Did the southern states have the a Constitutional right to secede in 1861?

[Goobieman]

I addressed this above in a previous post. The inherent rights of a sovereign nation prevent the government from allowing self-destruction.

You might be right, it is were not for the 10th amendment. The 10th speaks of prohibitions specified in the constitution; none of the things you mention are specified in the constitution as a limit is the rights of the states.

A unilateral secession necessarily requires revolution.

Absolutely false, as noted by the secession of several states several months prior to anything resembling a rebellion or revolution. The definition of all three words are different enough to negate any argument that for there to be a secssion there must be a revolution or rebellion to go with it, and so there can be no teeth whatsoever to the argument that the power to suppression rebellions or insurrections negates the right to seceed.

Regardless, the Confederat states decison to "up and leave" was a revolt against the legitimate authority of the Federal government...

No... it was an exercise of the right to end a voluntary relationship with that government and the states that chose to remain under it. A "revolt" necessitates some sort of revolution or rebellion with the intention to overthrow the current government; aside fom this already being dealt with, above, there's no way to argue that the south had any interest whatsoever in overthrowing the government of the United States.

Wrong. The Federal Union is not a league of sovereign nations

Absolutely it is. The federal government exists solely because the states choose to allow it; the states can, any time they wish, choose to dissolve said union w/o the federal government having any legal power to stop them. This necessarily means that, between the states and the federal government, the states ultimately hold sovereignty.

All states gave up full sovereignty upon joining.

The states granted power to the federal government, but they retain the absolute right to take any and every one of those powers back. This necessarily means that, between the states and the federal government, the states ultimately hold sovereignty.

The fact that you join voluntarily has no bearing on whether you can leave at will.

It does when the Constitution does not prohibit it

Plus, all statesl agreed to the Northwest Ordinance, which explictly stated the union was permanent

The NWO is not the US Constitution; your argument here is flawed if for no other reason that if you were right, then all that's necessary for secession is to repeal the NWO. That the supposed prohibition can be simply repealed means that it only exists so long as the law in question exists and is therefore not one inherent to the structure of the union itself.

It actually does prohibit it, just not in explicit terms. But that's unnecessary.

Incorrect. It is absolutely necessary -- else there'd be no reason to include Article I:10, as every prohibition found therein falls under your argument of implication.
If the -Constitution- does not prohibit it, then the state is free to exercise it.

Actually, that's exactly what you said, practically word for word.

No... as the 10th (or any other) Amendment does -give- any rights whatsoever.

 

[The_Patriot]

No, they did not. The entire concept of unilateral secession was alien to the Founding Fathers who wrote the document, and whenever it came up, most of them mocked the concept as rightly they should have. Madison himself addressed the issue of secession and found it utterly absurd that a State could just "up and leave" without the consent of the other parties to the Union. The Constitutional government was not the COnfederacy: it was not a league of independent sovereign governments. They deliberrately left out the provision that provided for secession on purpose, because unlike the Confederation, it was focus was on a Union of "The People of the United States" and not "these united states."

For a concept that is alien to the Founding Fathers, I give you the first Declaration of Secession in the history of the world. The Declaration of Independence is a document of secession. The word secession wasn't invented until the 1820's. However, this is what the Declaration of Independence has to say, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

There goes your secession was an alien concept to the founding fathers. Continuing on, here's Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in regards to the sovereign nations idea you said that they didn't support. I give you the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

1. Resolved, That the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself, the other party: That the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress.

Here is Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address which addresses the issue of the northern states seceding.

If there be any among us who 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.

So far we've got Thomas Jefferson and James Madison against you regarding secession. I'll toss in a coup d' grace by James Madison, himself, from Virginia's ratification of the Constitution of the United States.

WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, 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 whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

Unilateral Secession contradicts the entire concept of Federalism and power-balance inherent to the Founders' intention, as it allow any one state to hold all other states political hostages. For example, no state needs to obey any of the provisions for Federalism, because any state can simply threaten to ignor the Federal government at will via threat of "secession." It's the ulimate "I can't get whatever I want, when I want it, therefore, I will take the ball home and no one will play."

You're misunderstanding what federalism is according to the founding fathers. The federal government is subservient to the state governments with a few defined powers. Those powers are necessary to present a united front to the world. The united front was necessary due to the events surrounding the Treaty of Paris of 1783. The major and defining event is that the King's delegate had to sign 13 different Treaties, one for each colony, since each colony is independent. This independence that was granted by the King is carried over in every state Constitution in their Bill of Rights therein. Here is such a statement from Missouri's Constitution.

Section 4. That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; that all proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States qualifying or affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to conventions of the people.

Anything that isn't listed in the Constitution of the United States falls under the sovereignty of the state of Missouri. Also, legal jurisdiction is representative of state sovereignty. You commit a crime or violate a statute within state borders you are tried under state law. You commit a crime or violate a statute on or within federal territory ie federal buildings and Washington DC you are tried under federal law. The federal government has no authority in the Constitution of the United States to interfere inside of state borders.

This also doesn't account for the contributions of other states to the development of the states that want to secede or the existence of Federal property and investments in State lands. If a state were to unilaterally secede "at will," it would necessarily entail the confiscation, and thus theft, of others' property and investments without their consent. This was actually the case in the 1861 crisis, where Southern states just left and stole Federal forts, arsenals, and armouries the traitors knew the Feds wouldn't give up voluntarily.

William Rawle, a lawyer and friend of James Madison, wrote a book all about the Constitution and how it applied to the states, the federal government, and the people. The title of the book is A View of the Constitution of the United States and James Madison was sent a copy of it for his approval. In it he covers every article and clause as well as the prevailing case law regarding it. This book was a textbook at all of the schools, universities, and federal military institutions with an accompany coursework to go with it. It remained in the schools, at all levels, up until the end of War of Northern Aggression.

Under Madison's and Rawle's reasoning that if a state were to leave the union, they could, but they had to pay what the state owed to the federal government for the return of all federal property back to the state government and for the US federal debt. The separation was to be as amicable as possible.

In the case of the southern states seizing control over forts etc..., this was made necessary due to Lincoln refusing all ambassadors from the southern states. Lincoln and Stanton colluded to force the country to go to war. The southern diplomats tried for nearly five months to negotiate the return of said properties back to the southern states. The properties were originally sold to the federal government under Article I Section VIII Clause XVII of the Constitution of the United States. Naturally, the states wanted those properties back and were willing to pay for their return. Stanton, under orders from Lincoln was to refuse any and all southern diplomats in order to go to war.

 

[rathi]

In the case of the southern states seizing control over forts etc..., this was made necessary due to Lincoln refusing all ambassadors from the southern states. Lincoln and Stanton colluded to force the country to go to war. The southern diplomats tried for nearly five months to negotiate the return of said properties back to the southern states. The properties were originally sold to the federal government under Article I Section VIII Clause XVII of the Constitution of the United States. Naturally, the states wanted those properties back and were willing to pay for their return. Stanton, under orders from Lincoln was to refuse any and all southern diplomats in order to go to war.

So if I want to buy your house and you won't sell it, I can shoot you in the face and claim it for my own? While I can't blame the South on a pragmatic level for attacking the forts, their is no legal justification for their actions. Like I said, the civil war was decided with guns and bodies, not in a courtroom.

 

[The_Patriot]

So if I want to buy your house and you won't sell it, I can shoot you in the face and claim it for my own? While I can't blame the South on a pragmatic level for attacking the forts, their is no legal justification for their actions. Like I said, the civil war was decided with guns and bodies, not in a courtroom.

Actually, they had a perfect legal justification for it under the Law of Nations. A government has a duty and an obligation to protect its borders and citizens. Keep in mind that the seizures of federal property occurred after the United States military repeatedly invaded the borders of the southern states, which under the Law of Nations is an act of war. Thus, the seizures became an act of defense.

"A question settled by war and bloodshed will forever remain unanswered."---Jefferson Davis

 

[Technocratic]

For a concept that is alien to the Founding Fathers, I give you the first Declaration of Secession in the history of the world. The Declaration of Independence is a document of secession. The word secession wasn't invented until the 1820's. However, this is what the Declaration of Independence has to say, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

There goes your secession was an alien concept to the founding fathers. Continuing on, here's Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in regards to the sovereign nations idea you said that they didn't support. I give you the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.





Here is Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address which addresses the issue of the northern states seceding.



So far we've got Thomas Jefferson and James Madison against you regarding secession. I'll toss in a coup d' grace by James Madison, himself, from Virginia's ratification of the Constitution of the United States.





You're misunderstanding what federalism is according to the founding fathers. The federal government is subservient to the state governments with a few defined powers. Those powers are necessary to present a united front to the world. The united front was necessary due to the events surrounding the Treaty of Paris of 1783. The major and defining event is that the King's delegate had to sign 13 different Treaties, one for each colony, since each colony is independent. This independence that was granted by the King is carried over in every state Constitution in their Bill of Rights therein. Here is such a statement from Missouri's Constitution.



Anything that isn't listed in the Constitution of the United States falls under the sovereignty of the state of Missouri. Also, legal jurisdiction is representative of state sovereignty. You commit a crime or violate a statute within state borders you are tried under state law. You commit a crime or violate a statute on or within federal territory ie federal buildings and Washington DC you are tried under federal law. The federal government has no authority in the Constitution of the United States to interfere inside of state borders.



William Rawle, a lawyer and friend of James Madison, wrote a book all about the Constitution and how it applied to the states, the federal government, and the people. The title of the book is A View of the Constitution of the United States and James Madison was sent a copy of it for his approval. In it he covers every article and clause as well as the prevailing case law regarding it. This book was a textbook at all of the schools, universities, and federal military institutions with an accompany coursework to go with it. It remained in the schools, at all levels, up until the end of War of Northern Aggression.

Under Madison's and Rawle's reasoning that if a state were to leave the union, they could, but they had to pay what the state owed to the federal government for the return of all federal property back to the state government and for the US federal debt. The separation was to be as amicable as possible.

In the case of the southern states seizing control over forts etc..., this was made necessary due to Lincoln refusing all ambassadors from the southern states. Lincoln and Stanton colluded to force the country to go to war. The southern diplomats tried for nearly five months to negotiate the return of said properties back to the southern states. The properties were originally sold to the federal government under Article I Section VIII Clause XVII of the Constitution of the United States. Naturally, the states wanted those properties back and were willing to pay for their return. Stanton, under orders from Lincoln was to refuse any and all southern diplomats in order to go to war.

I addressed that point. You're confusing the Natural Right of Revolution with a legal right to secession. The Declaration of Independence is irrelevant, as it's not a legal document, nor does it reflect the legal mechanisms or beliefs of the Constitutional period. The founders at the time believed in a loose Confederation model, which they later abandonded. If the Founders really supported the Right of Revolution as a legal concept, they wouldn't have explicitly made revolution illegal in the Constitution by conferring powers of police to the Federal government to put down internal rebellions.

Also, James Madison disagres with you. You're misreading him.

 

[Technocratic]

Actually, they had a perfect legal justification for it under the Law of Nations. A government has a duty and an obligation to protect its borders and citizens. Keep in mind that the seizures of federal property occurred after the United States military repeatedly invaded the borders of the southern states, which under the Law of Nations is an act of war. Thus, the seizures became an act of defense.

"A question settled by war and bloodshed will forever remain unanswered."---Jefferson Davis

That's a lie. The Confederacy attacked and claimed Federal property long before the North invaded. It even claimed states that did not have secessionist majorities in their legislatures. Don't lie. It's dishonourable. The South shot first, too. REfer to the link I provided. IT will help you educate yourself on the issue of secession.

 

[The_Patriot]

That's a lie. The Confederacy attacked and claimed Federal property long before the North invaded. It even claimed states that did not have secessionist majorities in their legislatures. Don't lie. It's dishonourable. The South shot first, too. REfer to the link I provided. IT will help you educate yourself on the issue of secession.

Star of the West invaded the waters of South Carolina in January of 1861. Major Anderson US Army invaded South Carolina on December 26, 1860. A fleet of US Navy ships invaded Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861. From Missouri's own history, the Union Army invaded St. Louis on January 11, 1861 and formally declared war on Missouri on June 11, 1861. This was after five months of combat operations within the state of Missouri. No lies, just the facts.

 

[The_Patriot]

I addressed that point. You're confusing the Natural Right of Revolution with a legal right to secession. The Declaration of Independence is irrelevant, as it's not a legal document, nor does it reflect the legal mechanisms or beliefs of the Constitutional period. The founders at the time believed in a loose Confederation model, which they later abandonded. If the Founders really supported the Right of Revolution as a legal concept, they wouldn't have explicitly made revolution illegal in the Constitution by conferring powers of police to the Federal government to put down internal rebellions.

Also, James Madison disagres with you. You're misreading him.

The Declaration of Independence is not a document of revolution. It is a document of secession. Also, I'm not the one confusing revolution and secession. Secession is the act of dissolving political bands peaceably while revolution is the violent overthrow of a government. The southern states left peacefully, but Lincoln and the US pursued a course of war. Again, James Madison has repeatedly agreed with my position. By you declaring that he doesn't without proof is dishonest. Defeat the facts presented with your own and don't use rhetoric.

EDIT: I find it humorous that out of all the legal documents I've provided that you pick out the Declaration of Independence. So far I've produced, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (laws), Virginia Ratification (law), and Missouri's Constitution (law). What laws have you produced? None. What historical documentation have you provided? None. What have you produced? A lot of hot air from your rhetoric.

 

[Goobieman]

You might be right, it is were not for the 10th amendment. The 10th speaks of prohibitions specified in the constitution; none of the things you mention are specified in the constitution as a limit is the rights of the states.


Absolutely false, as noted by the secession of several states several months prior to anything resembling a rebellion or revolution. The definition of all three words are different enough to negate any argument that for there to be a secssion there must be a revolution or rebellion to go with it, and so there can be no teeth whatsoever to the argument that the power to suppression rebellions or insurrections negates the right to seceed.


No... it was an exercise of the right to end a voluntary relationship with that government and the states that chose to remain under it. A "revolt" necessitates some sort of revolution or rebellion with the intention to overthrow the current government; aside fom this already being dealt with, above, there's no way to argue that the south had any interest whatsoever in overthrowing the government of the United States.


Absolutely it is. The federal government exists solely because the states choose to allow it; the states can, any time they wish, choose to dissolve said union w/o the federal government having any legal power to stop them. This necessarily means that, between the states and the federal government, the states ultimately hold sovereignty.


The states granted power to the federal government, but they retain the absolute right to take any and every one of those powers back. This necessarily means that, between the states and the federal government, the states ultimately hold sovereignty.


It does when the Constitution does not prohibit it


The NWO is not the US Constitution; your argument here is flawed if for no other reason that if you were right, then all that's necessary for secession is to repeal the NWO. That the supposed prohibition can be simply repealed means that it only exists so long as the law in question exists and is therefore not one inherent to the structure of the union itself.


Incorrect. It is absolutely necessary -- else there'd be no reason to include Article I:10, as every prohibition found therein falls under your argument of implication.
If the -Constitution- does not prohibit it, then the state is free to exercise it.


No... as the 10th (or any other) Amendment does -give- any rights whatsoever.

No response? Hmm.

 

[jallman]

That's a lie. The Confederacy attacked and claimed Federal property long before the North invaded. It even claimed states that did not have secessionist majorities in their legislatures. Don't lie. It's dishonourable. The South shot first, too. REfer to the link I provided. IT will help you educate yourself on the issue of secession.

Umm, no. The union navy invaded South Carolina waters and that sparked the aggression. I am swiftly becoming convinced that it is you who needs education on the issue of secession.

 

[Technocratic]

Star of the West invaded the waters of South Carolina in January of 1861. Major Anderson US Army invaded South Carolina on December 26, 1860. A fleet of US Navy ships invaded Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861. From Missouri's own history, the Union Army invaded St. Louis on January 11, 1861 and formally declared war on Missouri on June 11, 1861. This was after five months of combat operations within the state of Missouri. No lies, just the facts.

Lots of misrepresentations and vague claims, but not scholarly citations to demonstrate the North attacked first.

 

[Technocratic]

Umm, no. The union navy invaded South Carolina waters and that sparked the aggression. I am swiftly becoming convinced that it is you who needs education on the issue of secession.

False. That is Confederate propaganda. The South provoked a Northern response due to the threats against Federal property. The North was justified in moving personnel into S. Carolina waters: to protect Federal property and quash rebellion. You're confusing that with an aggressive invasion. The North had to send ships to reinforce Federal forts S. Carolina threatened in the event the Feds did not simply hand them over.

The North did position troops in the border states, to which the above notes, in self-defense against secessionist traitors preparing to usurp legtimate U.S. control. Again, self-defense. The "patriot", who is anything but, is deliberately painting that as a Northern Invasion, which is patently a mischaracterization. The quashing of treason and rebellion is not a war of aggression in the South.

You need to get your info from something more reputable than Confederate revisions.

Again, I urge you to refer to the written sources I mentioned earlier. They will clear up your misconceptiosn regarding secession and the bogus War of Northern Aggression claims.

 

[jallman]

False.

No, it's true. You can try to revise history all you want but I'm not buying into your deceit. You need to go back and learn your US History, this time paying attention to facts devoid of whatever agenda you seem to carry.

 

[Technocratic]

No, it's true. You can try to revise history all you want but I'm not buying into your deceit. You need to go back and learn your US History, this time paying attention to facts devoid of whatever agenda you seem to carry.

No, it's quite false. Refer to the above. You are both misrepresnting the facts to suit your traitor aganda. You will never learn if you don't open yourself up to reality.

 

[jallman]

No, it's quite false.

No, what I stated was quite true and you've had the floor for quite long enough spewing your revised version of US History. The need for education on the topic squarely falls on you because nothing you have said has resembled fact so much as it has propagandized editorialization.

 

[The_Patriot]

Lots of misrepresentations and vague claims, but not scholarly citations to demonstrate the North attacked first.

On April 12th, Maj. Robert Anderson and 127 men held Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, with Capt. Abner Doubleday being second in command. The men had been neither supplied nor reinforced since occupying the fort the night of December 26, 1860. Their presence caused a crisis between the U.S. government and the seceded state of South Carolina, offended at Union troops sitting on sovereign territory. Confederate forces, commanded by Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, had thrown up batteries on the harbor's shores north and south of Fort Sumter and trained guns on it from Forts Moultrie and Johnson. Fort Sumter mustered only 66 cannon, several unmounted. At 3:20 A.M., the crisis came to a head. Link

Concerning Star of the West

USS Harriet Lane, a 750-ton side-wheel gunboat, was built at New York City in 1857 as the U.S. Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane. In addition to carrying out her Revenue Service duties, she served with the Navy during the Paraguay expedition of 1858-59. Returning to Navy control in late March 1861, as the secession crisis deepened, Harriet Lane took part in the attempt to relieve Fort Sumter when that vital position in Charleston harbor, South Carolina, was beseiged by Confederate forces. While so engaged, on 12 April 1861, she fired the first U.S. Navy shot of the Civil War. Link

Jan. 11, 1861 Federal Troops arrive in St. Louis "Sturgeon's Folly" -- Federal troops arrive in St. Louis to guard U.S. subtreasury in response to alarm raised by Assistant U.S. Treasurer Isaac Sturgeon. Pro-secession Minute Men formed in response, Charles McLaren first chairman.

June 11, 1861 Price, Jackson, Snead, Blair, Lyon The meeting at Planter's House hotel between Gov. Claiborne F. Jackson, Gen. Sterling Price (accompanied by Col. Thomas L. Snead) and Nathanial Lyon, Frank Blair (accompanied by Maj. Conant). It ended with Lyon making the famous proclamation as recorded by Snead:

"Finally, when the conference had lasted four or five hours, Lyon closed it, as he had opened it, Rather,' said he (he was still seated, and spoke deliberately, slowly, and with a peculiar emphasis), 'rather than concede to the State of Missouri the right to demand that my Government shall not enlist troops within her limits, or bring troops into the State whenever it pleases, or move its troops at its own will into, out of, or through the State; rather than concede to the State of Missouri for one single instant the right to dictate to my Government in any matter however unimportant, I would (rising as he said this and pointing in turn to every one in the room) see you, and you, and you, and you, and every man, woman, and child in the State, dead and buried.'

"Then turning to the Governor, he said: 'This means war. In an hour one of my officers will call for you and conduct you out of my lines.' Link

All of my claims are backed by historical documentation. Where is your cites of the facts? Nowhere, since they don't exist.

 

[Technocratic]

AmericanHeritage.com / The Civil War Today: An Interview with James McPherson

Professional academics agree with me. I will trust the research of a foremost Civil War historian rather than some internet pretender naming himself "The patriot" parroting Confederate lies.

The name the Civil War is by far the most appropriate. That is what people on both sides called it during the war itself. In the North during the war it was also called the Rebellion; in the South it was called the War for Independence. Most of the other phrases by Southerners to describe the war—War Between the States and War of Northern Aggression—came into use after the war, as part of the retroactive effort to honor the Lost Cause. In reality, the War of Southern Aggression would be more accurate, since the Confederacy started it, by firing on U.S. soldiers and a U.S. fort on April 12, 1861.

;0

 

[Technocratic]

No, what I stated was quite true and you've had the floor for quite long enough spewing your revised version of US History. The need for education on the topic squarely falls on you because nothing you have said has resembled fact so much as it has propagandized editorialization.

False. What you said was wrong. If you refuse to learn, I cannot help you.

 

[jallman]

False. What you said was wrong. If you refuse to learn, I cannot help you.

No what I stated was true. Your attempt to skew facts and grossly simplify complex issues is the problem here, not my education. Your refusal to acknowledge truth is something that only you can address.

 

[jallman]

AmericanHeritage.com / The Civil War Today: An Interview with James McPherson

Professional academics agree with me. I will trust the research of a foremost Civil War historian rather than some internet pretender naming himself "The patriot" parroting Confederate lies.




;0

Yes, one academic in one interview makes a failed argument. You must be so proud to have sought out the gem you were seeking among all the others that disagree.

Any fool can find at least one other fool to mirror his foolishness.

 

[The_Patriot]

AmericanHeritage.com / The Civil War Today: An Interview with James McPherson

Professional academics agree with me. I will trust the research of a foremost Civil War historian rather than some internet pretender naming himself "The patriot" parroting Confederate lies.




;0

I'll disregard anything said by the Cult of Lincoln high priest James McPherson. I'll pull out Thomas DiLorenzo and Shelby Foote. I notice that in your quote of James McPherson that he ignores the events I cited from reputable sources that lead up to the War of Southern Independence. He ignores the invasions, acts of war, the Union Army and Navy did against the southern states.

 

[jallman]

I'll disregard anything said by the Cult of Lincoln high priest James McPherson. I'll pull out Thomas DiLorenzo and Shelby Foote. I notice that in your quote of James McPherson that he ignores the events I cited from reputable sources that lead up to the War of Southern Independence. He ignores the invasions, acts of war, the Union Army and Navy did against the southern states.

Frankly, the first act of aggression was the take over and entrenchment of Union soldiers in Ft. Sumter to start with. The fort was well within the Charleston harbor making it subject to the rule of the seceded South Carolina state and thus, the Confederate government. It was pure arrogance for the Union government to entertain the idea that the Confederacy would permit a fort to be maintained in it's waters, especially considering the course of economic aggression the Union had been engaged upon prior to the secession. The attempts to resupply the fort were turned away and the South only moved to take Sumter and Pickens after their sovereignty was infringed upon by Lincoln's move to send a ship into their territorial waters despite being warned not to do so.

The war was clearly one of aggression by the north and was only an extension of the type of disrespect for and attempts to subjugate the south that had been a matter of course prior to the secession.

The issue was so complex and was building up before we even claimed independence from England. Techno-whatever's attempt to paint this as a simple treason issue are disingenuous, shallow, and lazy analysis driven more by agenda than it is by fact.

 

[Technocratic]

On April 12th, Maj. Robert Anderson and 127 men held Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, with Capt. Abner Doubleday being second in command. The men had been neither supplied nor reinforced since occupying the fort the night of December 26, 1860. Their presence caused a crisis between the U.S. government and the seceded state of South Carolina, offended at Union troops sitting on sovereign territory. Confederate forces, commanded by Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, had thrown up batteries on the harbor's shores north and south of Fort Sumter and trained guns on it from Forts Moultrie and Johnson. Fort Sumter mustered only 66 cannon, several unmounted. At 3:20 A.M., the crisis came to a head. Link

As I thought, like any NeoConfederate apologist propagandist, you take facts and contort them to mean the opposite of what they really mean. You'd dishonestly construe the existence of federal troops in a federal fort, being resupplied quite legally, against demands that they give control to rebel forces, as an "invasion" of the South.

That's retard logic. You might as well claim a rape victim is the aggressor if she doesn't willingly give up her body to the abuser. Nope. Back in reality land, South Carolnia was the initial aggressor, as it not only demanded the surrender of the Fort, as throughout the South other forts had been demanded similarly, it threatened to starve the garrison until it surrendered, which resulted in the North being forced to resupply in order to avoid the loss of the Fort to a siege.

Next.

USS Harriet Lane, a 750-ton side-wheel gunboat, was built at New York City in 1857 as the U.S. Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane. In addition to carrying out her Revenue Service duties, she served with the Navy during the Paraguay expedition of 1858-59. Returning to Navy control in late March 1861, as the secession crisis deepened, Harriet Lane took part in the attempt to relieve Fort Sumter when that vital position in Charleston harbor, South Carolina, was beseiged by Confederate forces. While so engaged, on 12 April 1861, she fired the first U.S. Navy shot of the Civil War.

Inane Neoconfederate bullsh*t refuted. Refer to the above.

Jan. 11, 1861 Federal Troops arrive in St. Louis "Sturgeon's Folly" -- Federal troops arrive in St. Louis to guard U.S. subtreasury in response to alarm raised by Assistant U.S. Treasurer Isaac Sturgeon. Pro-secession Minute Men formed in response, Charles McLaren first chairman.

More bizarre NeoConfederate logic, wherein sending U.S. troops to guard federal government institutions against alarms of rebellion, when states all over are threatening it, is obviously an "aggressive invasion." LoL.

Next.

June 11, 1861 Price, Jackson, Snead, Blair, Lyon The meeting at Planter's House hotel between Gov. Claiborne F. Jackson, Gen. Sterling Price (accompanied by Col. Thomas L. Snead) and Nathanial Lyon, Frank Blair (accompanied by Maj. Conant). It ended with Lyon making the famous proclamation as recorded by Snead:

"Finally, when the conference had lasted four or five hours, Lyon closed it, as he had opened it, Rather,' said he (he was still seated, and spoke deliberately, slowly, and with a peculiar emphasis), 'rather than concede to the State of Missouri the right to demand that my Government shall not enlist troops within her limits, or bring troops into the State whenever it pleases, or move its troops at its own will into, out of, or through the State; rather than concede to the State of Missouri for one single instant the right to dictate to my Government in any matter however unimportant, I would (rising as he said this and pointing in turn to every one in the room) see you, and you, and you, and you, and every man, woman, and child in the State, dead and buried.'

"Then turning to the Governor, he said: 'This means war. In an hour one of my officers will call for you and conduct you out of my lines.' Link

Necessary to defend Federal authorty against secessionist rebels. Not aggression. Defensive.

All of my claims are backed by historical documentation. Where is your cites of the facts? Nowhere, since they don't exist.

You have plenty of claims, but none of them justifies your argument. Each of them is a calculated response to, or defensive action against, Southern rebels. The first two examples are obvous instances of Southern Aggression that you are using to conclude, based on Federal resposnes to it, just the reverse of a proper conclusion. The latter is a case of the goverment squashing rebellion before it spreads.

 

[Goobieman]

It was pure arrogance for the Union government to entertain the idea that the Confederacy would permit a fort to be maintained in it's waters, especially considering the course of economic aggression the Union had been engaged upon prior to the secession.

The fort effectively blockaded the harbor. A blockade is an act of war.

 

[The_Patriot]

Frankly, the first act of aggression was the take over and entrenchment of Union soldiers in Ft. Sumter to start with. The fort was well within the Charleston harbor making it subject to the rule of the seceded South Carolina state and thus, the Confederate government. It was pure arrogance for the Union government to entertain the idea that the Confederacy would permit a fort to be maintained in it's waters, especially considering the course of economic aggression the Union had been engaged upon prior to the secession. The attempts to resupply the fort were turned away and the South only moved to take Sumter and Pickens after their sovereignty was infringed upon by Lincoln's move to send a ship into their territorial waters despite being warned not to do so.

The war was clearly one of aggression by the north and was only an extension of the type of disrespect for and attempts to subjugate the south that had been a matter of course prior to the secession.

The issue was so complex and was building up before we even claimed independence from England. Techno-whatever's attempt to paint this as a simple treason issue are disingenuous, shallow, and lazy analysis driven more by agenda than it is by fact.

Oh I agree with you. Look I'll even throw in a map to support our position.

Add in that Major Anderson and the US Army stole the fishing boats, from the citizens of South Carolina, used to transport the men and material of war from Ft. Moultrie to Fort Sumter only proves to be more damning of the actions of the United States.