Was the southern states attempt at disunion peaceful?

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

Was the southern states attempt at disunion peaceful?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • No

    Votes: 18 75.0%

  • Total voters
    24
Status
Not open for further replies.

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Location
Central Massachusetts
You are confusing the slave-colonies had the "Natural right" to attempt secession but the Legal right under the British Constitution was explicitly rejected. And legal matters can never be settled by violence and war. It was the Lincoln administration that chose to appeal to "Might" over legal negotiations.
The colonies weren't 'seceding' over the issue of slavery. The Confederacy was.

As to your final sentence: complete and utter nonsense!
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Corporal
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
Wasn't it the the lack of right of the people to decide for themselves the gripe of the rebellious 13 colonies?
One of the reasons the founders rebelled is because they had no say in their government. They tried for eleven years to get England to recognize their rights as Englishman in a system were they had no representation. When that failed they then rebelled.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
The fact remains that the Alaska Supreme Court used it as precedent in their decision that secession was unconstitutional. So we have at least two Supreme Court cases, one federal, one state, funding that secession is unconstitutional. You have your opinion which has no force of law in our judicial system.

The fact remains that both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Alaska Supreme Court have both recognized that neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Alaska Constitution has so much as a single word in it prohibiting secession. And we both know perfectly well if they did, the Courts would shout it from the mountaintop. But they don't. So both Courts fraudulently use the language from a dead letter, the AoC. No one is fooled. Indeed, the Courts don't even fool themselves. Which is why Jefferson Davis was never even tried, much less convicted.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
“The constitution must be adopted in toto and forever.” James Madison

Adorable. No show me the words "in toto and forever" in the Constitution. Or in any of the State ratifications. Or in any of the admission acts for any of the States. I'll wait. And please do hurry. After all, you didn't hesitate to show me those words in Madison's letter to Hamilton.
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
One of the reasons the founders rebelled is because they had no say in their government. They tried for eleven years to get England to recognize their rights as Englishman in a system were they had no representation. When that failed they then rebelled.
Since when have colonies or territories have representation in congress or parliament? Certainly not during the 18th and 19th centuries.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Grant does receive a lot of heat for inheriting the slave from his father in law. He detested the practice and thereby granted his slave freedom after the inheritance. His wife Julia and Sherman, on the other hand, were more enthusiastic slaveowners. The former being a source of embarrassment for Grant as she and her “servant” often accompanied him during campaigns.
Post 1865 Julia's slave was free. Not sure why he or she would be an embarrassment . There was no comprehensive program to transition slaves into working society.
Leftyhunter
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Corporal
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
And which in which British Court was it that the Colonists filed a lawsuit to achieve their independence?
They couldn’t, they had no representation in that government.
The fact remains that both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Alaska Supreme Court have both recognized that neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Alaska Constitution has so much as a single word in it prohibiting secession. And we both know perfectly well if they did, the Courts would shout it from the mountaintop. But they don't. So both Courts fraudulently use the language from a dead letter, the AoC. No one is fooled. Indeed, the Courts don't even fool themselves. Which is why Jefferson Davis was never even tried, much less convicted.
The fact remains that the US Supreme court is the highest court in the land and their decisions are final until their is a reversal from a future court or an amendment is added to the constitution. You can claim it's fraudulent all you want but that's your opinion, and like my opinion on supreme court cases, means exactly didley and squat.

You stated that Texas v White was "useless propaganda", the use of that case in the Alaskan Supreme Court decision shows that your statement is false. It was used and it was used as ratio decidendi by the Alaskan Supreme Court.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Corporal
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
Adorable. No show me the words "in toto and forever" in the Constitution. Or in any of the State ratifications. Or in any of the admission acts for any of the States. I'll wait. And please do hurry. After all, you didn't hesitate to show me those words in Madison's letter to Hamilton.
Original Intent
1: the actual aim or purpose esp. of the framers of the U.S. Constitution
2: a conservative theory in constitutional law: only those guarantees intended by the framers and set forth in the text of the Constitution are valid compare
judicial restraint
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
They couldn’t, they had no representation in that government.

The fact remains that the US Supreme court is the highest court in the land and their decisions are final until their is a reversal from a future court or an amendment is added to the constitution. You can claim it's fraudulent all you want but that's your opinion, and like my opinion on supreme court cases, means exactly didley and squat.

You stated that Texas v White was "useless propaganda", the use of that case in the Alaskan Supreme Court decision shows that your statement is false. It was used and it was used as ratio decidendi by the Alaskan Supreme Court.

The fact remains that both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Alaska Supreme Court have recognized that neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Alaska Constitution has so much as a single word in it prohibiting secession. And we both know perfectly well if they did, the Courts would shout it from the mountaintop. But they don't. So both Courts fraudulently use the language from a dead letter, the AoC. No one is fooled. Indeed, the Courts don't even fool themselves. Which is why Jefferson Davis was never even tried, much less convicted.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Adorable. No show me the words "in toto and forever" in the Constitution. Or in any of the State ratifications. Or in any of the admission acts for any of the States. I'll wait.
It takes consent of the others. Otherwise, I could simply declare my backyard as the 51st state.
Your backyard is a totally different situation than binding states to a so-called union the people of those states no longer wanted to be a part.
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Original Intent
1: the actual aim or purpose esp. of the framers of the U.S. Constitution
2: a conservative theory in constitutional law: only those guarantees intended by the framers and set forth in the text of the Constitution are valid compare
judicial restraint

Can't find the words "in toto and forever" in the Constitution, can you? Did you also check the ratifications and admitting acts? Not there either, huh? And we both know if those words were there, you would show them to anyone who asked. Instantly. But they are not there, so you come up with, well whatever it is you are now using for the latest dodge. Not having it. I want the words "in toto and forever" from the Constitution. Please hurry.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
They couldn’t, they had no representation in that government.

The fact remains that the US Supreme court is the highest court in the land and their decisions are final until their is a reversal from a future court or an amendment is added to the constitution. You can claim it's fraudulent all you want but that's your opinion, and like my opinion on supreme court cases, means exactly didley and squat.

You stated that Texas v White was "useless propaganda", the use of that case in the Alaskan Supreme Court decision shows that your statement is false. It was used and it was used as ratio decidendi by the Alaskan Supreme Court.

I have news for you. Every Court in the Colonies was a British Court. As for Texas, worthless, corrupt propaganda.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Post 1865 Julia's slave was free. Not sure why he or she would be an embarrassment . There was no comprehensive program to transition slaves into working society.
Leftyhunter
“Grant understood his tiny, cross-eyed wife’s need for familiar, reliable help to deal with unfamiliar military camp conditions and frequent moves, often with their four children in tow. As the price of having Julia with him, Grant tolerated Jule’s presence, though the slave’s arrival at his headquarters was surely an embarrassment. Almost immediately, one of Grant’s detractors tried to brandish Jule as a weapon against him. In January 1862, Abraham Lincoln received an anonymous letter from Cairo, decrying Grant’s drinking and his “secesh” wife with her slave, “as is the case now in camp here.” Though the president sought information from Grant’s congressman and sponsor, Elihu Washburne, Lincoln ultimately did nothing about the charges; perhaps his own wife’s alleged “secesh” tendencies sparked empathy for the young brigadier.

When Grant left Cairo in early February for Fort Henry, in Tennessee, he urged Julia to take her children and live with his parents in Kentucky. Several months later, after the Battle of Shiloh, he sent for her to join him in Memphis, and she followed when he moved his headquarters to Corinth, Miss. Julia, Jule and 4-year-old Jesse Grant then lived with the general in LaGrange, Tenn., before the trio pushed south to Holly Springs, Miss., in late November, courtesy of a pass that Grant issued for “Mrs. Grant servant & child.”

“When I visited the General during the war, I nearly always had Julia with me as nurse,” Julia recalled in her memoirs. “She came near being captured at Holly Springs.” Grant’s troops had seized Holly Springs only a few weeks earlier, and when Julia arrived, the sight of the Federal general’s wife with her slave provoked questions about her devotion to the Union cause. A Confederate woman who encountered Julia in a dressmaker’s shop asked, “You are Southern, aren’t you?” Julia replied, “No, I am from the West. Missouri is my native state.” The Mississippi matron persisted, “Yes, we know, but Missouri is a Southern state. Surely, you are Southern in feeling and principle.” Indignantly, Julia declared, “No, indeed, I am the most loyal of the loyal.””

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top