AGEOD Forums

Whatever that means but I can start a thread,weird.
this is in response to thread about avoiding the war.
Patrick Henry was asked by the governour of Virginia that if his country decided it wanted to leave these united states of America(the correct way of saying it)would it be possible?
Henry replied"certainly,but be warned,some future president may invade your country and burn down your homes"(very prescient of him!)
In otherwords seccession was legal up until 1861.
I see the words treason and traitors being thrown about,was anyone tried for treason after the war?Why not?
Because as evidenced by Bledsoe(the man who was going to defend Davis if he were tried)seccession was legal up until 1861 when Lincoln MADE it illegall.This was going to be the main defense point and the victors knew they were on shaky ground there.
Read his book"Was Jefferson Davis a Traitor"very enlightening.
As for slavery excuse me but was'ent Delaware,a SLAVE state, part of the enlightened union?
I also see the word tyrant being used,lincoln was the closest thing we have had in these united states.
The invasion of peacefull, independent countries,the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus(a poster stated it was allowed under the constitution,eh could you provide the article in that document that allows the suspension of an unalienable right granted by the almighty!just curious.
So the war could have been avoided be the north doing what they had been doing for the 4 months after the country(look the word state up in the dictionary)
of South Carolina decided to leave the union.nothing
But the federal gov.could not put up with the lack of revenue it lost when further countries decided to leave.
It all came down to money and as a capitalist I can sort of understand this reasoning.
As I have stated I can't respond in the usual manner so forgive me for my work around solution
will have to post rebuttals(which I see as coming for my heretical views)as threads unfortunately unless we take this to th matrix site.


EDIT POCUS: Shortened title of thread

No.

I've examined this a lot. A whole lot. I've been pursuing this question longer than half the posters here have been alive.

The whole Patrick Henry thing, States agreeing to the Constitution with reservations, yadda, yadda, yadda - I've done the homework, believe me. A lot of homework.

It's really, really simple. Go to the Infamous Thread & read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, carefully. Keep in mind all the events to which he refers, and what had happened from November 1860 to March 1861. Marvel at how he reminds his audience of the history of the Union, the Founding and the establishment of the Constitution so effectively and concisely. While you're reading him, remember he was a lawyer & acknowledged by his peers to be a very good one, maybe the best in Illinois. That's not unimportant, he was trained and experienced in Covering All the Bases.

He addresses every single claim and refutes all nonsense about the US being anything less than a national government whose authority springs from all the people of this nation - the Constitution is NOT a compact among the several States - it is the UNITED States. BTW, this is why, not merely for grammatical reasons, that the Constitution employs the construction 'the several States' in several places: the United States is a single entity; where the several States are exercising their lawful powers, they are explicitly referred to as 'the several States.'

Lincoln is right in every single particular and understanding. The Southern conspirators were wrong.

BTW, Presidents can't 'make anything illegal' - they don't have that power.

On a side note.

Before 1860, the United States was used as plural, as in 'the United States are...'. After the war, the United States began to be referred in the singular as in 'the United States is...'. The concept of the country was changed by the war. The collection of states became a nation.

Thanks for your comments, barkmann44. Unfortunately, the debate has been dominated by GraniteStater, whose final argument is always the same. The government can do no wrong. Lincoln was the President, so he must have been right. I wonder how he feels about Viet Nam, or Iraq. I no longer enjoy this forum now that every thread is dominated by GraniteStater. So, he wins. I will not post here again except to seek technical help. If anyone needs my help with a Civil War question, PM me. I have an extensive library.

To bad really, I enjoyed it for a while.

khbynum wrote:Thanks for your comments, barkmann44. Unfortunately, the debate has been dominated by GraniteStater, whose final argument is always the same. The government can do no wrong. Lincoln was the President, so he must have been right. I wonder how he feels about Viet Nam, or Iraq. I no longer enjoy this forum now that every thread is dominated by GraniteStater. So, he wins. I will not post here again except to seek technical help. If anyone needs my help with a Civil War question, PM me. I have an extensive library.

To bad really, I enjoyed it for a while.

Hang in there. Some of us here actually prefer the nuance of a two-sided discussion.

This is posted solely because I read an implied, but clear 'shot'. Usually, I don't care. Anyone who knows me well knows that I am far from an inconsiderate person.

There are some things in history that cannot be gainsaid, not by any fair minded and serious student. Indeed, an investigation of the subject shows that the Father of History, Herodotus, was inspired to sit down and write the The Persian War because he wished to bequeath a "jewel forever," as he described his hopes for his effort.

He knew that it would not be treasured if it were not an accounting that was candid. Truth can be a trickier proposition, especially absolute truth, except for one assertion made by a defendant in a Roman court two millenia ago - this is, of course, a personal belief. We can try to be candid though, and honest.

Any fair minded student of American history cannot study the well documented writings of the Founders and walk away with the conclusion that a unilateral dissolution of the American Union was something that was tolerated as a condition of that Founding.

To maintain this, in contravention of the first object of the Preamble, the unmistakable language prohibiting extra-constitutional arrangements by States, and the entire tenor of the discussions and decisions of the Founding, shows that one possibly has difficulties interpreting what one has read, even after repeated readings and ample time given for consideration, has an incomplete acquaintance with the subject, or, and one is always loath to arrive at this, is simply determined to turn a deaf ear to conclusions that someone who flunked out of fourteen law schools would, at last, agree to, no matter how reluctantly.

This "interesting notion" of whether a State may secede from this Union has had a long pedigree in the annals of folly. You are most certainly entitled to discuss this - while you are at it, you could perhaps get back to the CW2 community and report the novel observations that the closest celestial body to the Earth is made of green cheese, that Columbus landed in the Marianas, and that the result of setting a test tube filled with hydrogen alight is really what the fine people in Atlanta sell as a refreshment.

It is not important whether they had the right to secede. It is not so very important that they did secede.

What needs examined is what the reasons they thought they had no better course.

Neither side was composed of saints. Both sides were biased and would not see the objections or desires of the other.

The south’s differences with the north were sectional. They saw the slave issue as a litmus test. Essentially limiting that institutions expansion meant that they would never have like interests with the rest of the country. The idea of people inciting slave revolts and wanting a war over the mess was frightening to people and put to political use by the planters.

On the other side most people didn’t want the blacks having rights. They didn’t like abolitionists but you could stir them up with religion and patriotic themes. Something still true today. Patriotism may be the religion these days.

Lincoln sidelined the Supreme Court during the war. Too many justices were from the south or Democrats and may not have come up with what he wanted. No case regarding secession was heard until 1869 when it was in firm Republican control.

It was a political conflict that turned into a war.

It was not a glorious cause as the south would have it and the Union was not really a white knight to the rescue.

When Lincoln took office in March 1861 there were 8 justices sitting on the Supreme Court as there was a vacancy. Needless to say, all of them were Democrats as there had not been a Republican President before Lincoln, who could have nominated Republican judges. The justices were evenly divided between North and South: Campbell - AL, Catron - TN, Clifford - ME, Gier - PA, McLean - OH, Nelson - NY, Taney - MD and Wayne - GA. However in April 1861, Campbell resigned to join the Confederacy and McLean died. Lincoln could have instantly appointed three Northern Republican justices, had he desired, to offset the remaining three Southern ones.

Lincoln waited until 1862 when he appointed three: Davis - IL, Miller - IA and Swayne - OH. In 1863, the court was expanded to 10 allowing the appointment of Field - CA. In 1864, Chief Justice Taney died and his seat was filled by Chase - OH. Lincoln's Supreme Court contained 5 Republicans and 8 Northerners. I do not that there were too many Southerners or Democrats to worry Lincoln.

The issue of secession was not tested in the courts during the Civil War because the Southern states had chosen to contest the issue on the battlefield and not the court room. By declaring their independence, the Southern states were not in a position to push a legal case on secession through the federal court system.

I am allowed to post here, right?

Just a coupla things:

could stir them up with religion and patriotic themes. Something still true today. Patriotism may be the religion these days.

Just out of curiosity, do you have something against patriotism? Religion? No need to answer, these are rhetorical.

Below is my most recent post from the Other Thread. It's germane here. One should be familiar with what one wishes to deny.

***

If I may, without reigniting a debate (and I mean it, I implore all, I beseech all), I hope to describe the fundamental principle involved in the absolute repugnance of the very idea of secession from the Union - this is meant to inform our fellow posters who may not be familiar with the Founding.

In the kingdom of Great Britain, the Crown is the sovereign. Sovereignty and thus, authority, inheres in, and flows from, the Crown. When Charles II was invited back in 1660, he was greeted with a resolution proclaimed by the Parliament - that this realm, as of ancient days, be ruled by King and Commons. If I understand the British constitution rightly, the Crown is sovereign, but the Commons is the body that makes and determines the law. The law - not just Acts of Parliament (the laws) but law. I'm treading lightly here, for I am certainly no expert on these matters, but if one wishes to understand the Founding, one necessarily must attempt to understand the English Civil War and its import and meaning. To illustrate - AFAIK, Queen Elizabeth II may sit if she wishes when 'God Save the Queen' is played. When the air is concluded, she may rise and say, 'Thank you.'

The Crown is sovereign in the ancient realm and has been since Duke William assumed it in 1066, if not before, through the Anglo-Saxon houses.

In the United States, sovereignty and all lawful authority inhere in, and flow from, the People. All of the People. When the US established its independence and the recognition thereof by HM Government, New Hampshire did not achieve 1/13 of that independence or sovereignty. The United States, the nation, achieved it.

In the UK, if you are doing Very Bad Things in your house, the officer compels you to "Open, in the name of the Queen!" In the US, it's "Open, in the name of the law!"

The People of this nation, the People of the United States, ordained and established a Constitution, an instrument whose effect was actualized on 21 June 1788. The ratification by the States was incidental; the States were instrumentalities to conduct that ratification by the People and to make the point clear, those ratifications were not performed by the legislatures of the several States, but by conventions elected solely and specifically for that purpose: We, the People.

We, the People are the sovereigns, all sovereignty and lawful authority inhere in and flow from, the People of the United States. The President rises when the National Anthem is played.

The very notion of secession is a repugnance of the gravest kind to the sovereignty of the People of the United States. It is not a Constitutional issue, really, it is a defiance of the worst sort, an evil, that denies the sovereignty of the United States and the lawful authority it may exercise: it is a spear thrust into the breast of We, the People.

One last fine point: the United States is a nation. The United States of America is a country. When you assume the uniform of its service, the lapels have 'US' displayed, not 'USA'. The United States as a nation, its nationhood, is a set of principles, the most fundamental being that the only lawful basis for a government is the securing of the rights of individuals. States, states of any kind, do not have rights - they only have powers. Individuals have rights, inalienable rights and We, the People may change our form of government any time we wish.

To strike at Federal authority in this nation is to strike not at the instrumentality chosen by We, the People, not really - although that is a real and valid consequence of the assault; it is to strike at the sovereignty of the United States, and We, the People.

The very idea of secession is a repugnance of the gravest kind. It does not exist as a fit subject of contemplation under the authority and jurisdiction of the United States.

No State ever seceded. No State was ever, for one second, outside of, or alienated from, this Union and nation. The unlawful acts performed were a perversion and attempted destruction of South Carolina's lawful place and status as a State of the Union. Several States were out of their proper relationship with the Constitution - but the nation, and the Union, remained one.

God save the United States

E Pluribus Unum

***

Please feel free to discuss what you wish. You should be acquainted with the above, not to refute me, or Lincoln, but as a matter of being fair minded and just, to understand the principles you wish to deny.

It should also be easy to see why the concept so dear to some is not amenable to any court's jurisdiction in the US.

Ol' Choctaw wrote:It is not important whether they had the right to secede. It is not so very important that they did secede.

What needs examined is what the reasons they thought they had no better course.

Neither side was composed of saints. Both sides were biased and would not see the objections or desires of the other.

The south’s differences with the north were sectional. They saw the slave issue as a litmus test. Essentially limiting that institutions expansion meant that they would never have like interests with the rest of the country. The idea of people inciting slave revolts and wanting a war over the mess was frightening to people and put to political use by the planters.

On the other side most people didn’t want the blacks having rights. They didn’t like abolitionists but you could stir them up with religion and patriotic themes. Something still true today. Patriotism may be the religion these days.

Lincoln sidelined the Supreme Court during the war. Too many justices were from the south or Democrats and may not have come up with what he wanted. No case regarding secession was heard until 1869 when it was in firm Republican control.

It was a political conflict that turned into a war.

It was not a glorious cause as the south would have it and the Union was not really a white knight to the rescue.

I agree with pretty much all of this as a summary of what happened.

I would only add this: The South ultimately lost for many reasons, of course, but two of the most important were two of the major reasons they went to war. First, slavery was morally insupportable, which tended to weaken the southern cause over time. Second, the concept of secession was akin to political nihilism, which meant that the South struggled to pull together at a time when unity was most essential. In essence, the South was founded on an unworkable political doctrine in order to preserve an indefensible social and economic system.

Yep! That is cutting through the muck, but how it was.

fred zeppelin wrote:I agree with pretty much all of this as a summary of what happened.

I would only add this: The South ultimately lost for many reasons, of course, but two of the most important were two of the major reasons they went to war. First, slavery was morally insupportable, which tended to weaken the southern cause over time. Second, the concept of secession was akin to political nihilism, which meant that the South struggled to pull together at a time when unity was most essential. In essence, the South was founded on an unworkable political doctrine in order to preserve an indefensible social and economic system.

Ha! Is that a quote from someone or did you come up with it? It's a damn good way to put it.

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:Ha! Is that a quote from someone or did you come up with it? It's a damn good way to put it.

Sometimes if you leave even a chimpanzee at a keyboard long enough....