Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just taking a little side bar for a moment, in the hope that the debate herein can rejoin its proper course as to how the so-called "Confederate Flag" is viewed by various individuals. The subject has been brought up numerous times w/in this thread as to the legality of the Southern states seceding from the USA - therefore thought be of interest to point out that within the original Articles of the Confederation and Perpetual Union, the following section was included:
Quote:
Article VI - No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.
Note that during the next gathering of these founders, this particular verbiage was removed... interestingly; on purpose or oversight?
Possibly too much rum, heat, tiredness, or,,, specifically not mentioned w/in the Constitution?
Trying to steer the argument into a ditch I see..... No, the Article is fine. You've been told on numerous occasions that it refers to treaties with foreign powers and on all of those occasions you have refused to address that and ALSO refused to address my assertion that nowhere does the Constitution bar states from leaving the Union.
Oh, I've been "told", have I? By whom? And by what authority am I required to accept that as true? There are all kinds of things that the Constituton does NOT say. You come dangerously close to asking me to argue a negative, here.
The way in which we remind people can be snide however. If you meant that "Obviously I don't know much about history" when I too have a boat load of "hard-won knowledge of American history" as just a friendly reminder then I'm sorry. I've never seen a "friendly reminder" put in a more rude manner, but perhaps it's the medium in which we're communicating that somehow is clouding your intent.
I say what I mean. But I think you see rudeness everywhere, where others would see disagreement. That is your problem, not mine.
That's fine. Let's move on then.
Very well..... Since you haven't addressed ANY of the points made by myself or others with regard to your Constitutional objections OR about the existence of chattel slavery in NUMEROUS other societies as well as in the Northern States. I too must come to the same conclusion.
BTW if you think about it what requires the worst in a man.... To treat a slave horribly believing them to be property??? Or treating a slave horribly believing that he/she is a human being??? I know my vote.
Well, I think fighting a war and causing thousands of deaths to keep one's slaves is even worse.
With regards to the Constitution I'm not suggesting the document was "voluntary", but each state's willingness to enter into an agreement was certainly voluntary... Much as slavery was ignored by the original document, so was the issue of a state leaving the Union. I'm guessing the latter was by as much the same design as the former in that you can't tell a bunch of separate colonies who just threw off one oppressive government that they are now signing a permanent and binding contract that they cannot leave with a new central government and actually have any hope of them signing it........
Oh, I see. Their "willingness" was voluntary. I ask you, then: where does the Constitution mention "willingness" as a condition of joining the union? And slavery was left out because the southern delegates wanted it left out, and the all of them hoped that it would simply fade away. And it would have, except for England's need for raw cotton. But you knew that.
We're good.... No worries.
I get the feeling that no matter what I say, you're going to question my motives for saying it. Go ahead. But remember that those doubts come out of your mind, not mine.
Just taking a little side bar for a moment, in the hope that the debate herein can rejoin its proper course as to how the so-called "Confederate Flag" is viewed by various individuals. The subject has been brought up numerous times w/in this thread as to the legality of the Southern states seceding from the USA - therefore thought be of interest to point out that within the original Articles of the Confederation and Perpetual Union, the following section was included:
Note that during the next gathering of these founders, this particular verbiage was removed... interestingly; on purpose or oversight?
Possibly too much rum, heat, tiredness, or,,, specifically not mentioned w/in the Constitution?
It was replaced by ths section of Article I of the Constitution (relevant portions in boldface):
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 the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its 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.
The problem is that your arguments are getting shot full of holes and instead of plugging those holes you just hang up a new figurative piece of cloth in pristine condition which contains the exact same arguments as before so forgive people for getting a little exasperated while they attempt to have a discussion with you....
You aren't addressing any of the disputes that people have with your data.
1) Referring to Article I of the Constitution referencing alliances with foreign powers.
2) That there is no clause in it about the requirement of all states to remain within the Union.
3) The fact that you have been shown that NUMEROUS other societies have/had chattel slavery and that it is hardly unique to the south.
You simply redecorate your arguments without addressing any of this....
Like this is out of left field..... No one is arguing the merits of how slavery affected society at this time. You tried to claim that the American South was the only society to have chattel slavery and you were called on that. To turn and imply now that because someone dared dispute your first assertion that chattel slavery didnt' exist outside the south as meaning that they must be unsympathetic to the plight slavery caused among African Americans is a HORRIBLE misdirection of the argument.
Anyway, we agreed we are done, so we are done...
1. Article I when reprinted in full, is much more comprehensive. I have quoted it in the post drectly above.
2. The fact that states are denied the powerto form confederations or go to war, etc., are in effect such prohibitions. Or are you prepared to take it a step further, and argue that the Civil War was an illegal act carried out by the United States?
3. The nature of the chattel slavery in the South was an anomaly, as you well know. In addition, it had the effect of making slavery a racial, rather than cultural, divider. Why else, I repeat (from an earlier post) would there be such bitterness among contemporary Afrtican-Americans?
It was replaced by ths seciot nof Article I of the Constitution (relevant portions in boldface):
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 the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its 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.
Either read slower or try to comprehend what I stated, 'eh? j/k...
If you saw w/in my post the last sentence, for example, you would have found that I specifically mentioned to compare Article IV vs. Section 10... right? My goal therein was to point out that the paragraph within the Articles of Confederation that I quoted {"Article VI - No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue."} is not to be found w/in the Constitution... whereas other similar language can be found. Point is that the Constitution does NOT specifically mention states 'banding together' whereas the Articles prevented such, w/o permission from the national Congress.
Either read slower or try to comprehend what I stated, 'eh? j/k...
If you saw w/in my post the last sentence, for example, you would have found that I specifically mentioned to compare Article IV vs. Section 10... right? My goal therein was to point out that the paragraph within the Articles of Confederation that I quoted {"Article VI - No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue."} is not to be found w/in the Constitution... whereas other similar language can be found. Point is that the Constitution does NOT specifically mention states 'banding together' whereas the Articles prevented such, w/o permission from the national Congress.
A. What is the difference between "banding together" and "entering....into a Confederation" (capitalized)?
B. Was it worth half a million lives to parse those phrases?
I agree with Vegas. The only flag we should have room for is the Stars and Stripes and our own state flag. We are supposed to be a united country. If someone wants to honor their ancestors, take flowers to their resting place.
But I bet you'd fight to the death for people's right to fly a gay flag, PR flag, or any other flag huh?
The civil war is as much a part of our history as anything else. If you have a proud southern heritage or are a civil war buff, good for you. Fly it high!
For the terms I use, I can only refer you to the current debate / discussion in Richmond on the appropriate flag to be displayed in the Old House of Delegates Hall in the Capital Building.
I am amazed that this discussion about the Confederacy goes no. There is no end to it. As a native Virginian who was taught in the 60's! that slavery was good, that seperate but equal was fair, I can only say, that the South lost was a good thing and they need to get over it. Then again, I live next to the banana belt of snuffed generals, Mounument Ave.
It is amazing the distortions of thought that occur among those that still cling to a "states rights" type of argument. For the seceding states, "states rights" meant the right to continue conducting a slavery-based society, when the notions undergirding such a society had already fallen away in the rest of the civilized world at that time.
I believe today, based on my own incomplete knowledge on this topic that I have not taken pains to supplement, that there is no explicit legal basis for the United States to prevent any of its member states from seceding. However, I also believe that Lincoln's decision to use war as a means of snuffing out the secession was a strategic one (based on use of force) but also intertwined with several other issues.
What interest did the Northern states have in the establishment of a slavery-based nation to their south, with the continuing issues of slave escapes, economic warfare versus a slavery-based system, etc.? There seems to have been little interest by the seceded states, in the spring of 1861, in coming to terms with the USA about compensation regarding federal properties, forts, etc. The lack of rational and determined practical negotiations seems striking to me today. But there had been decades of intersectional rancor leading up the act of secession.
And the likely resulting boundary between the Northern states and the CSA would have been much longer and thus more difficult to administer than the boundary with Mexico.
One might also argue that the politically dominant business interests in the Northern states saw the South very much as their own "colony," as a producer mostly of raw materials for input to Northern factories. Thus, for those business interests, the economic value of the southern territories could not be allowed to be lost to separate nationhood.
Finally, the moral argument for going to war against the slavery-based Southern states was very compelling. The Southern politicians had for the previous several generations shown no sensitivity to modifying much less ending slavery as an institution, unlike the Northern states. Even Russia had abolished legal serfdom before the beginning of the American Civil War. It was easy to paint the South as immoral, anachronistic, dangerous, and debauched.
(BTW, I have heard a Southern Baptist preacher say in a sermon that America may be doomed from its birth in the eyes of God because its people revolted from its "father," the British Empire, and just as the Southern states did later in deciding to secede.)
Last edited by ParkTwain; 10-03-2007 at 04:16 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
j/k... 
