Where in the US Constitution does it say that Lincoln was granted the legal authority to initiate a military invasion against the southern states ?

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Like most things in life slavery was a mixed bag. There must have been some bad slave owners and yet the bad slave owners were actually few and far between. Think of all the effort that was exerted by the northern abolition movement and how they tried so hard to incite the slaves into open violent rebellion. But it was all for naught.

I read a book a long time ago, it was the autobiography of Frederick Douglass and the book made a very big impression on me. I realize now that slavery was never a racial issue. It was never about whites enslaving blacks and all the rest of it. More than anything else, slavery was about the strong enslaving the weak, and what the story of Frederick Douglass proves more than anything else is that the strong cannot enslave the strong.

The most horrific thing about slavery was the international slave trade, and how they packed those poor folks like sardines into tiny spaces during the long voyage across the Atlantic; but once the lucky ones who managed to survive the horrific voyage arrived at their destination they were treated very well for the most part and that would explain why they turned a deaf ear to the incendiary pleas of the bloodthirsty abolitionists.
Are you sure you read the same book as I did you mention in your above post?

Frederick Douglass: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by himself.

From the flyleaf of the book:

"In a powerful, unapologetic prose, Douglass's account of his early years gave white Americans of the time the victim's view of the institution of slavery--showing its daily humiliations, hypocrisies, and matter-of-fact brutalities."

Sounds a lot like "racial issues" to me.

Maybe you need to check out a copy from the local library and read it again.

Seriously,
Unionblue
 

RebelWeber

Private
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Location
Pittsgrove,NJ
The problem is that the Constitution was not set up as a contract. As Madison pointed out, "[t]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Once you were in, the only way to get out according to another Virginian and Founding Father, John Marshall, was "approval from the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them" and unilateral secession was "usurpation and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."

That's exactly what happened. The usurpation was repelled by President Lincoln from April 17, 1861 until President Johnson's proclamation ending the war on April 2, 1866.
I would humbly ask you to look at Virginia's adoption of the Constitution I believe she made a few provisions some might even call it an escape clause
 

RebelWeber

Private
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Location
Pittsgrove,NJ
The problem is that the Constitution was not set up as a contract. As Madison pointed out, "[t]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Once you were in, the only way to get out according to another Virginian and Founding Father, John Marshall, was "approval from the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them" and unilateral secession was "usurpation and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."

That's exactly what happened. The usurpation was repelled by President Lincoln from April 17, 1861 until President Johnson's proclamation ending the war on April 2, 1866.
The Kentucky Resolutions, authored by Jefferson, went further than Madison’s Virginia Resolution and asserted that states had the power to nullify unconstitutional federal laws. The Kentucky Resolution declared in part, “[T]he several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those [states], of all unauthorized acts….is the rightful remedy.”

The ideas in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions became a precursor to John C. Calhoun’s arguments about the power of states to nullify federal laws. However, during the nullification controversy of the 1830s, Madison rejected the legitimacy of nullification, and argued that it was not part of the Virginia position in 1798.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
First of all there was never any rebellion of “slavers” against the federal government. The federal government offered to protect slavery FOREVER with the proposed Corwin Amendment to the US Constitution, and yet the “slavers” told the federal government to shove it.

You seem to be unaware of the large paper trail left by Confederate leaders and slaveholders who stated quite boldly and loudly, they were seceding to preserve and protect slavery.

A few books you might want to consider checking out.

Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War, by Charles B. Drew.

The Fire-Eaters, by Eric H. Walther.

The Gray And The Black: The Confederate Debate On Emancipation, by Robert F. Durden.

What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, And The Civil War, by Chandra Manning.

The Counter-Revolution Of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina, by Manisha Sinha.

And then there are those pesky Declarations of Secession from several Southern States that list slavery as their primary reason for seceding.

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
*Edited* it doesn't matter how it worked out right is right and wrong is wrong the sovereign state of South Carolina had every right to secede let me put it to you another
Are you not allowed to unfriend your friends are you not allowed to break up is divorce not possible?

The two events are not even comparable in the slightest.

You can't rip a third of the country and population away and then pretend in some way it compares to getting rid of a former friend or a divorce.

You might as well compare a bullet to an atomic bomb.
 

RebelWeber

Private
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Location
Pittsgrove,NJ
The problem is that the Constitution was not set up as a contract. As Madison pointed out, "[t]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Once you were in, the only way to get out according to another Virginian and Founding Father, John Marshall, was "approval from the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them" and unilateral secession was "usurpation and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."

That's exactly what happened. The usurpation was repelled by President Lincoln from April 17, 1861 until President Johnson's proclamation ending the war on April 2, 1866.
As for the ratification of the Constitution the Virginia vote was hardly a stunning victory A total of 170 delegates were elected. Of these, 168 voted on ratification: 89 for, 79 against.

Let me just say I would not have fired on Fort Sumter I would have liked to find diplomatic way out ( Robert Tombs ) I do not like slavery but I agree that the states had and do have every right when they felt threatened to remove themselves to a place of safety the declaration of Independence says so that's really all I have to say on it I want to go have a nice weekend I have added you to my list of people to watch I have enjoyed debating you have a good weekend
 

RebelWeber

Private
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Location
Pittsgrove,NJ
The two events are not even comparable in the slightest.

You can't rip a third of the country and population away and then pretend in some way it compares to getting rid of a former friend or a divorce.

You might as well compare a bullet to an atomic bomb.
Forces is force it doesn't matter the instrument.
 
As for the ratification of the Constitution the Virginia vote was hardly a stunning victory A total of 170 delegates were elected. Of these, 168 voted on ratification: 89 for, 79 against.

Let me just say I would not have fired on Fort Sumter I would have liked to find diplomatic way out ( Robert Tombs ) I do not like slavery but I agree that the states had and do have every right when they felt threatened to remove themselves to a place of safety the declaration of Independence says so that's really all I have to say on it I want to go have a nice weekend I have added you to my list of people to watch I have enjoyed debating you have a good weekend
Thanks and enjoy the weekend.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
When two or more people agree to a contract in this case the Constitution that contract must be obeyed if any person breaches that contract it immediately becomes null and void then then of course we have a breach of contract this can be ignored and we can continue with the original agreement but when a breach of contract happens over and over I feel that the offended party has every right to simply leave with no regard to the original contract or the original participants.
When someone feels a breach of contract has occurred, they take it to court. They don't start shooting.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
You seem to be unaware of the large paper trail left by Confederate leaders and slaveholders who stated quite boldly and loudly, they were seceding to preserve and protect slavery.
How does secession protect slavery? It doesn't return runaway slaves from Ohio or Pennsylvania. It doesn't prevent slave insurrection conspiracies being concocted in New York or Massachusetts. It doesn't open new territories for slavery. So what does it do?
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
When you say things like the slave holders rebellion all I can say is your bias is showing and bid you good day sir!
The cabals in the seceding states made it clear their issue was slavery, argue with them. They ignited a shooting war against the USA, argue with them. Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the secessionists themselves. They were very clear. Good day.
 

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Not to state the obvious, but slavery was 100% a racial issue from the very beginning and was understood as such at the time. This was how people thought in the 19th Century, particularly in the American South. The following holds true broadly but is focused on the Americas in particular.

The entire concept of race as we now understand it was constructed in the 18th and 19th Centuries to justify the enslavement of Africans. Prior to this period, race was used much more broadly to simply mean "people in my group/household/family/community." The enslavement of Africans originally began as a response to the difficulty in enslaving other populations in the Americas - Native Americans could run away and blend into the local communities and indentured servants would eventually hypothetically serve out their term of service. Furthermore, improving economic conditions in England reduced the pool of potential indentured laborers. A new solution was needed. In the Americas, skilled farmers were needed to grow and harvest the difficult Tobacco crop. Africans were chosen because they were geographically close to Europe and had a background in agriculture.

However, with the coming of the Enlightenment, elaborate justifications began to be constructed as to why it was okay to enslave certain people and not others. From there came the modern definition of race and the belief that certain traits were inherent to a race and that some races were superior to others as a result.

Needless to say, it is all pseudoscience to justify a system so horrid that words fail to fully convey the evil at the core of it.

This is why a distinct difference emerges in the forms of slavery practiced in the 18th and 19th Centuries to earlier periods. The Romans for example simply enslaved whomever they defeated in battle. For a long time in fact, the source of slaves was defeated enemies. The specific conditions of the settlement of the Americas as well as the broader social and intellectual movements of the 18th and 19th Centuries is what led to chattel slavery in the American South, and all of this was directly and intimately tied to the issue of race. "Race" may not have even received its modern definition had it not been for American slavery.

Here is an article about this topic - no modern politics here, just a history of the concept of race:
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02-12.htm

And this is all covered in this video, which does not discuss modern politics but the evolution of the definition of race:
Unless a society can concoct a permanent barrier, the slaves assimulate and graduate into civil society. In the USA, it was probable after 1787 that there weren't going to be very many more involuntary immigrants as Britain was starting to take a negative view of the slave trade's impact on Africa. The United States was expanding into a thinly populated continent. The population they could have conquered had already proven they would rather die than be enslaved, and that indigenous population had very low resistance to European diseases anyway.
Unless the descendants of the slaves could be kept permanently enslaved, the institution was going to die out.
The Romans never worried about these racial categories, because the slaves were just conquered peoples, of any nationality or ethnicity.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
How does secession protect slavery? It doesn't return runaway slaves from Ohio or Pennsylvania. It doesn't prevent slave insurrection conspiracies being concocted in New York or Massachusetts. It doesn't open new territories for slavery. So what does it do?

It was designed to maintain Southern slaveholders in to keeping their status as the first US citizens to become millionaires, off the backs of slaves and, remember this one, COTTON.

Anything that was perceived as a threat to slavery was a threat to their money and power.

Secession was supposed to protect those goals..
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Forces is force it doesn't matter the instrument.
So, in your eyes, a bullet does equal an atomic bomb?

There are degrees of force, even the law recognizes that concept. Why you expect a rebellion of 13 states equates to a "simple" divorce between a man and a woman, is simply unrealistic in that degree of comparisons.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
I don't know how to put it any more plainly than SC did: the complaint was that the Federal government used to enforce Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the Constitution that all States agreed to follow when they joined the Union, but they had ceased to abide by that portion of the fundamental law of the land. You can characterize it differently all you like, but they were very clear. All the States made an agreement, and knew what they were signing up for before they joined the Union, but now half the States refused to abide by portions of that agreement. Yet it was the Southern States that were the problem?

I understand why you come down on that side. I've often thought that it is tragic that this disagreement involved slavery, because that immediately kills any interest in seeing things from the South's point of view. I wonder if the other States had disregarded some other portion of the Constitution, such as election law or the type of government that States were supposed to have, if the South's accusations of "refusing to abide by the Constitution" wouldn't carry more weight. But because slavery was such a bad thing, there is no interest in anything but condemnation for the South, when they had a valid Constitutional complaint.

If a majority of States no longer wanted to abide by the fugitive slave clause, the way to deal with that would have been to pass a Constitutional amendment rendering it invalid, as indeed was done after the war with the 13th amendment.
And if the majority of the southern slave states found life untenable in the Union the way to deal with it would be to approach congress (to pass an amendment) or the courts for redress, not have a fit and start shooting. From South Carolina’s prospective the whole thing can be summed up as “states rights for us but not for you”. 😂
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
The Declaration of Independence was enacted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. It was by “unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America.” In other words the governments of 13 sovereign states got together as a CONFEDERATION and issued a unanimous declaration.
Well, actually, it is a declaration by thirteen colonies in armed rebellion against their lawful sovereign. They are wishing/hoping/striving to become "sovereign states", but no other nation in the world considered them to be such. The thirteen need to win the American revolution to establish their independent existence as "sovereign states". The treaty ending the war and acknowledging that independence in 1783 says that it is a treaty between ===two=== countries. It does not say the thirteen "United States" are individually independent and sovereign states.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Well, actually, it is a declaration by thirteen colonies in armed rebellion against their lawful sovereign. They are wishing/hoping/striving to become "sovereign states", but no other nation in the world considered them to be such. The thirteen need to win the American revolution to establish their independent existence as "sovereign states". The treaty ending the war and acknowledging that independence in 1783 says that it is a treaty between ===two=== countries. It does not say the thirteen "United States" are individually independent and sovereign states.
Retell it, brother!

(For the umpteenth time.)
 
Top