storm arose again really
 
Last edited:

Carronade

Captain
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Location
Pennsylvania
A government being democratic does not mean that its policies cannot be seen as antithetical to the interests of some portion of the nation.

The authors of the DofI placed one single condition on the right of revolution, that it not be invoked for light and transient causes.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
A government being democratic does not mean that its policies cannot be seen as antithetical to the interests of some portion of the nation.

The authors of the DofI placed one single condition on the right of revolution, that it not be invoked for light and transient causes.

Agree and we today can argue all we want if we think they were being light and transient, however its really irrelevant

Those who actually had to make the decision were in 1860-61...…..not today, and they did decide

Going back to the founders though, they thought it worthy of compromise for 2 states consent...…cant believe anyone thinks the same founders would have believed if 11 States were willing to leave...…that it wasnt government that should have yielded to maintain their consent.
 
Last edited:

Norm53

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
I agree somewhat, why I said Lincoln ran on basicly an unconstitional platform as it should have been settled if going by law and the constitution in 1857..... But I can see if it looked like the government wasnt going to honor the sole condition of you giving consent to join the Union, why one would want released from the government if it appears faithless in its assurances and promises it had made to gain your consent

It was the perfect storm, an emotional issue, a questionable platform, and then being elected despite over 60% rejected it, not sure it couldn't happen again if the perfect storm arose again really
Yes, the Republican Party platform and Lincoln did not honor Dred Scott, which was the law.
 

GwilymT

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
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.

Are there any contemporary Confederates saying that they were seceding and fighting over tariffs? If not, what did the confederates say were the reasons for secession and war?
 

48th Miss.

First Sergeant
Joined
May 11, 2016
Location
North Carolina
I voted No. They did what they needed to to form a Nation. Leaving off the Southern States would probably have just caused another issue especially trading with them. I think they got what they could and addressed the rest later where they could. I believe the Northwest Ordinance dealt with this issue in its jurisdiction and it was these guys and others who got that passed. It's real hard to discuss this without having been raised the way they were and having the reality of their life experiences. We can't go back and we can't judge 18 century morals and values based on 21st century ideals and values. In a lot of other areas they would trump us hands down.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
I think that most scholars will say that under the Articles, each state was sovereign except for those specific rights that it perpetually assigned to the Union.

Sovereign ONLY within its own borders but even then read Article 4 denied them any right to deny outsiders any rights its own citizens got.


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.


What i am trying to establish is that what they deemed as sovereign is not to what some here or modern day secessionists think.


Definition of sovereign
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty
b: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere
c: an acknowledged leader : ARBITER
2: any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom


I do not see even B being the case within their own state and this is the AoC. I have not even gotten to the govt that replaced it.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Again its a process, a sequence of events that shows all their thought. And in any process the most important thought is the fundamental ones that start the process in the first place.

The DOI remains the fundamental philosophy of the founders, without it no other step even occurs, Its the basis of their thoughts on government, which clearly was no government is perpetual, without out maintaining the consent of the bodies governed, as it triggers the right to revolution or secession from the government........

Nothing occurs without the founders thoughts expressed in the DOI, again to dismiss their thoughts and philosophy in the DOI would seem folly to me, you can disagree if you wish. If so God save the Queen however......

Personally I believe there was a reason they stated ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT in the DOI, because anything created by men, can be corrupted, and that includes the government they went on to create as well........corruption in politics is rather timeless

AGAIN, extra constitutional documents can give us incite but they do not nullify the words of the actual govt documents themselves and signed by those at the time in agreement. We look at them largely when things are ambiguous. You seem to keep wanting to nullify the actual wording of the AoC which states in ink on paper or whatever medium it was etched on is meaningless even though it was signed by the list of men I provided to whom represented their state/colony.

We can see in the AoC that the states reserved the right to raise their own armies but only in the context of self defense as in Amerind attacks as we were stealing their land and of slave revolts. This was important to them and hence why a Bill of Rights with an amendment process was added to the US Constitution. They wanted to make sure they as states still could do certain things and the new more powerful central govt had limits to this.

The DoI AGAIN is not a govt document and is invoking the NATURAL RIGHT OF REVOLUTION. Everyone has that right then, in 1860 and today. That is a GIVEN.

ANY FORM OF GOVT CAN BE ABOLISHED BY THE NATURAL RIGHT OF REVOLUTION. THAT IS THE DoI. It was AGAIN argued over the legality of leaving the AoC to adopt the Constitution and it was over the legality of the word perpetual. AGAIN, it means everlasting but its bond obviously can be broken by the NATURAL RIGHT OF REVOLUTION. They all agreed on this. Nonetheless the word PERPETUAL is in the AoC and it is undeniable. To simply keep dismissing it because of the DoI is what is silly. It should say tentative Union then or even provisional Union and if that is what they meant they why did they not put that in the actual document? When you write a term paper do you turn in all your notes and rough drafts with it to say gee Mr Professor make sure you read all the rest of this when you grade my paper. No, typically you turn in the final draft and that is what you decided on. The rest just shows your thought processes and possible other angles you thought of going on.

There is no wording for the right of any state to simply unilateral secede in either the AoC or the Constitution. There is no ambiguity there as is say the 2nd Amendment. To allow instant nullification means ratification is meaningless as well as law by Congress is meaningless if any state at a whim can just unilateral secede. Unilateral secession is not the same thing as natural right of revolution.

There are two ways. Vote to secede in your state legislature and then take it to Congress and then the consent of the states will vote on it OR you exercise your natural right to revolution, ie you fight for it. The South did the latter. Everyone claims the govt is corrupt when they are not getting their way. The South was perfectly fine when agreeing to the 1850 Compromise of California gets to be a free state for a more stricture fugitive slave act. So screw all those northern state sovereignties.

The Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820 in that slavery could go north of the Missouri southern border in the territories. So kind of a moot point of the Missouri Compromise being declared unconstitutional in Dredd Scott.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Not sure your issue really.if you agree with DOI's fundamental philosophy that ANY FORM GOVT isn't perpetual without the govt maintaining the consent of the bodies governed......it makes little difference if they worded perpetual in the govt docs. as they had already established it could only be perpetual as long as it has the consent of the bodies being governed...just as the fledging govt had to accommodate SC and GA to get their consent........they needed to maintain their consent as well

I do think the founders envisioned a GOVT that would accommodate to maintain the consent of the bodies being governed, in which case perpetual wasnt a wrong word for them to use...…..dont think saw in the future states/govt pursuing policies that would alienate 11 states into leaving.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Not sure your issue really.if you agree with DOI's fundamental philosophy that ANY FORM GOVT isn't perpetual without the govt maintaining the consent of the bodies governed......it makes little difference if they worded perpetual in the govt docs. as they had already established it could only be perpetual as long as it has the consent of the bodies being governed...just as the fledging govt had to accommodate SC and GA to get their consent........they needed to maintain their consent as well

I do think the founders envisioned a GOVT that would accommodate to maintain the consent of the bodies being governed, in which case perpetual wasnt a wrong word for them to use...…..dont think saw in the future states/govt pursuing policies that would alienate 11 states into leaving.

Once again, you are saying words do not mean anything. A perpetual union can be abolished by the natural right of revolution. Do I need to make the font larger? This does not disagree with the DoI fundamental philosophy but what is sad is you think that is the one document nullifies any words for any legislation ever passed or to be passed. If you note SCOTUS rules on what is unconstitutional not what is unDoI.

IF they meant the govt was to be provisional then why not word it that way? We form a provisional union. How simple is that? The Union is provisional based on the consent of the states.

So what you are saying is that if the majority of the states want blue flowers and this was done by a vote and two of the states voted for red flowers that they now have to oh we are sorry we will nullify our vote so you can get your way or you will just pack up your quills and ink and go home. What is the point of ratifying a constitution if any state can just say nope do not agree with this so we are leaving.

The DoI was not talking of unilateral secession but the natural right of revolution. We had no right to secede from the United Kingdom of Greater Britain. This is what we are discussing here, the right of unilateral secession. Some keep throwing that word out when they should be using revolution.

The natural right of revolution and the state itself voting to leave and then petition Congress to vote to approve them leaving does not violate the principles of the DoI. The South did the former but never tried the latter while hiding behind some right never put down in the actual govt documents signed by representatives of their own states respectively.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
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.


This is what is sickening. Ignore what the actual document says but go by the letters these guys wrote.

Preamble of the US Constitution:

Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The DoI is abolishing govt by the natural right of revolution. We had no legal right to secession from the UK. There is no word sovereign in the US Constitution. Again the DoI is not an official govt document and does not establish our govt. The AoC did that and then was replaced by the US Constitution.

Preamble of the AoC:

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".

Note how the current govt is We the People and the former govt was basically We the States ...


Article VII

The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

G. Washington-Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King

Connecticut: Wm: Saml. Johnson, Roger Sherman

New York: Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey: Wil: Livingston, David Brearly, Wm. Paterson, Jona: Dayton

Pennsylvania: B. Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt. Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos. FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris

Delaware: Geo: Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco: Broom

Maryland: James McHenry, Dan of St Thos. Jenifer, Danl Carroll

Virginia: John Blair–, James Madison Jr.

North Carolina: Wm. Blount, Richd. Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson

South Carolina: J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler

Georgia: William Few, Abr Baldwin

Note how not all 13 AoC states had to ratify this constitution to form a new govt but only 9 of the 13 but if so then the other 4 have to follow the new govt. Note how ALL 13 agreed to this document, meaning agreeing to those conditions as stated i n the document.

When you are trying to make an agreement with someone to try to draw up some document between you and them you get what you want in writing. Getting what you want simply could be remove all the negative slavery language from the document or we will not sign this contract. So the document then gets a revised draft. But if you want something to be everlastingly protected then you get that in writing. The Bill of Rights is one such example as it was not part of the US Constitution but demanded to be added by the Anti-Federalists.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Once again, you are saying words do not mean anything. A perpetual union can be abolished by the natural right of revolution. Do I need to make the font larger? This does not disagree with the DoI fundamental philosophy but what is sad is you think that is the one document nullifies any words for any legislation ever passed or to be passed. If you note SCOTUS rules on what is unconstitutional not what is unDoI.

IF they meant the govt was to be provisional then why not word it that way? We form a provisional union. How simple is that? The Union is provisional based on the consent of the states.

So what you are saying is that if the majority of the states want blue flowers and this was done by a vote and two of the states voted for red flowers that they now have to oh we are sorry we will nullify our vote so you can get your way or you will just pack up your quills and ink and go home. What is the point of ratifying a constitution if any state can just say nope do not agree with this so we are leaving.

The DoI was not talking of unilateral secession but the natural right of revolution. We had no right to secede from the United Kingdom of Greater Britain. This is what we are discussing here, the right of unilateral secession. Some keep throwing that word out when they should be using revolution.

The natural right of revolution and the state itself voting to leave and then petition Congress to vote to approve them leaving does not violate the principles of the DoI. The South did the former but never tried the latter while hiding behind some right never put down in the actual govt docum
ents signed by representatives of their own states respectively.
Again the fundamental belief they had expressed was any Government is provisional unless it maintained the consent of the bodies to governed. They could put perpetual in anything after that, but it would stand to reason by saying so they expected the government to maintain consent of the bodies.....

If they suddenly had a change of heart that government didn't have to maintain consent of the bodies governed, I would assume they issued Great Britain an apology and humbly begged to be brought back as they had been errant children........However dont think that happened, as they didnt have a change of heart........again they could have hoped the new government to be perpetual, as they could have hoped the new government would perpetually maintain the consent of the bodies governed........if so, their position was consistent through the whole process, which to me makes more sense then they suddenly flip flopped on the fundamental philosophy they had fought and spilled blood for
And I'm not the one confining my opinion of their beliefs on any one document, I have always said it was a process and have to look all, the DOI does represent their core belief that governments role is to maintain the consent of the bodies, and is the one they fought and died for however

I do agree they could include perpetual in later documents, as they already had established the belief of the condition of perpetual as of maintaining consent of the Bodies

Also curious you mention SCOTUS, as it ruled on the issue that lead to the violation of SC consent, and it ruled that that legislature had no authority tp prohibit something constitutionally protected, nor did the executive branch.....I see your point if they had followed SCOTUS the issue would have been settled. no violation of consent, and no ACW, the Union would have chugged along perpetual.

It is funny you start out declclaring its SCOTUS role to decide whats contitutional...…yet end up saying SCOTUS is irrelevent as you think its decisions on the constitution are mute in your last sentence in post 152.......that a bigger flip flop then you suggest the founders did......
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Again the fundamental belief they had expressed was any Government is provisional unless it maintained the consent of the bodies to governed. They could put perpetual in anything after that, but it would stand to reason by saying so they expected the government to maintain consent of the bodies.....

Your opinion is found selective reading. The DOI is not the end all of documents and your opinion conveniently leaves out the comments on individual states being allowed to set treaties and wars which they CANNOT for the AoC or the US Constitution. The DoI is talking about the NATURAL RIGHT OF REVOLUTION. It is NOT talking about UNILATERAL SECESSION. Nonetheless we were rebels to the UK. We rebelled and if Jefferson et al were ever caught they would be hung for sedition and treason as they had no right to secession.

If they suddenly had a change of heart that government didn't have to maintain consent of the bodies governed, I would assume they issued Great Britain an apology and humbly begged to be brought back as they had been errant children........However dont think that happened, as they didnt have a change of heart........again they could have hoped the new government to be perpetual, as they could have hoped the new government would perpetually maintain the consent of the bodies governed........if so, their position was consistent through the whole process, which to me makes more sense then they suddenly flip flopped on the fundamental philosophy they had fought and spilled blood for
And I'm not the one confining my opinion of their beliefs on any one document, I have always said it was a process and have to look all, the DOI does represent their core belief that governments role is to maintain the consent of the bodies, and is the one they fought and died for however

Your opinion is found selective reading. The DOI is not the end all of documents and your opinion conveniently leaves out the comments on individual states being allowed to set treaties and wars which they CANNOT for the AoC or the US Constitution. The DoI is talking about the NATURAL RIGHT OF REVOLUTION. It is NOT talking about UNILATERAL SECESSION. Nonetheless we were rebels to the UK. We rebelled and if Jefferson et al were ever caught they would be hung for sedition and treason as they had no right to secession.

I do agree they could include perpetual in later documents, as they already had established the belief of the condition of perpetual as of maintaining consent of the Bodies

The issue here is your opinion's comprehension level is found wanting. Consent of the States does not mean any one State says NO I AM OUT OF HERE. This is what your opinion keeps implying. To enter the Union takes the consent of the States. You cannot say unilaterally we are now a part of the USA. Logic AND reason would state then this is how one LEGALLY leaves as well OR they invoke the natural right to revolution, ie take up arms. The US Constitution if one actually reads it, did not require all States to ratify it for it to go into affect. It required 9 of the 13 States at the time. ALL though agreed to what was contained within. Their opinions of what contained within were obvious not the same. Going by their extra constitutional notes is bogus in that some opinions are obviously taking this beyond the scope of spirit of the law while ignoring the letter of the law. When one draws out a contract they tend to take minutes of all the meetings that generate said contract. A lot will be negotiated and much of it may/will never make it into the contract. Your opinion consistently wants to argue the parts that did not make it into the contract supersede said contract and void it.

Also curious you mention SCOTUS, as it ruled on the issue that lead to the violation of SC consent, and it ruled that that legislature had no authority tp prohibit something constitutionally protected, nor did the executive branch.....I see your point if they had followed SCOTUS the issue would have been settled. no violation of consent, and no ACW, the Union would have chugged along perpetual.

It is funny you start out declclaring its SCOTUS role to decide whats contitutional...…yet end up saying SCOTUS is irrelevent as you think its decisions on the constitution are mute in your last sentence in post 152.......that a bigger flip flop then you suggest the founders did......

I never said SCOTUS in of itself was irrelevant. What i said was their opinion or ruling over Dred Scott stating the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional was MOOT in that the LATER Kansas Nebraska Act NULLIFIED the Missouri compromise. That means it was no longer in effect anyway but the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 was. This stated slavery could go above the southern border of Missouri, ie into the territories.

I do not see anywhere that your opinion actually does get my point. SC Consent? SC entered the Union when she signed the ratification. Madison originally had anti slavery wording within the US Constitution in early drafts. THIS is what SC and GA wanted out of the US Constitution or they would not sign. So he took that out and they punted the issue of slavery down the field. Wasn't the importation of slaves illegal after 1809 or so? If so then why did not SC and GA try to bail then over this sacred pinky swear your opinion swears supersedes all else? What is interesting is not ALL 13 needed to ratify the US Constitution for it to get into effect.

What I find interesting is your opinion continual support of owning other humans. No slavery into the new territories does not remove slavery from SC or GA so even if there were pinky swears of we will not abolish slavery within those two states the Missouri Compromise has nothing to do with it anyway. It is like a small dog in the middle of the night barking at thunder. The US Constitution has no wording in it that states owning other human beings is protected and perpetual. IF opinions read the CSA Constitution one will see that they put that in writing. Slavery within the CSA is perpetual and protected at the national level as no CSA State can abolish it. This is another area I find your opinion wanting in that Northern States abolished slavery so then why did SC and GA not bail over this IF as your opinion is claiming the SC and GA conditional signing was slavery is protected?

The ONLY beef of the new territories was to create new slave States so Southerners could have kept their stranglehold over the Federal govt. They lost the House and the Senate and now just lost POTUS. For 80 some years they controlled the Federal govt for the most part to keep this status quo so as anti slavery would not become the majority.

No State has a legal right to unilateral secession but all retain the natural right of revolution. IF it takes the consent of the States, ie Congress to become a USA State then so shall it in reverse. Remember SCOTUS? They ruled on that one issue. NO Congress since has ever put forth an amendment to overturn that decision.

Lincoln's so called anti slavery into the territories rhetoric does not mean he is going to issue an executive order but work to get an Act or amendment passed.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Your opinion is found selective reading. The DOI is not the end all of documents and your opinion conveniently leaves out the comments on individual states being allowed to set treaties and wars which they CANNOT for the AoC or the US Constitution. The DoI is talking about the NATURAL RIGHT OF REVOLUTION. It is NOT talking about UNILATERAL SECESSION. Nonetheless we were rebels to the UK. We rebelled and if Jefferson et al were ever caught they would be hung for sedition and treason as they had no right to secession.



Your opinion is found selective reading. The DOI is not the end all of documents and your opinion conveniently leaves out the comments on individual states being allowed to set treaties and wars which they CANNOT for the AoC or the US Constitution. The DoI is talking about the NATURAL RIGHT OF REVOLUTION. It is NOT talking about UNILATERAL SECESSION. Nonetheless we were rebels to the UK. We rebelled and if Jefferson et al were ever caught they would be hung for sedition and treason as they had no right to secession.



The issue here is your opinion's comprehension level is found wanting. Consent of the States does not mean any one State says NO I AM OUT OF HERE. This is what your opinion keeps implying. To enter the Union takes the consent of the States. You cannot say unilaterally we are now a part of the USA. Logic AND reason would state then this is how one LEGALLY leaves as well OR they invoke the natural right to revolution, ie take up arms. The US Constitution if one actually reads it, did not require all States to ratify it for it to go into affect. It required 9 of the 13 States at the time. ALL though agreed to what was contained within. Their opinions of what contained within were obvious not the same. Going by their extra constitutional notes is bogus in that some opinions are obviously taking this beyond the scope of spirit of the law while ignoring the letter of the law. When one draws out a contract they tend to take minutes of all the meetings that generate said contract. A lot will be negotiated and much of it may/will never make it into the contract. Your opinion consistently wants to argue the parts that did not make it into the contract supersede said contract and void it.



I never said SCOTUS in of itself was irrelevant. What i said was their opinion or ruling over Dred Scott stating the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional was MOOT in that the LATER Kansas Nebraska Act NULLIFIED the Missouri compromise. That means it was no longer in effect anyway but the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 was. This stated slavery could go above the southern border of Missouri, ie into the territories.

I do not see anywhere that your opinion actually does get my point. SC Consent? SC entered the Union when she signed the ratification. Madison originally had anti slavery wording within the US Constitution in early drafts. THIS is what SC and GA wanted out of the US Constitution or they would not sign. So he took that out and they punted the issue of slavery down the field. Wasn't the importation of slaves illegal after 1809 or so? If so then why did not SC and GA try to bail then over this sacred pinky swear your opinion swears supersedes all else? What is interesting is not ALL 13 needed to ratify the US Constitution for it to get into effect.

What I find interesting is your opinion continual support of owning other humans. No slavery into the new territories does not remove slavery from SC or GA so even if there were pinky swears of we will not abolish slavery within those two states the Missouri Compromise has nothing to do with it anyway. It is like a small dog in the middle of the night barking at thunder. The US Constitution has no wording in it that states owning other human beings is protected and perpetual. IF opinions read the CSA Constitution one will see that they put that in writing. Slavery within the CSA is perpetual and protected at the national level as no CSA State can abolish it. This is another area I find your opinion wanting in that Northern States abolished slavery so then why did SC and GA not bail over this IF as your opinion is claiming the SC and GA conditional signing was slavery is protected?

The ONLY beef of the new territories was to create new slave States so Southerners could have kept their stranglehold over the Federal govt. They lost the House and the Senate and now just lost POTUS. For 80 some years they controlled the Federal govt for the most part to keep this status quo so as anti slavery would not become the majority.

No State has a legal right to unilateral secession but all retain the natural right of revolution. IF it takes the consent of the States, ie Congress to become a USA State then so shall it in reverse. Remember SCOTUS? They ruled on that one issue. NO Congress since has ever put forth an amendment to overturn that decision.

Lincoln's so called anti slavery into the territories rhetoric does not mean he is going to issue an executive order but work to get an Act or amendment passed.
No more selective then you reading.Your free to disagree, but your simply wishing to discount the founding philosophy that after everything afterwards came from. Without the founding fundamental philosophy, none the rest would ever have existed........so i think its important enough to not discount........

The right to revolution and unilateral secession are in effect the same thing, note both cases resulted in WAR.......If your saying they had every right to invoke the right of revolution and go to war your probably right. The founders won their war, the CSA lost theirs, but that's the risk of any revolution, success isn't a given that goes with any revolution. The natural right of revolution applies to the attempt, often though might overpowers ideals in war though, hence many revolutions fail.

Note Britain didn't consent to the DOI, it was unilateral secession from Great Britain, and Britain chose war also. The difference between the right to revolution and unilateral secession is simply whether one is the revolutionary or the coercer attempting to hold them against their will.
 
Last edited:

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
the founding philosophy

Hi Mr. Archieclement. Please, help me out because I am confused and probably less educated on this matter than you are. DoI says that "all men are created equal..." Wasn't that founding philosophy anti-slavery folks used to argue against (the expansion of) slavery? Didn't the founders themselves ban slavery in the Northwest Ordinance?

The right to revolution and unilateral secession are in effect the same thing, note both cases resulted in WAR

I fail to understand your logic here. Revolution is not legal. Unilateral secession could be legal if the states agreed to that condition when they joined the Union. Weren't the states warned that the Union (the constitution) is perpetual?

From my understanding, the disagreement over whether the unilateral secession that the Confederate States attempted was legal or not resulted in war, not because unilateral secession is the same as revolution in effect, but because the Confederate states insisted unilateral secession was legal and guaranteed under the constitution while the Union claimed that the Union and the constitution are perpetual therefore the attempted unilateral secession was illegal and was a rebellion.

I wonder why the slave states did not take the case to court. If the unilateral secession had been ruled legal, then the secession crisis could have not resulted in war.

it was unilateral secession from Great Britain

I did not know that American colonies voluntarily signed up for the British rule and were warned that the rule is perpetual. However, I am still learning thd American Civil War and there could be some nuances that I am not aware of.
 

huskerblitz

Major
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Location
Nebraska
I did not know that American colonies voluntarily signed up for the British rule
Huh? I have to be reading this wrong. There is no way anyone believes the colonies did not know they were under British control considering, oh I don't know, the founding colonial charters pretty much spelled it out with ink.
 
Top