Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:46:54 PM EST
I love History, and I am a southerner. I don't think people outside the region understand how we feel about the War of Northern Aggression, known as the "Civil War." Believe us, there was nothing "civil" about it!

Our kids are taught the same history as people outside the region. Abraham Lincoln saved the Union. My question is why wage war against soveriegn States who wanted nothing but to govern themselves. Were our banks so rich, our farms so bountiful, our women so pretty that Lincoln had to senfd hundreds of thousands of troops south to burn our homes, wreck our industry, rape, pillage, and kill our boys? How odd it was for States which favored secession at the Hartford Convention in 1814 during a time of war to object to sister States who seceded in a time of peace - 1860!

The first shots weren't fired in the north, but in South Carolina. Lincoln advised the Governor of that State that he would maintain a garrison on South Carolina soil at Fort Sumter, despite being asked to remove them.

Most think the War ended in 1865, but the entire region was occupied by the military of a northeastern dominated government. Corruption was rampant. Our Founding Father's Constitution was amended without free participation of 11 States. States rights were all but abolished by the 14th Amendment. No longer could a State have a reproduction of the Ten Commandments in its Supreme Court, or lead its school children in prayer. States were denied the basic authgority to protect the most innocent and helpless from abortion. We became a Big Brother country where the Fedxeral Government is involved in every acpect of our lives.

So, was Lincoln's War fought to "save" the Union, or was it to trasnform the Union into something it never was?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 1:25:08 PM EST
I thought the war was fought to free the slaves

You should post your ideas of this in the mega civil war thread going on in the General discussion.

current mega civil war thread
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 3:45:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 3:47:09 PM EST by obershutze916]
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 4:04:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:06:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 7:07:02 PM EST by AClay47]
I'm reading that topic. So far, it has touched upon causes of the war, event though the topic asks for which side members would fight. I offered this topic to ask the question of "Why War?" Until 1861, the country had been united through accomodation, one of the Founding Father's checks and balances. Would the country have been better if northerners and southerners had negotiated or brokered a settlement of their differences, rather than plunging the country into War? 300,000 northerners died, not to mention the staggering losses of the South.

I will resume reading the other topic. Thanks!



Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:18:03 PM EST
Here was one reply, which asks a simialr question:


Originally Posted By libertarian:
Lincoln was the absolute wost president we've ever had. He's the American Stalin in my opinion.

What's the point of "preserving the Union" if you're going to just destroy the very thing that makes the "Union" great?



I'm at page 7.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:34:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 7:50:40 PM EST by QCMGR]
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:46:22 PM EST
Whoa, I made it to page 14. EricTheHun stated the causes of secession well, but they were not causes of war.

Slavery was the wedge issue which compelled the South to secede. To southerners, it appeared they were being dominated by the northeast politically. Slavery itself was not the cause of war. Perhaps, secession was the cause of Lincoln's War against the Confederate States?

My question has less to do with causes of the so-called Civil War and more with Lincoln's choice of military force against people whom he claimed were his constituents.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:49:27 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:57:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By QCMGR:
WTF...What would you have done in his place?


That depends on what the answer to the original question is. What did the south have that was so vital to maintain the union? Even at the cost of many lives?

Must have been the Tobacco crops
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 8:22:16 PM EST
The war was fought by the North to maintain the Union. During the course of the war Lincoln was worried about foreign intervention. This caused him to write the emancipation proclamation and he awaited a Union victory before he could announce it. It effectively precluded the European powers (namely France under Napoleon III and Great Britain) from recognizing the Confederacy. If you read the emancipation, you'll find it only applied to states in rebellion and not to loyal slaveholding states like Deleware, Maryland or Kentucky (which declared neutrality).

Regarding the abolitionist, they were there and some "rallied 'round the flag" too. However, the vast majority of soldiers who volunteered in '61-'62 wanted to preserve the Union and didn't care about freeing the slaves. You'll find plenty of accounts of mistreatment of runaways by Union soldiers and there was even one incident where a Union Lt. who was a Mason shot a Colored Soldier who was trying to kill a Confederate PoW who was also a Mason.

BTW, during the war it was called by the North as the rebellion and the offical reports were compiled into the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 8:40:34 PM EST
Wow, I read all 26 pages. Took a long time. The topic spent much time arguing facts without distinguishing the South's reason for seceding and Lincoln's decision to launch War against the Confederacy. He could have bought all southern slaves for less than the war cost!

Rather than further labor on a page 27+, maybe we can discuss this issue here?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 8:43:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By AClay47:
I love History, and I am a southerner. I don't think people outside the region understand how we feel about the War of Northern Aggression, known as the "Civil War." Believe us, there was nothing "civil" about it!

Our kids are taught the same history as people outside the region. Abraham Lincoln saved the Union. My question is why wage war against soveriegn States who wanted nothing but to govern themselves. Because states are not sovriegn in and of themselves, they are part of one sovreign nationWere our banks so rich, our farms so bountiful, our women so pretty that Lincoln had to senfd hundreds of thousands of troops south to burn our homes, wreck our industry, rape, pillage, and kill our boys? You started it, in SC. As allways, we finished it How odd it was for States which favored secession at the Hartford Convention in 1814 during a time of war to object to sister States who seceded in a time of peace - 1860! Because the Hartford states never actually committed treason, they just discussed it. The south actually committed the offense

The first shots weren't fired in the north, but in South Carolina. Lincoln advised the Governor of that State that he would maintain a garrison on South Carolina soil at Fort Sumter, despite being asked to remove them.Since South Carolina was & is part of the United States, the governor had no right to make that request, and Linclon had no reason to comply

Most think the War ended in 1865, but the entire region was occupied by the military of a northeastern dominated government. Corruption was rampant. Our Founding Father's Constitution was amended without free participation of 11 States. States rights were all but abolished by the 14th Amendment. No longer could a State have a reproduction of the Ten Commandments in its Supreme Court, or lead its school children in prayer. Actually, they could, up untill activist judges mis-read the 1st States were denied the basic authgority to protect the most innocent and helpless from abortion. Up untill Roe, they did. The anti-abortion law is still on the books in WI We became a Big Brother country where the Fedxeral Government is involved in every acpect of our lives. No, we were saved from 50 'little brother governments' who would have been far worse, and from an ignominious life as a 3rd-world minor power

So, was Lincoln's War fought to "save" the Union, or was it to trasnform the Union into something it never was?



Beat to death in other threads

Basically, the States today are 100x more opressive than the Feds, and would be 100x worse if allowed to 'play nation'...

The US would be dominated by foreign interests if we had not gotten the absurd notion that states are sovreign countries out of the minds of the South.

Basically, Linclon saved the Union not only as an entity, but FROM a fate of historical irrelevance...

The only folks who should root for the south are the numbnutz isolationists who'd rather have '40 acres and a mule', but be free to do whatever they want, then have minor & insignificant interaction with the Feds (mind you, 90% of 'bad' law is STATE law), but live in the most powerful country (Economically & militarily) in the world...
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 6:18:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 6:26:25 AM EST by AClay47]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Beat to death in other threads



Not to my knowledge. I read the 27 page thread about "which side would you fight for," and it failed to distinguish between the cause of secession with Lincoln's choice of using War to "save the Union." Yes, your reply did rehash many arguments of the other topic, and you did so rather well.

Although I disagree with what some of what you said, even if true, your reply still failed to answer the question of why wage war to "save the Union"? How many hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed or maimed? How many businesses were ruined, homes burned, and farms destroyed? I think the choice of War to "save the Union" was ruinous, if not illegal. Lincoln is the only American President to raise armies to kill, maim, and impoverish Americans. He shored a divided House with the blood of his own countrymen. Isn't it ironic that slavery of men perished by a war which enslaved whole States to the Federal government?
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 11:05:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By AClay47:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Beat to death in other threads



Not to my knowledge. I read the 27 page thread about "which side would you fight for," and it failed to distinguish between the cause of secession with Lincoln's choice of using War to "save the Union." Yes, your reply did rehash many arguments of the other topic, and you did so rather well.

Although I disagree with what some of what you said, even if true, your reply still failed to answer the question of why wage war to "save the Union"? How many hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed or maimed? How many businesses were ruined, homes burned, and farms destroyed? I think the choice of War to "save the Union" was ruinous, if not illegal. Lincoln is the only American President to raise armies to kill, maim, and impoverish Americans. He shored a divided House with the blood of his own countrymen. Isn't it ironic that slavery of men perished by a war which enslaved whole States to the Federal government?



Because the North couldn't have afforded to let the South go.
Besides, secession was unconstitutional and went aginst the Founding Fathers, if you read the Federalist papers.
What would you have done if you were in Lincoln's shoes? just wave goodbye to them all?
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 3:10:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:
What would you have done if you were in Lincoln's shoes? just wave goodbye to them all?



That's a good question. As knowledgeable as AR15.com members are on the subject, I hope to read some suggestions.

Perhaps acknowledging the South's secession was an option. My opinion is there would have been a reconciliation at some point, just as slavery would have whithered away in north American as it did in the rest of the industrialized world. So, that was an option.

The Federalist Papers lend some guidance to interpreting the Constitution, but they often provide differing points of view, so I'm not sure anyone can use one of the Federalist papers as final authority on secession. However, that really is irrelevant. Was WAR the answer to an obvious failure of the political system? I'm not arguing a position, but inviting educated opinions.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:35:41 PM EST
Where in the Constitution is secession proscribed? It is silent on the matter.

Counties may certainly secede from a state and during the War, West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Furthermore, ole Jeff Davis was never tried for treason. Why? Because there's nothing in the Constitution that proscribes secession. In his defense Jeff Davis could point out the convenient secession of West Virginia from Virginia, so why not Virginia or any other state from the Union? It would have been embarassing for the Attorney General and the Federal Government.

From a Constitutional perspective, what the South did was lawful up to the point that they seceded. Slavery was also Constitutional but in my opinion an immoral institution unworthy of Jefferson's words that "all men are created equal." When the South fired on Sumter, it was casus belli for the North to "com'on down."

The final tragedy of the War was the assassination of Lincoln. The healing would have been much faster had he survived.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 9:23:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2004 10:48:42 AM EST by AClay47]
Let me ask the question another way.

What efforts, if any, were made by the Federal Government to prevent secession? There was no secret about the South's intent to secede, nor its complaints.

If slavery were the issue, the Federal Government could have purchased all slaves for less than the cost of War. Certainly, concessions could have been made on tariffs. After all, as a real "Union," it was in the best interests of the northern States that the South prosper!

So, what was done, if anything, to avoid secession, or was War for political dominance the real object?
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 10:17:32 AM EST
What was done to prevent seccession? How about Abe's inauguration speech? "In your hands, my disatisfied fellow-countrmen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect, and defend it... We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break, our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Lincoln was happy to allow slavery to continue if it meant preserving the Union. Early in the war when slaves ran away and sought the protection of the Union Army, in many instances they were returned to their owners. When Maj. Gen. David Hunter seized slaves to be trained as Federal soldiers, he was told that they were not authorized by the War Department and to disband them. Even the Emancipation Proclamation didn't repeal slavery in those states still loyal to the Union. It was only the threat of foreign intervention (in which case the Rebellion would likely succeed) that prompted the Emancipation Proclamation.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 10:28:24 AM EST
BTW, I don't think slavery was "the" issue but it was the catalyst. States' Rights was at heart for the South. As I've said earlier, most Union soldiers who enlisted in '61-'62 didn't care a bit for the slaves.

Lest we forget, the South fired the first shot, not the North. They should have starved out the garrison at Sumter. Major Anderson was down to one day's ration and would have packed up and moved out when Pierre Beauregard saw fit to shell the fort.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 11:05:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2004 11:10:07 AM EST by AClay47]

Originally Posted By 4v50:
Lest we forget, the South fired the first shot, not the North. They should have starved out the garrison at Sumter. Major Anderson was down to one day's ration and would have packed up and moved out when Pierre Beauregard saw fit to shell the fort.



Good points and excellent replies! You've got a good knowledge of the subject.

By firing at a Federal fort, even though on South Carolina soil, it could be argued that an act of war had been committed, at least by South Carolina forces. Still, it could be argued that firing on Fort Sumter - in South Carolina - was more an excuse for invasion of the South than a compelling reason. The Confederacy was not threatening to invade the North (to my knowledge).

You raise a good point in that Lincoln had little time to do anything. Maybe, circumstances dictated he react forcefully and quickly? He chose to respond to the rebellion with armed force. We all know that. I don't know whether he considered anything else, or if emmisaries were sent south to save the union by negotiations and compromise? Besides war, can anyone tell me what Lincoln did to save the Union?
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 11:39:37 AM EST
Don't forget about the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution. Fort Sumter may be located in South Carolina, but it was (and still is) Federal property. When confronted by state raised troops, many Federal garrisons in the Southern States packed up and marched north. Major Anderson was a would have gone North if Beauregard hadn't fired first. Fortress Monroe (on Virginia's Yorktown Peninsula near Newport News) was a holdout throughout the war.

BTW, the South wasn't able to invade the North in '61. Her men were untrained and poorly equipped. Flintlocks and sporting arms were pressed into service and many of the rifle-muskets carried by the Confederates were unwittingly supplied by Little Napoleon in 1862. Similarly although the North had more resources, she wasn't on a war footing and also had to raise and train her armies. Consequently very few major battles were fought at war's outbreak (though there were some of significance in the Trans-Mississippi region).

Those thoughts set aside, what could have been done to prevent the war? Very little if anything. The South Carolinians were hot headed and many mistakenly believed that one Corn-fed armed with corn stalks could whup ten Yankees. People on both sides believed that one climatic battle would decide the war and the boys would be home for Christmas. The Southerners also believed that with foreign intervention (because of the need for cotton), the North would quickly recognize the South as it would be too costly to continue the war (same reason why Great Britain recognized American independence). Both sides didn't realize that enormous cost and sacrifice the war would involve.

BTW, there's a story of the Siamese Twins who married Southern girls and had sons. In separating their estate (and not themselves from each other), one brother took all the land and the other all the slaves. The one who took the slaves lost BIG TIME and today their descendents refer to themselves as the poor half of the family. Both twins insisted that their sons join the army of their country - the Confederate Army.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 5:31:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By 4v50:

BTW, there's a story of the Siamese Twins who married Southern girls and had sons. In separating their estate (and not themselves from each other), one brother took all the land and the other all the slaves. The one who took the slaves lost BIG TIME and today their descendents refer to themselves as the poor half of the family. Both twins insisted that their sons join the army of their country - the Confederate Army.



Excellent post! Maybe, not enough thought was given to the consequences of War by Lincoln, nor hot-heads in the South?

Still, shots fired in South Carolina did not, in my opinion, justify waging war against American States. Secession was seen by many as a right. You may find Jefferson Davis's famous farewell speech to the Senate interesting. You can find it online at Jefferson Davis
on withdrawal from the Union
. People today forget that Davis was well-respected before the "Civil War." He was a West Point graduate who fought in the Black Hawk War and later served as Secretary of War for President Pierce. The whole country listened to every word of his last speech in the Senate. I wonder if there were later debates in the House or Senate about how to address the decision South Carolina and other States to secede? Was military force authorized, or was it a decision of the President?

I quoted your mention of Chang and Eng Bunker, because they lived 25 miles from my home in Winston-Salem! See, A Hyphenated Life. Their lives were fascinating!
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 5:41:25 PM EST
Concur that seccession was a right.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 9:45:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2004 10:12:40 AM EST by AClay47]
Been looking more into the topic. President Buchanan refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states in April, 1861. Lincoln advised the Governor of South Carolina he was going to resupply Union forces in Fort Sumter. Military force was used to prevent the resupply and facitilitate the surrender of the Federal forces on South Carolina soil.

Those who think slavery was the issue which divided the union might take note of the fact that President Buhannon signed a proposed Constitutional Amendment on March 2, 1861, which would have protected slavery from the federal Government. It read as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

‘‘No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.’’


See, Amendments Proposed and Never Adopted.

So far as I know, the Amendment never was voted upon by Congress, which appears to have preferred military action. The 36th Congress was in session from December 3, 1960 to March 3, 1861.

It seems the Republican dominated 37th Congress did not convene until July 4, 1861. It had already abandoned, or declined to pursue, any avenues towards peaceful reconciliation, instead establishing the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, followed by an invasion of Virginia resulting in the First Battle of Bull Run on July 21, 1861.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 3:56:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By 4v50:
Where in the Constitution is secession proscribed? It is silent on the matter.




Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Secession has also been ruled to be unconstitutional. Texas vs. White, 1868 holds that the bonds that holds the States together is indissolvable. Secession is illegal. No, no state has the right to secede, the contract is permanent.



The final tragedy of the War was the assassination of Lincoln. The healing would have been much faster had he survived.



I agree 100% with that.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 4:10:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:
No, no state has the right to secede, the contract is permanent.

The final tragedy of the War was the assassination of Lincoln. The healing would have been much faster had he survived.



I would not give much credence to the Supreme Court decision you cited, since it occurred after the War and by a Federal Court.

I would also note that the Constitutional provision you cited did not authorize military action against States which left the Union. the provision about "joining a Confederacy" arguably applied only to States which had not seceded from the Union.

However, assuming arguendo, that the southern States did not have the right to secede, the question remains why "save the union" with war. As noted above, President Buchannon signed a Constitutional Amendment which was intended to remove the cause stated by Jefferson Davis as the reason for secession (Congressional infringement on the institution of slavery). That Amendment was given no attention by Lincoln, nor the radical Republican Congress. I've seen no efforts by the northern dominated government to reconcile differences between the States. It appears to me that War was desired by the North, so it could domination the rest of the country (which did happen).
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 5:55:39 AM EST
someone touched on Lincoln being worried about foreign intervention, and that gets overlooked ALOT.

*IF* Lincoln let the south go, then the Gulf and the Mississippi would have been wide open to foreign interference, hence the southern portion of the continent - a BIG worry if you're looking across the Atlantic at the Brits....
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 3:05:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 9:07:21 PM EST by AClay47]
That is noteworthy. I remember why the Battle of New Orleans was important, or so we thought, during the War of 1812. The British had secured Detroit, and if they had New Orleans they could limit American westward expansion.

Still, I think Lincoln could have done more, before waging War against the Confederacy.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:49:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By AClay47:

Originally Posted By guardian855:
No, no state has the right to secede, the contract is permanent.

The final tragedy of the War was the assassination of Lincoln. The healing would have been much faster had he survived.



I would not give much credence to the Supreme Court decision you cited, since it occurred after the War and by a Federal Court. But, it analyzed the underlying Constitutional claim advanced by the State of Texas still in 1868. Perhaps you should read the case before you dismiss it so flippantly.

I would also note that the Constitutional provision you cited did not authorize military action against States which left the Union. the provision about "joining a Confederacy" arguably applied only to States which had not seceded from the Union. This one certainly does: Article I, Section 8: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions..."{emphasis added}

However, assuming arguendo, that the southern States did not have the right to secede, the question remains why "save the union" with war. As noted above, President Buchannon signed a Constitutional Amendment Huh? Presidents have NO, Zero, Nada, role in the amending process. They do not sign anything. Please read Article V. which was intended to remove the cause stated by Jefferson Davis as the reason for secession (Congressional infringement on the institution of slavery). That Amendment was given no attention by Lincoln, nor the radical Republican Congress. I've seen no efforts by the northern dominated government to reconcile differences between the States. The whole Crittenden Compromise was a sham. The deep South States had already seceded, seized FEDERAL property (which under Article I, Section 8 was EXCLUSIVELY under the control of the Federal government), formed standing armies(expressly denied to States in Article I, Section 10), and violated the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the Constitution. The Crittenden Compromise would have REWARDED this illegal behavior, this massive blackmail, by giving the South something they could not otherwise have gotten. It appears to me that War was desired by the North, so it could domination the rest of the country (which did happen).Warning: Your bias is showing. This is a normative statement, not a statement of fact.

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:54:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By AClay47:

Originally Posted By 4v50:

BTW, there's a story of the Siamese Twins who married Southern girls and had sons. In separating their estate (and not themselves from each other), one brother took all the land and the other all the slaves. The one who took the slaves lost BIG TIME and today their descendents refer to themselves as the poor half of the family. Both twins insisted that their sons join the army of their country - the Confederate Army.



Excellent post! Maybe, not enough thought was given to the consequences of War by Lincoln, nor hot-heads in the South?

Still, shots fired in South Carolina did not, in my opinion, justify waging war against American States. Secession was seen by many as a right. You may find Jefferson Davis's famous farewell speech to the Senate interesting. You can find it online at Jefferson Davis
on withdrawal from the Union
. People today forget that Davis was well-respected before the "Civil War." He was a West Point graduate who fought in the Black Hawk War and later served as Secretary of War for President Pierce. The whole country listened to every word of his last speech in the Senate. I wonder if there were later debates in the House or Senate about how to address the decision South Carolina and other States to secede? Was military force authorized, or was it a decision of the President?

I quoted your mention of Chang and Eng Bunker, because they lived 25 miles from my home in Winston-Salem! See, A Hyphenated Life. Their lives were fascinating!



One shell lobbed at any US installation or vessel is an act of war...

Firing on the fort was no less of an act of war than when AQ bombed the Cole...

There is only ONE way to deal with rebels or terrorists: CRUSH THEM WITH ALL NECCICARY FORCE. PERIOD.

If you fail to do so, you give up a portion of your national sovreignty...

Negotiating or 'reconciling' with the South would have created a dangerous precedent - it is as dumb a suggestion as negotiating with Al Queda.

The choice was the utter destruction of the entire nation via petty infighting & foreign interfearance, or a war to finally show the pig-headed folks down south that their loyalties should lie with DC, not with provincial (state) capitals....

The right side won (unless you like the utter helplessness that modern day Europe exhibits in matters of foreign policy & trade... Would you rather live in a country that is beholden to the UN for security? Because that's what it would be (well, that, or at least half of us would be a part of the British Commonwealth, as the South would have been re-colonized)...
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:05:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 9:09:59 PM EST by AClay47]
Hello PAEBR332,

I'm not sure what you meant by "flippantly," but a Supreme Court ruling that States have no right to secede from a "Union" which was decided 3 years after a "Civil War" by a Federal Court while nearly a dozen States were occupoied by Federal troops has little authority. Would anyone expect a handpicked Federal Court to rule against the Federal government?

Arguably, the "Union" was not formed by the Constitution. Remember, the country declared its existence on July 4, 1776 and had already formed a government. The Articles of Confederation pre-dated the Constitution. So, there are valid arguments that the Constitution only applied to States which remained in the Union. I also think you would find that legal minds would recognize a difference between an "insurrection" and "secession." In any event, it is a moot point.

It is a fact that President Buchanon signed the Amendment I mentioned. See, Constitution Facts. It had been submitted by the 36th Congress one month before the War. You are correct that the President's signature was not required. Here it is:

‘‘No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.’’

Perhaps the Amendment came to late? In any event, it was never even submitted to the States. Maybe, they wanted War?

I found your argument about waging war because an act of war occurred when southerners fired at a fort on their soil, which was occupied by troops of another country to invite another question. Was war required, even if secession had been illegal? It is even to find "acts of war," as evidenced by the "War of Jenkins Ear."

Dave_A,

I understand your position. However, there was no "nation" as you may understand it today. Still, in arguendo if there were, the choice of war to resolve differences between States was, in my opinion, wrong. I've heard of possible scenarios about how the American States would turn into banana republics and the country would disintegrate, or invite foreign interference. However, I think if you study history you will see a trend towards nationalism (forming one country). Frankly, the same ties which led to the Constitution that replaced the Articles of Confederation, would have bound the States together again eventually. Interstate and international commerce involving harbors, rivers, ports, and roads naturally demanded regulation by a central authority. Eventually, the parties would have resolved their differences under one central government - again. Money talks.

Thank you Gentlemen for your insights! I may have agreed until I visited Fort Macon recently. It was another Federal Fort on southern soil taken by southerners, and later retaken by Federal troops. Before then, I had taken for granted the attack on Fort Sumter led to War. But while running my hand over a cannon wheel, I thought about that tenent of faith. Was it true? We had fighter planes show at for years over No-Fly Zones in Iraq without waging War. Japan sank one of our gun boats in China years before Pearl Harbor, but we did not go to War. I'm sure we could discuss dozens of examples of "acts of war" which did not lead to war itself. Maybe, it was true what other southerners had been saying for years? Maybe, the War was a "War of Northern Aggression," a power play to dominate the country?

Both good and bad came from the war - lots of bad. In an odd way, the War eventually backfired on the States which chose it. Northern states lost their sovereignty, too. As the West grew and the south rebuilt, their power diminished. The "Rust Belt" is in the north. You won't find one in the south or west. Declining cities can be found across the north, whereas the south is noted for growing metropoli, such as Atlanta and Charlotte, not to mention Dallas/Ft Worth. The North is in decline, and many northerners have abandoned it, seeking the easy common sense found south of the Mason Dixon line.

Just my two bits.



Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:48:53 AM EST
1) the carpet baggers ( ) coming to DFW come seeking the WARM WEATHER

2) it is STUPID to cite constituional proscriptions re: secession - there is NO nation out there that would WILLINGLY allow for it's own dissolution

3) our Rebellion in 1776 was not a legal one to be sure - but we won that one so we were "right". We southerners lost in 1865, so we were "wrong"

Personally, I favor the ability to secede peacefully, like a divorce.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:01:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 6:09:06 AM EST by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By AClay47:
Hello PAEBR332,

I'm not sure what you meant by "flippantly," but a Supreme Court ruling that States have no right to secede from a "Union" which was decided 3 years after a "Civil War" by a Federal Court while nearly a dozen States were occupoied by Federal troops has little authority. Would anyone expect a handpicked Federal Court to rule against the Federal government? What I meant by flippantly was your out-of-hand dismisal of the ruling, despite the fact that it is obvious you have never read the case. Even though Texas v. White was decided 4 years after the war ended, the legality of secession was central to the ruling. In this case, the state of Texas tried to reclaim securities sold by the Confederate state government. The Court ruled that Texas could recover the securities, since the secession government had no legal standing to sell them. This is because the act of secession was invalid, and all actions taken by Confederate governments were without legal force. Your last sentence again demonstrates your bias: The Court was not 'hand-picked' by the federal government. Its members were selected in accordance with the Constitution. For the Southern states to then complain that they were kept out of the nomination and approval process for federal judges WHILE THESE STATES WERE IN ACTIVE REBELLION really takes a lot of chutzpah

Arguably, the "Union" was not formed by the Constitution. Remember, the country declared its existence on July 4, 1776 and had already formed a government. The Articles of Confederation pre-dated the Constitution. So, there are valid arguments that the Constitution only applied to States which remained in the Union. Please read section VI of the Constitution. Any act passed by a state (including the ordinances of secession) that attempted to place the states in a position superior to the federal government, are null and void. I also think you would find that legal minds would recognize a difference between an "insurrection" and "secession." Please name one In any event, it is a moot point.

It is a fact that President Buchanon signed the Amendment I mentioned. See, Constitution Facts. It had been submitted by the 36th Congress one month before the War. You are correct that the President's signature was not required. And hence has no bearing Here it is:

‘‘No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.’’

Perhaps the Amendment came to late? Far too late. In any event, it was never even submitted to the States. Yes it was. Two states actually ratified the Corwin Amendment Maybe, they wanted War? If by "They" you mean the South, you are probably correct.

I found your argument about waging war because an act of war occurred when southerners fired at a fort on their soil, which was occupied by troops of another country to invite another question. Your bias is showing agains. These were not forts "on their own soil." per Article I, Section 8, the FEDERAL government had EXCLUSIVE control: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." The Federal government paid for this property, which then became FEDERAL property. If SC wanted Sumter back, they, at a minimum, would have to buy it back. The states Was war required, even if secession had been illegal? It is even to find "acts of war," as evidenced by the "War of Jenkins Ear."

Dave_A,

I understand your position. However, there was no "nation" as you may understand it today. Still, in arguendo if there were, the choice of war to resolve differences between States was, in my opinion, wrong. I've heard of possible scenarios about how the American States would turn into banana republics and the country would disintegrate, or invite foreign interference. However, I think if you study history you will see a trend towards nationalism (forming one country). Frankly, the same ties which led to the Constitution that replaced the Articles of Confederation, would have bound the States together again eventually. God, I get so sick of hearing this crap. Please point out ONE case in the history of the world in which a nation voluntarily divided itself, only to later reunite peacefully in a few year. Just ONE. Interstate and international commerce involving harbors, rivers, ports, and roads naturally demanded regulation by a central authority. We share the same features with Canada, but that is still a separate nation. Eventually, the parties would have resolved their differences under one central government - again. And as long as we are fantasizing, you can dream yourself as "Emperor of the United States of the United States of AClay47" Money talks.

Thank you Gentlemen for your insights! I may have agreed until I visited Fort Macon recently. It was another Federal Fort on southern soil taken by southerners, and later retaken by Federal troops. Before then, I had taken for granted the attack on Fort Sumter led to War. But while running my hand over a cannon wheel, I thought about that tenent of faith. Was it true? We had fighter planes show at for years over No-Fly Zones in Iraq without waging War. Japan sank one of our gun boats in China years before Pearl Harbor, but we did not go to War. I'm sure we could discuss dozens of examples of "acts of war" which did not lead to war itself. Maybe, it was true what other southerners had been saying for years? Maybe, the War was a "War of Northern Aggression," a power play to dominate the country? Or maybe it is true that it was the South who chose war? There is a far better case for this. If the South had such an iron-clad claim on the legality of secession, they should have pursued this in the Courts. As a claimed sovereign nation, they would have been able to have the Supreme Court exercise original jurisdiction, and get a ruling fairly quickly. Instead, they chose to fire on federal troops occupying federal property. They chose war, and they suffered the consequences.

Both good and bad came from the war - lots of bad. In an odd way, the War eventually backfired on the States which chose it. Northern states lost their sovereignty, too. As the West grew and the south rebuilt, their power diminished. The "Rust Belt" is in the north. You won't find one in the south or west. Declining cities can be found across the north, whereas the south is noted for growing metropoli, such as Atlanta and Charlotte, not to mention Dallas/Ft Worth. The North is in decline, Measured how? By per capita income, the average ranking of the 11 states that seceded is 35th. Only two former Confederate states are in the top half of per capita income: Florida and Virginia. On the other hand, of the states that fought for the Union, the average income rank is 18th, with 9 of the top ten states by income being states which fought for the Union. (Colorado is the missing state, and was not yet a state at the end of the war.) Population growth is a bit of an advantage for the South: Average rank 21st versus 28th for the Union states. And lets not even talk about education levels. Only one Confederate state (Virginia) makes the top 20, while 15 former Union states are in the top 20. By poverty rates, ten of eleven Confederate states are in among the worst 20, while only 5 former Union states fall so low. Only two Confederate states are among the 20 lowest unemployment rates. 12 Union states are in the lowest 20 unemployment rates, and so on, and so on... and many northerners have abandoned it, seeking the easy common sense found south of the Mason Dixon line.

Just my two bits.






It is obvious that all of your arguments are based on a priori assumptions. A check of facts will show many of these assumptions are invalid. But, I do not expect you to even admit that your biases are there. Like all of the "Lost Cause" crowd, facts and evidence will never convince you. You are a textbook example of cognitive dissonance in action.

Enjoy your little fantasy world. I chose to live in reality.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:30:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 6:35:44 AM EST by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:56:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By AClay47:
Been looking more into the topic. President Buchanan refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states in April, 1861. Lincoln advised the Governor of South Carolina he was going to resupply Union forces in Fort Sumter. Military force was used to prevent the resupply and facitilitate the surrender of the Federal forces on South Carolina soil.

Those who think slavery was the issue which divided the union might take note of the fact that President Buhannon signed a proposed Constitutional Amendment on March 2, 1861, which would have protected slavery from the federal Government. It read as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

‘‘No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.’’


See, Amendments Proposed and Never Adopted.

So far as I know, the Amendment never was voted upon by Congress, which appears to have preferred military action. The 36th Congress was in session from December 3, 1960 to March 3, 1861.

It seems the Republican dominated 37th Congress did not convene until July 4, 1861. It had already abandoned, or declined to pursue, any avenues towards peaceful reconciliation, instead establishing the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, followed by an invasion of Virginia resulting in the First Battle of Bull Run on July 21, 1861.



You know, you're sounding like a modern day liberal here...

'Peace at any Price'

The decision was made that 'peace' was not worth further appeasement...

Peace was not worth the loss of sovreignty that that ammendment, if passed, would have caused...

STATES ARE PROVINCES, NOT COUNTRIES. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO IGNORE FEDERAL LAW & FEDERAL ELECTIONS ON A WHIM...

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:07:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
It is obvious that all of your arguments are based on a priori assumptions. A check of facts will show many of these assumptions are invalid. But, I do not expect you to even admit that your biases are there. Like all of the "Lost Cause" crowd, facts and evidence will never convince you. You are a textbook example of cognitive dissonance in action.

Enjoy your little fantasy world. I chose to live in reality.



LOL! Those who have no facts argue ad hominem. Attack the person. That's easy enough done from behind the keyboard to a perfect stranger.

I'll ignore the personal remarks. I am concerned that you can actually believe the 1868 US Supreme Court was not hand picked? Who appointed the Justices? The President of the United States. Who confirmed them? The United States Senate. So, would you really expect that Court to rule against the Executive Branch of its own government which had just finished persecuting a War over secession, or the Congress which authorized and funded it? Who is living in a fantasy world?

Here is something may not comprehend. If you have any concept of why we had a Second Amendment, you should be able to grasp the concept that the Constitution acknowledged the right of citizens to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical government, to be specific a tyrannical Federal government. If you could grasp the concerns of Founding fathers whose States were reluctant to join a "Union" which may later tyranize them, then perhaps you could understand why they insisted on having a Second Amendment. Or ... do you agree with Kerry and Feinstein that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms was limited to "sporting purposes?" Here is what Thomas Jefferson said about rebellions:

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of the government."

Thomas Jefferson - Jan 30, 1867

Your problem may be you cannot think outside the box of political correctness. Your replies failed to recognize what sweeping, radical changes were made to the United States as a result of the "Civil War," both good and bad. The question I posed in this topic was whether the good changes could have been accomplished without sending armies into States to overthrow their elected governments, usurp their courts, burn their towns, steal their livestock, destroy their railroads, businesses, and factories, blockade their commerce, and commit atrocities on every level.

I don't think you grasp how different today's government is from the antebellum era. Before the War, States had their own coin, currencies and armies. The rights of secession had been recognized by northern States at the Hartford Convention and in numerous writings. Arguably, the Second Amendment was meant to deter the Federal Government from waging War against the States. Why do you believe State delegates insisted it be added to the Constitution before they ratified the Constitution?

I enjoyed your statistics, but it changes nothing. Northerners flock south, because of the mess they made. If you want to live in a State where employment can be denied you because you aren't a union member, then go north! If you want to live in the Rust Belt, or cities where it is a crime to keep and bear arms, travel north. If you want to be represented by Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, or Hillary Clinton, move north. I'm not sorry to say it, but the North has reaped what it sowed, and you'd have to be blind not to acknowledge it... but that is beside the point.

You missed the point of the topic. It was not intended to refight the "Civil War." It invites discussion of the relationship between State and Federal governments. The Civil War made it clear that our country really is governed by force, rather than consent, which type of society was abhorred by Thomas Jefferson. See, A Letter From Thomas Jefferson To James Madison.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:43:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 9:45:01 AM EST by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By AClay47:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
It is obvious that all of your arguments are based on a priori assumptions. A check of facts will show many of these assumptions are invalid. But, I do not expect you to even admit that your biases are there. Like all of the "Lost Cause" crowd, facts and evidence will never convince you. You are a textbook example of cognitive dissonance in action.

Enjoy your little fantasy world. I chose to live in reality.



LOL! Those who have no facts argue ad hominem. Attack the person. That's easy enough done from behind the keyboard to a perfect stranger. I include Constitutional text, Court cases, historical examples, and Census statistics. So far, your include mainly your opinion.

I'll ignore the personal remarks. I am concerned that you can actually believe the 1868 US Supreme Court was not hand picked? Who appointed the Justices? The President of the United States. Who confirmed them? The United States Senate.Of the nine Justices on the COurt that decided Texas v. White, 5 were appointed before the war began. Of the four appointees from during the war, three of the four were from slave states: Kentucky, Maryland amd Virginia. NONE of the justices were appointed after the war ended. So, the South complains about who got appointed to the Court WHILE THEY WERE IN ACTIVE MILITARY REBELLION. If they wanted a favorably configured Court, they should have never rebelled. So, would you really expect that Court to rule against the Executive Branch of its own government which had just finished persecuting a War over secession, or the Congress which authorized and funded it? Who is living in a fantasy world? Still you. See my above statement, which is, once again, laden with facts. If you would like, I can list the names and states for each of the Civil War appointees.

Here is something may not comprehend. If you have any concept of why we had a Second Amendment, you should be able to grasp the concept that the Constitution acknowledged the right of citizens to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical government, to be specific a tyrannical Federal government. If you could grasp the concerns of Founding fathers whose States were reluctant to join a "Union" which may later tyranize them, then perhaps you could understand why they insisted on having a Second Amendment. This may be the greatest non sequitar I have ever read. Somehow the RKBA was the reason for the Civil War? Or ... do you agree with Kerry and Feinstein that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms was limited to "sporting purposes?" Red Herring Alert Here is what Thomas Jefferson said about rebellions:

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of the government."

Thomas Jefferson - Jan 30, 1867Wow, Jefferson was writing 41 years AFTER he died.

Your problem may be you cannot think outside the box of political correctness. Your replies failed to recognize what sweeping, radical changes were made to the United States as a result of the "Civil War," both good and bad. The question I posed in this topic was whether the good changes could have been accomplished without sending armies into States to overthrow their elected governments, usurp their courts, burn their towns, steal their livestock, destroy their railroads, businesses, and factories, blockade their commerce, and commit atrocities on every level.

I don't think you grasp how different today's government is from the antebellum era. Before the War, States had their own coin, currencies and armies. WRONG!!!. The States were prohibited by Article 1 Section 10 from doing ALL of these things. Again: You are living in a fantasy world. Article 1, Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder,
ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any
Title of Nobility... No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." {emphasis added}



The rights of secession had been recognized by northern States at the Hartford Convention and in numerous writings. WRONG (Again). Secession was proposed, but not accepted by a handful of states. There were a whopping 26 delegates present at the Hartford convention, half of them from one state. It was denounced by virtually every state. Fantasy land again. Arguably, the Second Amendment was meant to deter the Federal Government from waging War against the States. Why do you believe State delegates insisted it be added to the Constitution before they ratified the Constitution?Um, the Constitution was ratified WITHOUT the Second in place. There was a cry for a Bill of Rights, but the contents of such a Bill were never specified.

I enjoyed your statistics, but it changes nothing. Northerners flock south, because of the mess they made. No, the flock South to avoid the cold winters. All I hear from Southerners is how the Yankees want to pass the same kinds of laws they had up North. That sure sounds like they are trying to make the South more like the North (just warmer). If you want to live in a State where employment can be denied you because you aren't a union member, then go north! The are many closed shop state in the South as well. Fantasyland AGAIN If you want to live in the Rust Belt, or cities where it is a crime to keep and bear arms, travel north. The nations first gun control laws originated IN THE SOUTH. And my home state in the North had concealed carrry YEARS before it was legal in your state. Our carry laws have far fewer limits than yours as well. And both my Senators have a higher GOA and NRA ranking than either of your two Senators. If you want to be represented by Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, or Hillary Clinton, move north. Or Bill Clinton, or Bob Graham, or John Edwards, move South I'm not sorry to say it, but the North has reaped what it sowed, and you'd have to be blind not to acknowledge it... Have you ever BEEN to the North, other than to an airport therein? but that is beside the point.

You missed the point of the topic. It was not intended to refight the "Civil War." It invites discussion of the relationship between State and Federal governments. The Civil War made it clear that our country really is governed by force, rather than consent, which type of society was abhorred by Thomas Jefferson. See, A Letter From Thomas Jefferson To James Madison.



No the Civil War decided decided once and for all time that the states must abide by ALL the terms of the Constitution. This, incidentally, meant that the states were now to abide by the 2nd Amendment, something they could (and in the South did ) ignore at will prior to the Civil War.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:18:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 10:23:50 AM EST by AClay47]
Whoa! I've cited links to authorities, which apparently have been ignored.

LOL, no Jefferson didn't write after he was dead, but I bet he could type a whole lot better than me - even in 1867!

You are right that the Civil War settled the issue of secession. It also settled the issue of slavery. Here is what historian Shelby Foote wrote:

"That war settled a couple of things very strongly. One was the right to secede. That was settled. And the slavery issue was settled once and for all and probably could not have been settled any other way. There were things about that war that couldn't be settled apparently except by bloodshed."

A Visit from Historian Shelby Foote. Maybe, he was right.

You were kidding about the Civil War strengthening the Second Amendment, I hope! Please lend me some of your authorities for that, please!

Oh, yeah, I have been to the north, lived in Pittsburgh for a couple of years and have visited. I have no desire to stay there. Much of what you say about northerners moving south is true. It is said that a "Yankee" is northerner who visits the South. A "damn yankee" is one who stays! LOL! If you like the North, that's fine, but I think if you took a scientific poll, most southerners would tell you they don't want their region turned into a warmer north.

As far as your claims that secession was manifestly illegal in 1860, maybe you're a greater authority than ol' Thomas Jefferson, author of our Country's Founding Instrument, the Declaration of Independence? In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said:

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Address.


"Hey, but what do I know, Dude?
I wrote the Declaration of Independence,
was President of the United States,
and wrote letters 40 years after I died,
but ... hey, that's just me!" What the Hell
happened to Adams, anyway?

- Thomas Jefferson - 2004

Jefferson envisioned a country bound together by cooperation, not military force. The Civil War demonstrated a massive deviation from his vision.


Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:37:45 AM EST
Who cares what Jefferson had to say on the subject of secession. He had ZERO involvement in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. His quote also was directed at the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made the advocation of changes in our governmental system illegal. Jefferson is not supporting the right to secession. In fact, it is pretty obvious that Jefferson considered the right to dissolve the union to be "error of opinion." Read the quote again. The proper tool to combat this error was not the Alien and Sedition Act, but free speech and appeals to reason.

As for the Civil War strengthening the Second, it lead to the abolition of all the gun control laws of the South. Prior to the Civil war, EVERY southern state had pretty rigid gun control laws. There were no state gun control laws in the North. Sorry if that shatters your worldview, but it is a fact. Also, if you read the Congressional records concerning the debate over the 14th Amendment, protection of the RKBA was one of the rights that the framers of this amendment sought to protect from state infringement.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 11:34:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Who cares what Jefferson had to say on the subject of secession.



LMAO! er ... Probably those people who are actually interested in determining the Founding Father's intent. It was Jefferson who penned the country's founding document, The Declaration of Independence. The issue of secession was so unsettled that in 1861 Congress considered a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit it.


Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

As for the Civil War strengthening the Second, it lead to the abolition of all the gun control laws of the South.



Who told you that? LMAO! You must know that's ridiculous. Gun control laws in the South were racist, and I imagine similar ones existed in the North, which treated "colored" people as inferior, second class people. Such racist gun control laws were common after the War as well.

After the Civil War, the growing Federal Government passed The National Firearms Act, The Gun Control Act of 1968, the Gun Owners Protection Act, and Clinton's Gun ban, and a wealth of other Federal regulations, laws, and Executive Orders. If the Second Amendment was made so strong by the Civil War, then why do we have stringent gun controls in New York, California, DC, etc? Why are we worried about bills currently in the House and Senate which would enact new gun bans?


Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Sorry if that shatters your worldview, but it is a fact.



LOL! Nothing you wrote "shattered" my "worldview."
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 12:02:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 12:04:21 PM EST by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By AClay47:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Who cares what Jefferson had to say on the subject of secession.



LMAO! er ... Probably those people who are actually interested in determining the Founding Father's intent. It was Jefferson who penned the country's founding document, The Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was not the sole writer of this Document. It was written by a committee. He was the lead writer on the committee. Your historical ignorance is showing again . The issue of secession was so unsettled that in 1861 Congress considered a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit it.


Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

As for the Civil War strengthening the Second, it lead to the abolition of all the gun control laws of the South.



Who told you that? LMAO! You must know that's ridiculous. Gun control laws in the South were racist, and I imagine similar ones existed in the North,Racist, in part, but unlike the ones in the North at that time, because THERE WERE NONE IN THE NORTH. which treated "colored" people as inferior, second class people. Such racist gun control laws were common after the War as well.

After the Civil War, the growing Federal Government passed The National Firearms Act,71 years after the war ended. The Gun Control Act of 1968,103 years after the war ended the Gun Owners Protection Act,121 years after the war ended and Clinton's Gun ban, 129 years after the war ended and a wealth of other Federal regulations, laws, and Executive Orders. If the Second Amendment was made so strong by the Civil War, then why do we have stringent gun controls in New York, California, DC, etc? Obviously, you have no understanding of the fundamental shift which occurred during the Presidency of FDR. You will note of course that all the laws you point to above were passed AFTER he was elected. His election, and the tremendous, explosive growth of modern, statist liberalism under FDR and later LBJ were responsible for the current level of gun control laws. Why are we worried about bills currently in the House and Senate which would enact new gun bans?


Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Sorry if that shatters your worldview, but it is a fact.



LOL! Nothing you wrote "shattered" my "worldview."



The Civil War is not responsible for the size of the modern federal leviathan. FDR is. Please note that the Federal Government remained a tiny entity until WWI, after which it rapidly contracted again, and then FDR was elected, and we have what we have today.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 10:37:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/14/2004 10:46:16 AM EST by AClay47]
PAEBR332,

I'm not interested in a flame war with you. If you want to believe that Thomas Jefferson was a mere penman for The Declaration of Independence, that's your right, just as you are entitled to believe his Inaugural Address did not spell out Jeffersonian Democracy, or that his letters did not endorse rebellion as a means of redress. Likewise, you are free to believe the New Deal, which expanded government under the 14th Amendment, had nothing to do with the War which produced it and other Amendments to the Constitution. You can believe there was no question about a right of State secession, even though a Federal Congress proposed an Amendment which prohibited it in 1861.

Yes, you can also believe the Civil War expanded the Second Amendment, abolishing gun control laws across the country. It reveals your ignorance again, however. Gun control laws were more needed by racists after the Civil War:

"It was after the Civil War that the first gun-control advocates came into existence. These were southern leaders who were afraid that the newly freed black slaves would assert their newfound political rights, and these leaders wanted to make it easier to oppress the free blacks. This oppression was accomplished by passing laws making it illegal in many places for black people to own firearms."

See, Failure of Gun Control Laws. The new gun control laws were called Black Codes.

I hate to tell you this, but gun control and racism were rampant in the North, where as late as 1923 a Hispanic could be convicted of possessing a firearm in his sleep! See, Racist Roots of Gun Control. The 1911 Sullivan Laws were passed to keep guns out of the hands of immigrants (chiefly Italians--in the first three years of the Sullivan Laws, roughly 70 percent of those arrested had Italian surnames.

Oops! That blew your statement that FDR fathered Gun Control! By the way, were you aware that his expansion of the Federal Governmen was justified by the 14th Amendment - which was produced by Lincoln's War? Maybe, you should study the legal basis for the New Deal? Oh, wait, let me guess, you think you're an expert on that, as well" Maybe, you watch Law and Order twice a week?

If I don't reply to your next Reply, if there is one, it will probably be because it has been tiring and boring to respond to someone whose facts are based on sandbox insults and ignorance. History is interesting when people are free to suggest differing viewpoints, without insults and name calling, a concept which obviously has escaped you. If you wish to condemn others as "ignorant," because you lack facts and reasoning, then maybe you should acquire some knowledge yourself?
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 11:18:32 AM EST

Why save the Union with War?


I've got a GREAT idea: Let's argue about a war that's been over for almost 140 years!

Link Posted: 10/14/2004 11:34:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By AClay47:
PAEBR332,

I'm not interested in a flame war with you. If you want to believe that Thomas Jefferson was a mere penman for The Declaration of Independence, that's your right, just as you are entitled to believe his Inaugural Address did not spell out Jeffersonian Democracy, or that his letters did not endorse rebellion as a means of redress. Likewise, you are free to believe the New Deal, which expanded government under the 14th Amendment, had nothing to do with the War which produced it and other Amendments to the Constitution. You can believe there was no question about a right of State secession, even though a Federal Congress proposed an Amendment which prohibited it in 1861.

Yes, you can also believe the Civil War expanded the Second Amendment, abolishing gun control laws across the country. It reveals your ignorance again, however. Gun control laws were more needed by racists after the Civil War:

"It was after the Civil War that the first gun-control advocates came into existence. These were southern leaders who were afraid that the newly freed black slaves would assert their newfound political rights, and these leaders wanted to make it easier to oppress the free blacks. This oppression was accomplished by passing laws making it illegal in many places for black people to own firearms."

See, Failure of Gun Control Laws. The new gun control laws were called Black Codes.

I hate to tell you this, but gun control and racism were rampant in the North, where as late as 1923 a Hispanic could be convicted of possessing a firearm in his sleep! See, Racist Roots of Gun Control. The 1911 Sullivan Laws were passed to keep guns out of the hands of immigrants (chiefly Italians--in the first three years of the Sullivan Laws, roughly 70 percent of those arrested had Italian surnames.

Oops! That blew your statement that FDR fathered Gun Control! By the way, were you aware that his expansion of the Federal Governmen was justified by the 14th Amendment - which was produced by Lincoln's War? Maybe, you should study the legal basis for the New Deal? Oh, wait, let me guess, you think you're an expert on that, as well" Maybe, you watch Law and Order twice a week?

If I don't reply to your next Reply, if there is one, it will probably be because it has been tiring and boring to respond to someone whose facts are based on sandbox insults and ignorance. History is interesting when people are free to suggest differing viewpoints, without insults and name calling, a concept which obviously has escaped you. If you wish to condemn others as "ignorant," because you lack facts and reasoning, then maybe you should acquire some knowledge yourself?



Your contention that the gun control laws of the South were racist still does nothing to obviate that fact that until the 20th Century, the ONLY state level gun control laws in the U.S. were in the Southern states. The source you quote is also incorrect: Prior to the Civil War ALL the slaves states also had gun control laws on their books. The Black codes were merely re-enactments of the previous slave code restrictions (which applied to non-slaves and certain classes of whites as well). Source

The New Deal and the massive expansion of the Federal Government is based not upon the 14th Amendment, but upon the Federal governments exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. This is found in article I, Section 8 of the unamended Constitution. You may wish to read NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937); U.S. v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941); Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38 (1939); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). These were just a few of the case involving New Deal programs, all of which are based on the Commerce Clause.

You will find a complete and utter lack of reference to the 14th Amendment in any of the New Deal legislation or court cases. However, you will find the 14th Amendment was frequently used (under a Substative Due Process interpretation) prior to the New Deal to strike down state attempts to regulate businesses, wages, hours, working conditions, etc.

Incidentally, the Commerce Clause is the same constitutional basis for federal gun control regulations. The NFA, GCA, even the AWB, are all justified by their supporters under Commerce Clause powers. FDR was the father of Federal Gun Control legislation. Prior to the NFA of 1934, there were NO federal firearms regulations. That is an incontrovertable fact.

I will ignore your lame atempt at insulting my historical understanding. I will put my education, training and abilities against yours any day of the week. I am a professionally trained historian, with a Bachelors, Masters, and PhD in American History and Constitutional Law and History. So, what are your qualifications in the field?
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 8:23:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By AClay47:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Who cares what Jefferson had to say on the subject of secession.



LMAO! er ... Probably those people who are actually interested in determining the Founding Father's intent. It was Jefferson who penned the country's founding document, The Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was not the sole writer of this Document. It was written by a committee. He was the lead writer on the committee. Your historical ignorance is showing again . The issue of secession was so unsettled that in 1861 Congress considered a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit it.


Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

As for the Civil War strengthening the Second, it lead to the abolition of all the gun control laws of the South.



Who told you that? LMAO! You must know that's ridiculous. Gun control laws in the South were racist, and I imagine similar ones existed in the North,Racist, in part, but unlike the ones in the North at that time, because THERE WERE NONE IN THE NORTH. which treated "colored" people as inferior, second class people. Such racist gun control laws were common after the War as well.

After the Civil War, the growing Federal Government passed The National Firearms Act,71 years after the war ended. The Gun Control Act of 1968,103 years after the war ended the Gun Owners Protection Act,121 years after the war ended and Clinton's Gun ban, 129 years after the war ended and a wealth of other Federal regulations, laws, and Executive Orders. If the Second Amendment was made so strong by the Civil War, then why do we have stringent gun controls in New York, California, DC, etc? Obviously, you have no understanding of the fundamental shift which occurred during the Presidency of FDR. You will note of course that all the laws you point to above were passed AFTER he was elected. His election, and the tremendous, explosive growth of modern, statist liberalism under FDR and later LBJ were responsible for the current level of gun control laws. Why are we worried about bills currently in the House and Senate which would enact new gun bans?


Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Sorry if that shatters your worldview, but it is a fact.



LOL! Nothing you wrote "shattered" my "worldview."



The Civil War is not responsible for the size of the modern federal leviathan. FDR is. Please note that the Federal Government remained a tiny entity until WWI, after which it rapidly contracted again, and then FDR was elected, and we have what we have today.
www.refugepics.com/members/Pennswoods/Federal%20Spending%20Graph.jpg

\

Well, that and 50-or-so years of continuous military alert...

That, combined with the end of the draft and the way we now fight wars ensured that a large FedGov would be required to maintain the military...

Remember, that after WWI, the military was drawn down untill WWII, when it was 're-created' by a massive draft, and so on forward thru Vietham...
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 4:20:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Well, that and 50-or-so years of continuous military alert...

That, combined with the end of the draft and the way we now fight wars ensured that a large FedGov would be required to maintain the military...

Remember, that after WWI, the military was drawn down untill WWII, when it was 're-created' by a massive draft, and so on forward thru Vietham...



While military spending has never fallen back to pre-WWII levels, if you look at the federal budget, over 2/3rds of the spending can be tied to programs begun under FDR, or instituted since. Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, OSHA, EPA, and on and on...
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 4:57:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By obershutze916:
Not sure I would call it Lincolns war since the South statred shooting first....




Don't ruin one of these moronic threads with historical facts.
Link Posted: 10/16/2004 9:59:26 AM EST
Jefferson Davis and no other southern patriot was ever tried for a simple reason, succession was legal. The yankees wanted to try the patriots. They were told by Chief Justice Tandy that any conviction would be overturned on appeal to SCOTUS because succession was legal. The yankees dod not want that result so let the patriots go.

Lincoln did not want the South to leave for a simple reason, he did not believe in the Constitution. He suspended Haebus Corpus, closed newspapers in the north who disagreed with him in violation of the 1st Amendment, etc. He did not believe in freeing the slaves and issued the proclamation as a political item only and then only in the South. Our lack of individual freedoms is due directly to Lincoln. He wanted the war. Had anyone else been elected president, compromises would have been put in place to resolve the problems and preserve the Union. Lincoln's attitude made that impossible and hundreds of thousands died as a result. Mr. Lincoln got his war..
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 11:09:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By alaman:
Jefferson Davis and no other southern patriot was ever tried for a simple reason, succession was legal. The yankees wanted to try the patriots. They were told by Chief Justice Tandy that any conviction would be overturned on appeal to SCOTUS because succession was legal. The yankees dod not want that result so let the patriots go.

Lincoln did not want the South to leave for a simple reason, he did not believe in the Constitution. He suspended Haebus Corpus, closed newspapers in the north who disagreed with him in violation of the 1st Amendment, etc. He did not believe in freeing the slaves and issued the proclamation as a political item only and then only in the South. Our lack of individual freedoms is due directly to Lincoln. He wanted the war. Had anyone else been elected president, compromises would have been put in place to resolve the problems and preserve the Union. Lincoln's attitude made that impossible and hundreds of thousands died as a result. Mr. Lincoln got his war..



Um, there was never a Chief Justice Tandy. No rebel leaders were tried not because any court or judge said anything about the leaglity of secession. They were not tried because the North was perhaps the most generous winners of any war in history.

Jefferson Davis did all the things with which you charge Lincoln, and he did them earlier than Lincoln. Get a clue.
Top Top