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.
... you still didn't address that the Civil War was mainly about the North's economic dominance of the South. Also, it was an illegal war started by the North. For Sumpter? LOL!!!
YOU ARE WRONG -
LINCOLN WAS RIGHT
"The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government..."
- - - Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.
The Civil War was fought to preserve the UNION and the republican form of government. . . not for freedom nor independence of the southern states.
There are some historical revisionists floating the argument that STATES were sovereigns, and have rights, but let's be clear on what "state" is being referenced.
State can mean:
1. A geographical area (dirt)
2. A government, instituted in harmony with the republican form
3. A people.
Governments have delegated powers, not rights. Since state government officers swear dual oaths (Art.6), with the USCON being supreme, one can readily see that only PEOPLE can have rights under the doctrine of "STATES RIGHTS."
No dirt nor government (and its subject citizens) has the RIGHT to secede from the UNION created to secure rights of all the people. (Citizens surrender rights when they consent to be governed)
I stipulate that the subject citizens (consenting) may have had grievances, and various minority interests were abused by the democratic majority, but that's the problem of any democratic form.
The sovereign people are the beneficiaries of the institution of government, instituted to secure their rights. Those who submitted, as citizens, surrendered rights. Ergo, no servant government or its subject citizens can dissolve the union that they are oath bound to serve. It is akin to servants walking off with the master's silver and leaving the front door open, an invitation to others to pillage.
Or an even more appropriate analogy - the Union is a train filled with passengers (sovereign people), and the secessionists wish to sever their cars from the train. How does that benefit the passengers?
The arrogant subjects, who were participants in the democratic form, unilaterally presumed they were the masters, when they were not. It is a sad chapter in the history of these united States of America.
One reason the southerners didn't wish to simply withdraw consent from the democratic form was that 'Sovereigns without subjects' cannot own another human under the republican form. Slavery was a government taxed privilege only under the constitutional democratic form. Ergo, there was no other choice but to secede.
However, the fact that no law infringed upon the endowed rights of the sovereign people under the republican form refutes any other explanation or excuse for secession.
(Ironically, the Confederate constitution guaranteed a republican form to its sovereign people.)
= = = <> = = = https://www.battlefields.org/learn/a...sons-secession
“Articles of Secession”
Every state in the Confederacy issued an “Article of Secession” declaring their break from the Union.
Four states went further. Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all issued additional documents, usually referred to as the “Declarations of Causes," which explain their decision to leave the Union.
Two major themes emerge in these documents: slavery and states' rights. All four states strongly defend slavery while making varying claims related to states' rights. Other grievances, such as economic exploitation and the role of the military, receive limited attention in some of the documents.
But as explained before, "State's Rights" is an absurd claim, since ONLY the sovereign people retained their rights under the republican form, there are no grounds for the citizenry or servant government to claim any rights.
===============
__ PEOPLE are sovereigns __
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves[.]”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z
__ Citizens are NOT sovereigns __
CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or SUBMITTED themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "SUBJECT" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
(Note: there is only one country with a "republican form" of government)
State citizens
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
- - - Article 4, Section 2, United States Constitution
. . . .
Since only citizens have mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership, it is evident that no citizen can claim a "RIGHT" to secede from the UNION that secures the endowed rights of the sovereign non-citizen American people.
The sovereign Americans owe no allegiance to a sovereign. In fact, the government owes allegiance to the people (not their subject citizens).
Even the USCON makes the distinction -
People have rights and powers,
Citizens have privileges and immunities.
Few Americans realize that they're mutually exclusive.
= = = = =
CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY
“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed.
But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry. Why? Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc.
And as we all know, in unity there is strength. Divided, we fall. So it was paramount for the UNION to be preserved, if only to deter other predatory nations from attacking America.
For all those posters who are so concerned about what might happen to the Confederate statues being removed from Richmond, there is hope for you. The mayor of the small town of Crewe, VA (pop. 2,216) has offered to take them for tourism purposes. He's open to the Statue of Robert E. Lee and even Jefferson Davis, anything that will bring in tourist dollars to pay for upgrading an aging water and sewer system without raising taxes on the population. The mayor is very pragmatic though. As he said, "If I could get a statue of Lenin or Josef Stalin, I would take it."
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,102,322 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bungalove
For all those posters who are so concerned about what might happen to the Confederate statues being removed from Richmond, there is hope for you. The mayor of the small town of Crewe, VA (pop. 2,216) has offered to take them for tourism purposes. He's open to the Statue of Robert E. Lee and even Jefferson Davis, anything that will bring in tourist dollars to pay for upgrading an aging water and sewer system without raising taxes on the population. The mayor is very pragmatic though. As he said, "If I could get a statue of Lenin or Josef Stalin, I would take it."
The war was originally about economics among other things not necessarily "dominance by the NORTH" or to "end States Rights" even your history knowledge reads like it came from Brightbart. The South started the war, the South lost the war, the South doesn't get to write the history. I always like the slavery would have ended argument that's why we had Jim Crow and the rest of the systems in place to oppress & restrict blacks and keep them as second class citizens without calling them slaves.
The statues can go to a museum there are enough memorials to those who served on both sides in the cemeteries
And the South's economics were inextricably linked to slavery. This is a big part of why the South wanted to keep slavery. It was about money for them. And it was also a social matter. Many feared the idea of Black people being free to do as anyone would do. This is one of the reasons Jim Crow existed. The demise of the Confederacy did what western expansion was going to: End slavery.
The end of slavery was inevitable, if for no other reason, the USA was running out land useful for plantation-style crops like cotton and sugar. There was alot of land, but the Deep South was the land most useful for slavery. When Kansas was up for statehood, this scared the pro-slavery types. Why? Kansas was about the Missouri Compromise line. No state above the 36°30′ north parallel was allowed to be a slave state. With Kansas up for statehood, popular sovereignty was used instead, leading to abolitionists and pro-slavery persons storming the state to sway it their way, leading to Bleeding Kansas.
South Carolina seceded one month after the Lincoln was elected. Lincoln won the election despite him not being on the ballot in southern states. Southern states soon learned Lincoln, and anyone they viewed as abolitionists, could win Presidential elections without them. Southern planters feared their slave-owning way of life being taken from them. Slavery was an economic system which made some people rich. It was a social system. Those too poor to own slaves saw having slaves as a status symbol. The other social part of it was "I might be poor, but I'm not Black, and I'm not a slave". Slavery gave some poor Whites in the slavery-dominated areas of the South someone to look down on.
If you read the Confederate Constitution, it mentions explicitly protecting the right to keep slavery. In the Articles of Secession, it is mentioned several times how much slave ownership meant to the southern states. It mentions that southern states desired to keep slavery and saw the north as a threat to that.
It doesn't matter that Lincoln was no friend of the Black man. It doesn't matter that he didn't intend on abolishing slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation. It still doesn't negate what the southern states, and the southern planters were about.
Western expansion might have been able to stop slavery. However, the demise of the Confederacy stopped it for good. Those who wanted to keep the slave-owning, southern way of life, they found it gone. They found the South as they knew it, gone. Slaves were now free, and with that, needed to participate in American society. However, the racial social hierarchy that was built through slavery, many in the South wanted to restore it. And this is among the biggest reasons Jim Crow became a big thing in the South, the imminent law of the land. It was about keeping Blacks in positions of subservience. Keeping the races separate was about more than just "protecting racial purity". It was white supremacy at its core. It was about keeping Blacks out.
There are still people today who wish those institutions still existed. The Confederate flag, Confederate monuments, they are literally the last vestiges of it. When you call for those to be torn down, you're calling for the last vestiges of white supremacy to be torn down. It's not the erasing history part that is disturbing to said persons.
The Civil War was not primarily about slavery. Please get educated. It was about economic dominance by the NORTH. The Civil War was to end States Rights to a large extent and it worked. Slavery would have been ended without the Civil War and all those needless deaths of both sides.
Name another domestic issue of greater importance in the decade prior to the civil war than the Missouri compromise. This is an ignorant statement.
The war was originally about economics among other things not necessarily "dominance by the NORTH" or to "end States Rights" even your history knowledge reads like it came from Brightbart. The South started the war, the South lost the war, the South doesn't get to write the history. I always like the slavery would have ended argument that's why we had Jim Crow and the rest of the systems in place to oppress & restrict blacks and keep them as second class citizens without calling them slaves.
The statues can go to a museum there are enough memorials to those who served on both sides in the cemeteries
interesting. by firing on a union ship, that was in the south? so if I stuck my finger in your face and chanted "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you" and after 10 minutes you finally smacked my hand away, that means you started a fight?
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,102,322 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators
interesting. by firing on a union ship, that was in the south? so if I stuck my finger in your face and chanted "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you" and after 10 minutes you finally smacked my hand away, that means you started a fight?
Just because they say I'm out of here does not make them a separate country.
The bloodiest four years in American history begin when Confederate shore batteries under General P.G.T. Beauregard open fire on Union-held Fort Sumter in South Carolina’s Charleston Bay
Ref: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...vil-war-begins
The south started the war...
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.
