The Real Cause of Secession

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,064
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
So you are familiar with the reforms that the CSA authors attempted to make to the U.S. Constitution?
That they wanted a single, six-year term for the President? That they wished to give him a line-item veto?

Actually, under the CSA Constitution, States only gain four minor rights:

The power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways.
The power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways.
The power to impeach federally appointed state officials.
The power to distribute "bills of credit.'

In all actuality the CSA copied most of the US Constitution without change, except when you get to slavery and there you find the biggest change of all. The Supremacy clause is still there in the CSA Constitution, along with the "Commerce" clause, the "Necessary and Proper" clause, nor does the CSA copy take away the federal government's right to suspend habeus corpu or "suppress insurrections."

Anything close to what you had in mind?

Check out the following website for a side-by-side comparison of the USA and CSA Constitutions:



Unionblue
 
Last edited:

GwilymT

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
920
Location
Pittsburgh
Nicholas Biddle was Rothschild's point man and was the president of the second national Bank of the U.S. Charles Dahlgrin was President of the Natchez,Ms branch. Just to name one planter that he financed: He loaned Charles Dahlgrin money to establish the Dunleith plantation in Natchez. The house is would cost approximately 5 million today to build, this does not even account for the land and slaves that were financed.
Do you believe that the bank gave an interest free loan of such magnitude?
Do you believe that this was the only plantation financed by Northern bankers?
You’ve claimed this and similar things a few times now...


-The Second Bank of the US was closed 25 years before the war.

-The Natchez branch opened in 1830 and closed along with the rest of the bank in 1836. I found mentioning of one Charles Dalgrin working there sometime between 1830-36, but nothing of him being president of the Natchez Branch. His tenure with the bank ended twenty years BEFORE he supposedly financed this plantation.

-The Dunleith Plantation House you refer to was built in 1855, twenty years AFTER the Second Bank of the US closed.

-There exists no evidence that the Rothschilds were doing business in the US during the time of the 2nd Bank (1816-1836)

-Nicholas Biddle was appointed to the bank by James Monroe (a Virginian) in 1823. There exists no evidence he ever had anything to do with the Rothschild family. Biddle died in 1844, roughly sixteen years before the war and ten years before the Dunleith Plantation took out all of their loans from whatever bank they used.


None of what you posted adds up. It sounds like some wild conspiracy theory. Could you possibly share where you got this information so that we can all learn more about it?

-
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

GwilymT

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
920
Location
Pittsburgh
Anything I can find searching “Rothschild - Bank of the United States - American Civil War” leads to some dark corner of the internet that proves to be nothing more than a cesspool of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Unless someone can come up with some actual evidence, we can likely ignore this Rothschild - Second Bank tripe for what it is.
 
Last edited:

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,963
Location
Denmark
Anything I can find searching “Rothschild - Bank of the United States - American Civil War” leads to some dark corner of the internet that proves to be nothing more than a cesspool anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Unless someone can come up with some actual evidence, we can likely ignore this Rothschild - Second Bank tripe for what it is.
got curries and google just that... you are right. Conspiracies, and anti-Semitic propaganda.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Red Baron

Private
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Messages
95
Since when is it immoral to loan money to people engaged in a legal business?
So Rhea, are you not going to answer the question?
Thomas, so you are now defending the banks because slavery was a legal business? You don't believe slavery was immoral because it was legal?
Are you pro-slavery or are you just pro-union no matter the morality of slavery?
Which is it? You can't have it both ways
 

Red Baron

Private
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Messages
95
got curries and google just that... you are right. Conspiracies, and anti-Semitic propaganda.
So you don't know that the Rothschild family is not Jewish? They are from the country of Georgia.
Do you not know that they, among others have always operated the cartel of central banks(INCLUDING THE 1ST AND 2ND BANKS OF THE U.S.) and the private federal reserve bank?
Andrew Jackson spent his life to eliminate their influence and currency manipulation in North America and Lincoln was determined to eliminate states rights so the cartels and politicians could be back in power. It worked Lincoln established Hamiltons American system of crony capitalism.The financially responsible Jeffersonian system of government was finally overthrown.
These are not my opinion, but facts from much research. My sources are: "The Creature from Jeckyll Island" by Edward Griffin.."The killing of Uncle Sam" by Paul Williams/Rodney Howard-BROWN...
Conspiracy theories that are debunked by research are not conspiracy theories.
 

Red Baron

Private
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Messages
95
[


No, firing thousands of rounds of artillery on Fort Sumter was the obvious act provoking the war. If the Southern States had wanted to stay in the USA and have representation, that option was open to them. Sadly, they chose to eschew their legal standing in the USA and choose the extra-legal act of secession. If one has chosen not attend the meeting, one has no standing to complain that they had no chance to speak at the meeting.

If all that is true, you should have no problem correctly discerning when and where to use secession vs. succession.
The South did not need permission to succeed from a voluntary union that was created by the states. Lincoln knew that he would instigate a war if he applied the Morill tariff to states not represented when the vote was taken. Do you dispute this claim?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
3,124
Location
Austin Texas
The South did not need permission to succeed from a voluntary union that was created by the states. Lincoln knew that he would instigate a war if he applied the Morill tariff to states not represented when the vote was taken. Do you dispute this claim?

1.) The south did not "succeed." They "seceded."
2.) Prove to me, using primary sources, that Lincoln "knew" he would instigate a war.
3.)You must also properly date all these events:
a) House passage of the Morrill Tariff
b) Election of Lincoln.
c) Senate Passage of the Morrill Tariff
d) Morrill Tariff Signed into Law by President Buchanan.

It's not me disputing your "claims." It's facts.
 
Last edited:

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,963
Location
Denmark
So Rhea, are you not going to answer the question?
Thomas, so you are now defending the banks because slavery was a legal business? You don't believe slavery was immoral because it was legal?
Are you pro-slavery or are you just pro-union no matter the morality of slavery?
Which is it? You can't have it both ways
I think slavery is a horrible idea, but Our modern day view of the morality of slavery is completely irrelevant.

To quote CSA General Mosby: "... Iam not ashamed that my family were slaveholders. It was our inheritance - Neither am I ashamed that my ancestors where pirates and cattle thieves. People must be judged by the standard of their own age". *

That that goes for both slave-owners and bankers.

Why is it so hard for modern day people to just accept that their ancestors was honest about why they did what they did?
The south decided to try make a new state build on the institution of slavery. They said so repeatedly.


My issue with what the south did, is not slavery but legality. Iam not pro union, but pro respect for the Constitution and for the laws of the land.
And when we judge what the south did by their own age, they come off rather badly.

The south lost a legal election and instead of accepting that result and as the north had done since the founding of the country, they behaved like spoiled children and decided to leave the union.

And then instead of doing it within the Constitution by going to Congress and trying to find a political solution... They did it outside the Constitution by rebellion.

I think getting out of the union was the right way forward for the south. Slavery was central to how society was organized with about 30% of all household owned at least one slave. (and in some states it was above 45%)
And it made up a huge part of the economy.

But by the moral standard of their own age, they should have tried the legal and peaceful way out before starting a war of independence.



* (letter to Sam Chapman, in 1907)
 
Last edited:

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,963
Location
Denmark
The South did not need permission to succeed from a voluntary union that was created by the states. Lincoln knew that he would instigate a war if he applied the Morill tariff to states not represented when the vote was taken. Do you dispute this claim?
And where in the Constitution do you find the right of unilateral secession?

Federal law overrule state law.
Federal law say Texas is part of the union.

So it should be pretty obvious that for Texas to leave the union you need Congress to pass a Federal law saying that they are no longer part of the Union.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Rhea Cole

Corporal
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
350
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
And where in the Constitution do you find the right of unilateral secession?

Federal law overrule state law.
Federal law say Texas is part of the union.

So it should be pretty obvious that for Texas to leave the union you need Congress to pass a Federal law saying that they are no longer part of the Union.
Texas does have the right to devolve into several different states, but won't because everybody wants the Alamo.
 

Rhea Cole

Corporal
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
350
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Anything I can find searching “Rothschild - Bank of the United States - American Civil War” leads to some dark corner of the internet that proves to be nothing more than a cesspool of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Unless someone can come up with some actual evidence, we can likely ignore this Rothschild - Second Bank tripe for what it is.
Look into the story of Adalecia Atkins, the inspiration for Scarlett O'Hara. She married the Bill Gates of the slave trade when she was a teen & he was fifty, or so. During the war, her new husband died. She managed to get both Confederate & Union officers to assist her in shipping her cotton to market in England. She asked the Rothchild's to hold her gold in trust until the war ended. Even with the not inconsiderable fees, she was the richest woman in the South & perhaps the US in 1865. She was really something. You can visit her summer party mansion Belmont in Nashville. It has been restored & is on the Belmont College campus near downtown. It is on the southern end of 16th Avenue South, Music Row where Elvis & a world of stars have recorded their hits.
 

Rhea Cole

Corporal
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
350
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
I have posted the reasons for secession that were published before March 1861. It has links to the Declaration of Causes issued by four states to explain why they had seceded. These are the documentation that all other documentations rise from.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,963
Location
Denmark
Texas does have the right to devolve into several different states, but won't because everybody wants the Alamo.
Yep, but Texas is the perfect example why a state is not sovereign.

And why the idea that a state can leave unilaterally is idiotic.

The US spend a lot of money and lives fighting a war against Mexico to add Texas to the union as a state.
So i effect every US citizens have spend money on this. And the federal government get a debt because of the war.
(and it take over the debt the Republic of Texas had)

Then a few years later Texas decide to leave the union.
Without paying their share of the national debs. or what was their debt until they joined the union.
Without paying for the federal installations within the borders.
And in the process take a lot of military equipment owned by the federal government.

If I was a US citizen, I would feel like this was a scam all along...
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,963
Location
Denmark
As per the US Constitution, every state can devolve into several different states. MA has done it. VA has done it more than once.
Not to go in a big sidetrack, but every time a new state have been added, it have been done by Congress. Including when splitting an existing state into two.
The difference with Texas is that congress have already given permission.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
3,124
Location
Austin Texas
Not to go in a big sidetrack, but every time a new state have been added, it have been done by Congress. Including when splitting an existing state into two.
The difference with Texas is that congress have already given permission.
Both Congress and the state legislatures, yes.

It is a big sidetrack, sorry for that, but there is no exception for Texas in this regard. It must meet the same Constitutional standard as every other state. Here in Texas, we always think we are special. In this instance, we are not.
 

Red Baron

Private
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Messages
95
I think slavery is a horrible idea, but Our modern day view of the morality of slavery is completely irrelevant.

To quote CSA General Mosby: "... Iam not ashamed that my family were slaveholders. It was our inheritance - Neither am I ashamed that my ancestors where pirates and cattle thieves. People must be judged by the standard of their own age". *

That that goes for both slave-owners and bankers.

Why is it so hard for modern day people to just accept that their ancestors was honest about why they did what they did?
The south decided to try make a new state build on the institution of slavery. They said so repeatedly.


My issue with what the south did, is not slavery but legality. Iam not pro union, but pro respect for the Constitution and for the laws of the land.
And when we judge what the south did by their own age, they come off rather badly.

The south lost a legal election and instead of accepting that result and as the north had done since the founding of the country, they behaved like spoiled children and decided to leave the union.

And then instead of doing it within the Constitution by going to Congress and trying to find a political solution... They did it outside the Constitution by rebellion.

I think getting out of the union was the right way forward for the south. Slavery was central to how society was organized with about 30% of all household owned at least one slave. (and in some states it was above 45%)
And it made up a huge part of the economy.

But by the moral standard of their own age, they should have tried the legal and peaceful way out before starting a war of independence.



* (letter to Sam Chapman, in 1907)
Ok so you can not admit the fault of the bankers..got it. That is very sad.
I respectfully disagree that the south started the war. Our homeland was invaded due to greed of politicians and industrial business owners. The south tried to peacefully sucede
But Licoln would not even talk...he simply did not wish to loose millions in revenue.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a state may NOT sucede. It is not constitutional to force a sovereign state to stay in a voluntary union. Our Union was formed by the states,not vice versa. States granted a few inumerated powers only, all other powers were to be held by the states.Lincoln reversed this completely and formed a huge bureaucracy with no debt ceiling. Edited Thank you Mr Lincoln
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top