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.
^^^^^ LMAO! 1783 Paris Agreement: A treaty signed by all parties and legal. It's a lot longer than than but I will put the basics.
Once again, you fail basic reading comprehension.
It wasn't one treaty. It was several treaties. The United States didn't sign the treaty that Great Britain made with France, nor did France sign the treaty that Great Britain made with the United States.
Quote:
Britain acknowledges the United States (New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia) to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof,
Establishing the boundaries of the United States, including but not limited to those between the United States and British North America from the Mississippi River to the Southern colonies. Britain surrenders their previously-owned land,
I see you've simply performed a cut and paste from a Wikipedia article (without attribution, I might add).
I also see that you fail to comprehend that it makes my case, not yours.
Quote:
Thanks for the laugh. Yes, nice simple history. North = GOOD. South= war mongers slaver holders immoral people.
No, I never made such a claim as you posted above. Have you finally retreated into putting words into other people's mouths, being unable yourself to mount a cogent argument on your own?
He was the Editor of the Richmond "Examiner" During the war and a Virginian man and yes, he did plant the seed within the title of his book in 1866.
Which tells me that he is posting opinion. And I do believe that you've posted from his book in the History forum here. As I recall, he had a rather unique grasp of revolutionary history, one that ran at significant odds to mainstream concepts, but were fully supportive of his later arguments concerning the Southern cause.
Allow me the luxury of not simply agreeing with a man who has a definite bias.
Quote:
Did you know that Massachusetts declared succession four times after joining the union? The goods they produced were not getting the 'protections' the u.s. Federal government was to provide. They had the same issue with lobbyist then, that we do know, the difference now is we just verbally complain of the corruption, we don't go to war over it.
I was unaware of the legislature of Massachusetts or a convention in Massachusetts ever declaring secession (assuming that you didn't really mean 'succession').
I am aware that the concept of secession was floated at the Federalist Party's Hartford Convention in December 15, 1814 thru January 5, 1815, but the notion died out after the United States won an impressive victory at the Battle of New Orleans.
Can you cite the four times that Massachusetts declared secession?
Would they have been made upon their freedom to earn a wage, been made full citizens of the u.s. coming with that the right to form militias and carry arms? If so, who in the Northern Territories purposed that? btw: minimum wage was not a thing; they could have traded labor for a roof over their heads and food, it would have worked.
"In Congress the Northern States had 183 votes ; the South, if unanimous, 120. If then the North was prepared to act in a mass its power was irresistible ; and the election of Mr. Lincoln plainly showed that it was prepared so to act and to carry out a sectional design. The anti- slavery power in the North was now compact and invincible, A party opposed to slavery had organized in 1840, with about seven thousand voters ; in 1860, it had polled nearly two million votes, and had succeeded in electing the President of the United States. The conservative party in the North had been thoroughly corrupted. They were beaten in every Northern State in 1860, with a single exception, by the avowed enemies of the South, who, but a few years ago, had been powerless in their midst. The leaders of the Northern Democratic party had, in 1856 and in 1860, openly taken the position that freedom would be more certainly secured in the Territories by the rule of non-intervention than by any other policy or expedient. This interpretation of their policy alone saved the Democratic party from entire annihilation. The overwhelming pressure of the anti-slavery sentiment had prevented their acceding to the Southern plat- form in the Presidential canvass. Nothing in the present or in the future could be looked for from the so called conservatives of the North ; and the South prepared to go out of a Union which no longer afforded any guaranty for her rights or any permanent sense of security, and which had brought her under the domination of a section, the designs of which, carried into legislation, would destroy her institutions, and even involve the lives of her people.
Such was the true and overwhelming significance of Mr. Lincoln's election to the people of the South. They saw in it the era of a sectional domination, which they proposed to encounter, not by revolution, properly SO called, not by an attempt to recover by arms their constitutional rights in the Union, but simply to escape by withdrawal from the confederation, and the resumption of their original character of independent States." The lost cause; a new southern history of the war of the Confederates. (1866) #88 (p.80) & #89 (p.81) [my emphasis]
If the Northern Territories were purposing full citizenship rights of those in the slave population that would have earned the Southern Territories (including half of Maryland) more than the 120 delegates in enumeration of the population. So your going to try and tell me with a straight face, those in the Southern Territories went to war to keep slaves from being full citizens of the u.s.? Their political value being greater as citizens than as property to which they owed taxes, plus housing, clothes, the roof over their heads and medical. Even as freemen they would not have had full protections of the u.s. Constitution which counted 'others' in the population as 3/5. Find me the document purposed by Northern delegates that states otherwise, then you'll win your argument.
The South will always be known for Slavery they continued with Jim Crow laws all the way into the 1960s which was just another form of slavery.
It does occur to me that negotiated secession between all concerned parties is legal and does occur from time to time. Cases in point are those nations previously of the British Empire that gained their own sovereignty over time, such as Canada, Australia, and other various members of the British Commonwealth. The amicable split up of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republican and Slovakia is another example. And then there's the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, although Vladimir Putin is trying his best to change that.
But unilateral secession isn't a legal power and as such isn't covered by the 10th Amendment. It is a revolutionary action, an insurrection, and its road to legality is through winning the subsequent war. The United States won their war, therefore their "secession" was legal. The Confederacy lost their war, therefore, their secession was illegal.
Is kinda of hard to take Lincoln and the North serious about a perfect union when they illegally torched the states in the South, destroyed their economy, violated their rights and put a blockage of food and medicine slowly choking them to death. What you are going to end up with it's a bitter and economically inferior half of the union. They could have let them go and keep peace and leave the door open later to enter back in the union.
You are British, didn't your country leave the European Union. I don't see the EU putting a blockade of food and medicine on your island or torching your country into pieces for 4 years to force you back.
It’s true that I’m a citizen of U.K., but my soupçon of French blood anchors my heart firmly in La République française, but I digress, certainly the EU didn’t blockade the U.K., but on the other hand we didn’t fire on Mont-Saint-Michel off the coast of Normandy as a prelude to going it alone, and to confirm that we were serious.
Forget everything else before the constitution. Even if you burn all that you still have the 10th Amendment of the constitution that tells you flat out who is right here and who is wrong:
10th: The powers not delegated (Given permission by the states) to the Unites States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED to the States respectively, or the people.
The North right there not only violated their own constitution and treaty and waged an illegal war on other states but it's a long pattern of illegal wars by this same union for centuries. Ask the Natives, they broke so many treaties with the Natives that I need more fingers to count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
Forget everything else before the constitution. Even if you burn all that you still have the 10th Amendment of the constitution that tells you flat out who is right here and who is wrong:
Congress, under the American Confederation of Congress, wasn't given legislative powers; (if you forget this then you won't see the difference in adopted law) sovereignty retained by the States and duly noted in the Paris Agreement 1783.
After the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, u.s. Constitution adopted in 1789 --- the Congress of the Federal Government had legislative powers --- thus the 10th Amendment; the General government was to derive its powers from the States. Northern States had 183 delegates, the Southern States (& half of Maryland) 120 delegates. Today we look at a party votes, back then it was a sectional divide where as the North voted their interest. A democrat living in the South was very different from a democrat in the North.
So the question is, did the States have the sovereign right to succeed and withdraw their support of the u.s. Government? Since Congress had to vote them in, seems to me Congress would have to allow them to depart. And of course, you know that it was not within 'their interests' to do that ...
"Virginia, in giving her assent to the Constitution, said : " We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected, etc., etc., do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The State of New York said that " the powers of Government may be re-assumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness." And the State of Rhode Island adopted the same language." The lost cause; a new southern history of the war of the Confederates. ... #48 (p.40)
Are those legal and binding words?
From everything I've read, they liked the u.s. Constitution, what they didn't like was the Federal Government's failure to do its job. But still a contract is a contract and is binding in a court of law. The only way to unbind it is for the parties to go back before a judge and argue for its dissolve.
Is kinda of hard to take Lincoln and the North serious about a perfect union when they illegally torched the states in the South, destroyed their economy, violated their rights and put a blockage of food and medicine slowly choking them to death. What you are going to end up with it's a bitter and economically inferior half of the union. They could have let them go and keep peace and leave the door open later to enter back in the union.
Your are British, didn't you country left the European Union. I don't see the EU putting a blockade of food and medicine on your island or torching your country into pieces for 4 years to force you back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Francois
It’s true that I’m a citizen of U.K., but my soupçon of French blood anchors my heart firmly in La République française, but I digress, certainly the EU didn’t blockade the U.K., but on the other hand we didn’t fire on Mont-Saint-Michel off the coast of Normandy as a prelude to going it alone, and to confirm that we were serious.
At any time during the days of the U.K.'s exit, did the EU armies occupy Mont-Saint-Michel?
PS: interesting enough before the Confederates withdrawal, the u.s. government did not stock the southern forts with garrison. even though they had asked for 'protection'. now they have an interest in ft. Sumter?
Would they have been made upon their freedom to earn a wage, been made full citizens of the u.s. coming with that the right to form militias and carry arms? If so, who in the Northern Territories purposed that? btw: minimum wage was not a thing; they could have traded labor for a roof over their heads and food, it would have worked.
"In Congress the Northern States had 183 votes ; the South, if unanimous, 120. If then the North was prepared to act in a mass its power was irresistible ; and the election of Mr. Lincoln plainly showed that it was prepared so to act and to carry out a sectional design. The anti- slavery power in the North was now compact and invincible, A party opposed to slavery had organized in 1840, with about seven thousand voters ; in 1860, it had polled nearly two million votes, and had succeeded in electing the President of the United States. The conservative party in the North had been thoroughly corrupted. They were beaten in every Northern State in 1860, with a single exception, by the avowed enemies of the South, who, but a few years ago, had been powerless in their midst. The leaders of the Northern Democratic party had, in 1856 and in 1860, openly taken the position that freedom would be more certainly secured in the Territories by the rule of non-intervention than by any other policy or expedient. This interpretation of their policy alone saved the Democratic party from entire annihilation. The overwhelming pressure of the anti-slavery sentiment had prevented their acceding to the Southern plat- form in the Presidential canvass. Nothing in the present or in the future could be looked for from the so called conservatives of the North ; and the South prepared to go out of a Union which no longer afforded any guaranty for her rights or any permanent sense of security, and which had brought her under the domination of a section, the designs of which, carried into legislation, would destroy her institutions, and even involve the lives of her people.
Such was the true and overwhelming significance of Mr. Lincoln's election to the people of the South. They saw in it the era of a sectional domination, which they proposed to encounter, not by revolution, properly SO called, not by an attempt to recover by arms their constitutional rights in the Union, but simply to escape by withdrawal from the confederation, and the resumption of their original character of independent States." The lost cause; a new southern history of the war of the Confederates. (1866) #88 (p.80) & #89 (p.81) [my emphasis]
If the Northern Territories were purposing full citizenship rights of those in the slave population that would have earned the Southern Territories (including half of Maryland) more than the 120 delegates in enumeration of the population. So your going to try and tell me with a straight face, those in the Southern Territories went to war to keep slaves from being full citizens of the u.s.? Their political value being greater as citizens than as property to which they owed taxes, plus housing, clothes, the roof over their heads and medical. Even as freemen they would not have had full protections of the u.s. Constitution which counted 'others' in the population as 3/5. Find me the document purposed by Northern delegates that states otherwise, then you'll win your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490
The South will always be known for Slavery they continued with Jim Crow laws all the way into the 1960s which was just another form of slavery.
But the black codes up North get a pass? As well as, the lynchings by the Northern Quakers?
The South was known for slavery only because it was promoted by the Northern interest, for the South to have them, not as citizens though, that power was reserved by Congress. 183 delegates in the North, the North would have easily carried that vote. But they would no longer be 'other' but count as a citizen. Otherwise, they may as remain property of the rich man in the South. Otherwise the South would have gained more than the 120 delegates ... the population has always been greater in the South than in the North as the relationship is different.
ps: the largest plantation in the south was in South Carolina and it was owned by a black man who had 200 slaves. (i haven't double checked the census, but heard it in a video knowing there were free black men in the south i don't doubt it.)
So the question is, did the States have the sovereign right to succeed and withdraw their support of the u.s. Government? Since Congress had to vote them in, seems to me Congress would have to allow them to depart. And of course, you know that it was not within 'their interests' to do that ...
"Virginia, in giving her assent to the Constitution, said : " We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected, etc., etc., do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The State of New York said that " the powers of Government may be re-assumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness." And the State of Rhode Island adopted the same language." The lost cause; a new southern history of the war of the Confederates. ... #48 (p.40)
Are those legal and binding words?
From everything I've read, they liked the u.s. Constitution, what they didn't like was the Federal Government's failure to do its job. But still a contract is a contract and is binding in a court of law. The only way to unbind it is for the parties to go back before a judge and argue for is dissolve.
Under international law a contract by 2 states or multiple states can be broken up by the party that leaves. They don't need permission to leave because they never surrendered that right to enter the treaty. The U.S. has broken many treaties against the wishes of the other parties and the British just did that with the European Union. Of course there is a lot of negotiations and to agree on a timetable and discuss many economic details due to the changes but the outright to leave that each party's right. The courts can settle differences in disputes over payments and debts if they can't reach a settlement but the decision itself to leave is a right and No legal reason to waged war which is another violation of international law and even the U.S. Constitution.
A state may decide to withdraw from a treaty unilaterally. This is also referred to as 'denunciation'. Treaties usually stipulate the requirements to be fulfilled when withdrawing from a treaty. It may for instance be necessary for the withdrawing state to notify the other parties within a particular time limit.
That's why is a right never given to the feds and it stayed with the states. 10TH amendment is very clear.
The Union did it to the Natives for decades and broke many treaties. No union court wasn't going to come out to their defense against the powers that put them in power. That's like me trying to sue when your Dad is the Judge and your brothers and sisters and cousins the jury and you put them all their.
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.
