The Real Cause of Secession

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
And ignoring the context that they ratified the Constitution as the people of independent states; each by the act of its respective people, vs. its legislature as before.

No, the states were already independent, and it wouldn't identify the ratifying body.
Their people each simply ratified it, for their state only; thus establishing the people of each state as its final authority.
According to you they ratified it as one group; but that didn't happen.
Each state's people acted to ratify the Constitution for their state,, just as their legislature had done for the Articles of Confederation for their state.
That was the main difference between the two unions... and the sole difference as far as each state's independence or final authority went.

Nonetheless, what they agreed to was a Constitution that granted ultimate sovereignty to the People of The United States, granted Supremacy to the laws of the United States, and granted Judicial review to the Supreme court of the United states. Thus the term "abandoned" used explicitly by Texas above. And all without any provision to return any of these powers back to the states. And this is how the courts have ruled on multiple occasions.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Meaning you concede the context, but choose to ignore it and stick to your story.
Thank for an enjoyable discussion... I guess.

I guess that sort of gymnastics is kinda your specialty.

Does this help you:

However, what they agreed to was a Constitution that granted ultimate sovereignty to the People of The United States, granted Supremacy to the laws of the United States, and granted Judicial review to the Supreme court of the United states. Thus the term "abandoned" used explicitly by Texas above. And all without any provision to return any of these powers back to the states. And this is how the courts have ruled on multiple occasions.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
However, what they agreed to was a Constitution that granted ultimate sovereignty to the People of The United States
As I said, the Constitution is (obviously) written in the pre-ratification context, where each state retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence.
As I said, your assumption that "the People of The United States" refers to a single group, is wholly circular, in that you presumed the United States to be the same independent state that you claim the Constitution established.
And so, you are reading in circles, and thus making a circular argument.

Independent states do not "grant" any power. They delegate only, since this does not deny their independence.
Again, you merely presume your conclusion, as with all circular arguments.
If you consider this "gymnastics," you must consider walking an Olympic event since it's common sense.
 
Last edited:

KSKEY

Private
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
The cause of the secessionists was slavery. Which they felt was being, in your words "boxed in." In 1820, I think there was still this idea of compromise meaning equal numbers of free and slave states, as well as the 36 30' line. By 1850 it was clear that slave states were going to be a minority in the United States. The Republican platform restricting slavery from the west was thought to hurt slavery elsewhere and lead to its ultimate extinction. The country couldn't continue half slave and half free.

The cause of the United States was the preservation of the Union. The white US soldiers destroyed slavery as a means to an end( the black US soldiers may have had that the other way around). But that's because the US understood that slavery was the cause of secession, and end slavery and end secession, now and forever.
I have never denied slavery to be a cause of secession and even of war. But I do try to illustrate that slavery spurred secessionists because it was economically viable and quite lucrative, not because they evilly wanted to protract a perverse and immoral institution. Over half the South's wealth was in the property of slaves, and as wicked as it seems to us today, they were interested in protecting that substantial portion of their wealth and the way of life through which they had obtained it. We can all agree that slavery was a horrible injustice, but the question here is causes not morality.

If the cause of the United States was preserving the union by destroying slavery, they were a little over zealous. White Union soldiers destroyed more than just slavery. They left Southern lands a veritable quagmire and ditched throngs of slaves they emancipated there with no resources or means for life in liberty. Many abruptly freed slaves became ill and perished from exposure and starvation trying to keep up with their liberators. Though the destruction of slavery may have been a priority for Union soldiers, emancipated slaves seem to have been of distant if any concern. I think a truly benevolent intent in destroying slavery would have included a reasonable effort to provide freed slaves with resources to sustain them in sudden liberty. Unfortunately, Union troops destroyed virtually everything they didn't need for themselves and left emancipated slaves to their own, woefully meager devices. That abandonment, and events that followed, lead me to doubt slavery was THE cause as so many fervently declare it.
 

KSKEY

Private
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
But neither side claimed there were two independent states. Rather, the North claimed that there was only one.
And the South claimed that every state was independent; and that the northern states levied war against them; however again, this was not done under their power as such, but strictly as an illicit act under claim of an independent state that did not exist.
Therefore it was not a war as such, but a false-flag initiative.
Therefore calling it a war, would likewise be false-- particularly since the conclusion claimed that the USA was an independent state from before its initiation, to the present date.
I get your false-flag premise, and I can see some merit in it. But it was a war. It likely had covert operations in it or underneath it, but it qualifies as a war...
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
I get your false-flag premise, and I can see some merit in it. But it was a war. It likely had covert operations in it or underneath it, but it qualifies as a war...
Let's be accurate.
The proper sovereign power in each state was its respective people, who ratified the Constitution by their own act through state deputies; not through their state or federal officials.
But by 1861, it seems that the officials of the Union states had proclaimed themselves the sovereign power, operating in the people's name solely by the people's power of franchise.

So it was a revolutionary coup in those Union states, which precipitated a false-flag invasion of the seceding states on the basis of said coup; and which to this day, claims that it was a civil war in a pre-existing independent state... that in truth never existed.
I can't make this up.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
I don't think people's motivations are irrelevant.
They are when one independent state attacks another, on the grounds that they're both dependent states of the same independent state.
Then the reality of sovereign independence is all that matters.
And the Northern states had been denying the independence of the southern states for about 30 years; so there was no bad reason to leave a wife-beater who says he owns you.
And no good reason to stay.
Particularly since the northern states had threatened to secede in the past, so was obviously about power.
 
Last edited:

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
As I said, the Constitution is (obviously) written in the pre-ratification context, where each state retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence.
As I said, your assumption that the People of The United States" refers to a single group, is wholly circular, in that you presumes the United Stats to be the same independent state that you claim the Constitution established.
And so, you are reading in circles, and thus making a circular argument.

Independent states do not "grant" any power. They delegate only, since this does not deny their independence.
Again, you merely presume your conclusion, as with all circular arguments.
If you consider this "gymnastics," you must consider walking an Olympic event since it's common sense.

Texas claimed they abandoned their independence when they joined the United States. I notice you have ignored this repeatedly. Why?
 

KSKEY

Private
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Let's be accurate.
The proper sovereign power in each state was its respective people, who ratified the Constitution by their own act through state deputies; not through their state or federal officials.
But by 1861, it seems that the officials of the Union states had proclaimed themselves the sovereign power, operating in the people's name solely by the people's power of franchise.

So it was a revolutionary coup in those Union states, which precipitated a false-flag invasion of the seceding states on the basis of said coup; and which to this day, claims that it was a civil war in a pre-existing independent state... that in truth never existed.
I can't make this up.
I understand the advent of federalism, or the subjugation of the states to the central (federal) government, being at the heart the events that led to secession, but it was war nonetheless.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
And I notice that you have a problem with context.

Context please? A vague anecdote does not a sound argument make; and equivocation even less.

You don't get the context of a document entitled:

A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.

in this thread which is entitled "The Real Cause of Secession." That is very troubling indeed.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
I understand the advent of federalism, or the subjugation of the states to the central (federal) government, being at the heart the events that led to secession, but it was war nonetheless.
I'm not certain you understand it.
The subjugation of the states to the federal government, was in strictly in the context of delegation by the people of each independent state, as the supreme power therein.
The "war," meanwhile, was not levied in that context, but the state officials holding that supreme power, as an independent state which in truth never existed.
So that wasn't a war, so much as a revolution in each union state; followed by a false-flag invasion of other independent states thereby, on the basis that those states were also dependent on this fictional unified state.
So simply calling it a "war" would be quite misleading, and therefore bad history to say the least.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
And ignoring the context that they ratified the Constitution as the people of independent states; each by the act of its respective people, vs. its legislature as before.

No, the states were already independent, and it wouldn't identify the ratifying body as with the Articles of Confederation (which identified them as the state delegates)
Their people each simply ratified the Constitution, for their state only; thus establishing the people of each state as its final authority.
According to you they ratified it as one group; but that didn't happen.
Each state's people acted to ratify the Constitution for their state,, just as their legislature had done for the Articles of Confederation for their state.
That was the main difference between the two unions... and the sole difference as far as each state's independence or final authority went.

Your conclusion, would require that the states abrogated their independence to form a single independent state; but that didn't happen either.
They only formed a continental union of independent states, like the EU; with the difference that the people of each state were in final authority over their independent state.
Sorry, your wrong. The supreme court ruled on the nature of the existence between the states, the people, and the country as early as 1793. Just five years after ratification of the constitution.
“We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution. Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner, and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc. etc.” – Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793

They again ruled on this nature in other antebellum court cases.

"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. . . . America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects, it is competent. The people have declared, that in the exercise of all the powers given for these objects, it is supreme.... The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great empire-for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate.

"The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it." [19 U.S. 264] Cohen vs Virginia 1821

In fact I am unaware of any antebellum supreme court cases that ruled the states were independent. If you have such a case(s) I would be very interested to see them.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
They are when one independent state attacks another, on the grounds that they're both dependent states of the same independent state.
Then the reality of sovereign independence is all that matters.
And the Northern states had been denying the independence of the southern states for about 30 years; so there was no bad reason to leave a wife-beater who says he owns you.
And no good reason to stay.
Particularly since the northern states had threatened to secede in the past, so was obviously about power.
Why did the secessionists say they were seceding? What did South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas and Georgia give as their reasons for secession?
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
You don't get the context of a document entitled:

A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.

in this thread which is entitled "The Real Cause of Secession." That is very troubling indeed.
Yes, and you don't get the context of a document entitled "Declaration of Independence," which reads that
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
They were simply being formal and diplomatic.
But unlike the colonies, the seceding parties were already independent states.
So they didn't have to be technically accurate in their assertions for secession, since it was their absolute right as independent states.
 

Similar threads

Top