Fort named after Gen. Robert E. Lee will now honor a Buffalo Soldier

[Along Came Jones]

No more than a lateral arabesque. South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. all explicitly stated maintaining slavery as their primary motive to go to war. I can certainly see where moral superiority more than holds up, even if you can't.

The handshakes need no explanation. There's a very good reason that West Point is no longer named Fort Benedict Arnold.

That was the secessionists' reason. Not the reason the North went to war with them. If there was a moral question, it was did the North have the right to make the South stay when they clearly wanted to leave?

 

[MamboDervish]

That was the secessionists' reason. Not the reason the North went to war with them. If there was a moral question, it was did the North have the right to make the South stay when they clearly wanted to leave?

And you would seem to be defending the South's right to separate to maintain slavery.
Feel free to go with that if you think it occupies the moral high ground.

 

[jaypatriot]

That was the secessionists' reason. Not the reason the North went to war with them. If there was a moral question, it was did the North have the right to make the South stay when they clearly wanted to leave?

Do you not believe that Lincoln's higher cause was to prevent the dissolution of the Union? He was never on record of trying to destroy slavery.
He wanted to preserve the Union. A noble cause.
How would you feel if you had to cross a national boundary to enter the Confederate States of America?

 

[Along Came Jones]

And you would seem to be defending the South's right to separate to maintain slavery.
Feel free to go with that if you think it occupies the moral high ground.

I am doing no such thing. I'm debating history. For instance, there were three earlier threats of secession by states. The Confederate states were the first and last to actually try it.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Do you not believe that Lincoln's higher cause was to prevent the dissolution of the Union? He was never on record of trying to destroy slavery.
He wanted to preserve the Union. A noble cause.
How would you feel if you had to cross a national boundary to enter the Confederate States of America?

Eventually, the fact he issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in the states in rebellion puts him on the record, even if limited to the states in rebellion. He did lead the cause to preserve the Union.

I imagine if the CSA had won, we'd all be accustomed to it by now. Entry would be just like crossing over to Canada or Mexico. But they did not win.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Why is the Trump administration re-re-naming US Army military bases with the names of CSA Generals?

The same reason they are attacking DEI so vociferously. Bigotry, racism, and misogyny.

 

[MamboDervish]

I am doing no such thing. I'm debating history. For instance, there were three earlier threats of secession by states. The Confederate states were the first and last to actually try it.

Your total failure to address the fact that confederate states explicitly fought to maintain slavery is entirely on you.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Your total failure to address the fact that confederate states explicitly fought to maintain slavery is entirely on you.

What are you talking about?

You wrote: "No more than a lateral arabesque. South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. all explicitly stated maintaining slavery as their primary motive to go to war."

I answered: "That was the secessionists' reason. Not the reason the North went to war with them."

Sure looks like I addressed it. Concise and to the point.

 

[bomberfox]

That was the secessionists' reason. Not the reason the North went to war with them. If there was a moral question, it was did the North have the right to make the South stay when they clearly wanted to leave?

Constitutionally and morally in this case yes. The slaver states had big plans to expand the industry well into the west and latin america. They were never going to give it up peacefully.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Constitutionally and morally in this case yes. The slaver states had big plans to expand the industry well into the west and latin america. They were never going to give it up peacefully.

First, the Southern states couldn't give it up peacefully. They're wealth and culture depended on it. At least, the wealth and culture owned by the elite slaveholders. But that is not why Lincoln called upon the Northern states to provide troops. Nor was preserving the union a unified cause. You might remember the tenacious opposition fielded by the Peace Democrats, nicknamed the Copperheads. They pressured Lincoln to make peace with the Confederacy.

The most fervent Copperhead criticism of the administration revolved around race. Copperheads were deeply racist, even by the standards of their own time. Their racial fears increased as slaves ran to Union lines in search of freedom. Laborers feared that freedmen would take their jobs. Others simply did not want African Americans anywhere near them. Whatever the case, Peace Democrats were convinced that abolitionists had brought on the war by stirring up so much trouble in the antebellum period. Under the Lincoln administration, abolitionists had far too much influence and were, claimed the Copperheads, running the government. (Never mind that Lincoln was a raging moderate who moved to the left only as the war forced his hand.) Tensions were so high in the summer of 1862 that race riots broke out in Toledo and New York.

When Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, the Copperheads were apoplectic—although it did give them the satisfaction of saying “I told you so.” The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their worst suspicions of what they thought was the true agenda of Lincoln and the Republicans: freeing the slaves. Democrats performed well in the off-year elections six weeks later, but Republicans held their own. The Republicans lost seats in Congress, governorships in New York and New Jersey, and legislatures in Indiana and Lincoln’s home state of Illinois, both of which went to the Copperheads. But Republicans had not lost as much ground as parties in power generally had in congressional elections. -- Lincoln’s Critics: The Copperheads, Jennifer L. Weber, Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Winter 2011 (Long read)

As for the Constitution, almost from the beginning the binding of states to the union was questioned. Before the Civil War settled the matter by force of arms, three earlier threats of secession were waved about with varying resolve. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson arguably formed the states' rights-compact doctrine in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. New England Federalist toyed with the idea of withdrawing from the Union at the Hartford Convention in 1814. Squabbling over expansion which resulted in the 1820 Missouri Compromise saw secession threats. And in the 1830s South Carolina went to the brink of secession over tariffs.

The Civil War was fought on questionable constitutional grounds, but the preservation of the Union, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13th Amendment morally justified the outcome.

 

[bomberfox]

First, the Southern states couldn't give it up peacefully. They're wealth and culture depended on it. At least, the wealth and culture owned by the elite slaveholders. But that is not why Lincoln called upon the Northern states to provide troops. Nor was preserving the union a unified cause. You might remember the tenacious opposition fielded by the Peace Democrats, nicknamed the Copperheads. They pressured Lincoln to make peace with the Confederacy.

The most fervent Copperhead criticism of the administration revolved around race. Copperheads were deeply racist, even by the standards of their own time. Their racial fears increased as slaves ran to Union lines in search of freedom. Laborers feared that freedmen would take their jobs. Others simply did not want African Americans anywhere near them. Whatever the case, Peace Democrats were convinced that abolitionists had brought on the war by stirring up so much trouble in the antebellum period. Under the Lincoln administration, abolitionists had far too much influence and were, claimed the Copperheads, running the government. (Never mind that Lincoln was a raging moderate who moved to the left only as the war forced his hand.) Tensions were so high in the summer of 1862 that race riots broke out in Toledo and New York.

When Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, the Copperheads were apoplectic—although it did give them the satisfaction of saying “I told you so.” The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their worst suspicions of what they thought was the true agenda of Lincoln and the Republicans: freeing the slaves. Democrats performed well in the off-year elections six weeks later, but Republicans held their own. The Republicans lost seats in Congress, governorships in New York and New Jersey, and legislatures in Indiana and Lincoln’s home state of Illinois, both of which went to the Copperheads. But Republicans had not lost as much ground as parties in power generally had in congressional elections. -- Lincoln’s Critics: The Copperheads, Jennifer L. Weber, Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Winter 2011 (Long read)

As for the Constitution, almost from the beginning the binding of states to the union was questioned. Before the Civil War settled the matter by force of arms, three earlier threats of secession were waved about with varying resolve. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson arguably formed the states' rights-compact doctrine in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. New England Federalist toyed with the idea of withdrawing from the Union at the Hartford Convention in 1814. Squabbling over expansion which resulted in the 1820 Missouri Compromise saw secession threats. And in the 1830s South Carolina went to the brink of secession over tariffs.

The Civil War was fought on questionable constitutional grounds, but the preservation of the Union, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13th Amendment morally justified the outcome.

The constitution never granted the states the right to unilaterally secede, it gave that right solely to congress to decide the territorial boundaries of the united states. Cordelier gave a magnificent explanation why that is so.

 

[Tangmo]

What is wrong with you? Be civil or don't expect a response.

And There Went Jones.

The Confederacy was a single party racist state of fascism before there was fascism.

 

[Along Came Jones]

The constitution never granted the states the right to unilaterally secede, it gave that right solely to congress to decide the territorial boundaries of the united states. Cordelier gave a magnificent explanation why that is so.

Where do I find Cordelier's magnificent explanation? I'm not familiar with the person nor can I find entries online for the explanation. Name searches via the book sections on Amazon and Barnes and Noble yield no results.

In particular, I'd be interested in how the explanation derives or differs from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address which laid out two themes. Hands off slavery and the perpetuity of the Union.

As for slavery, he said:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

 

[bomberfox]

First, the Southern states couldn't give it up peacefully. They're wealth and culture depended on it. At least, the wealth and culture owned by the elite slaveholders. But that is not why Lincoln called upon the Northern states to provide troops. Nor was preserving the union a unified cause. You might remember the tenacious opposition fielded by the Peace Democrats, nicknamed the Copperheads. They pressured Lincoln to make peace with the Confederacy.

The most fervent Copperhead criticism of the administration revolved around race. Copperheads were deeply racist, even by the standards of their own time. Their racial fears increased as slaves ran to Union lines in search of freedom. Laborers feared that freedmen would take their jobs. Others simply did not want African Americans anywhere near them. Whatever the case, Peace Democrats were convinced that abolitionists had brought on the war by stirring up so much trouble in the antebellum period. Under the Lincoln administration, abolitionists had far too much influence and were, claimed the Copperheads, running the government. (Never mind that Lincoln was a raging moderate who moved to the left only as the war forced his hand.) Tensions were so high in the summer of 1862 that race riots broke out in Toledo and New York.

When Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, the Copperheads were apoplectic—although it did give them the satisfaction of saying “I told you so.” The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their worst suspicions of what they thought was the true agenda of Lincoln and the Republicans: freeing the slaves. Democrats performed well in the off-year elections six weeks later, but Republicans held their own. The Republicans lost seats in Congress, governorships in New York and New Jersey, and legislatures in Indiana and Lincoln’s home state of Illinois, both of which went to the Copperheads. But Republicans had not lost as much ground as parties in power generally had in congressional elections. -- Lincoln’s Critics: The Copperheads, Jennifer L. Weber, Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Winter 2011 (Long read)

As for the Constitution, almost from the beginning the binding of states to the union was questioned. Before the Civil War settled the matter by force of arms, three earlier threats of secession were waved about with varying resolve. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson arguably formed the states' rights-compact doctrine in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. New England Federalist toyed with the idea of withdrawing from the Union at the Hartford Convention in 1814. Squabbling over expansion which resulted in the 1820 Missouri Compromise saw secession threats. And in the 1830s South Carolina went to the brink of secession over tariffs.

The Civil War was fought on questionable constitutional grounds, but the preservation of the Union, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13th Amendment morally justified the outcome.

“No, it's not... the 10th Amendment only covers unenumerated powers (1) not given to the United States (2) nor prohibited to the States. To be covered by the 10th Amendment, the unenumerated power in question has to meet both of those criteria. Unilateral secession meets neither one:

(1) Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine the territorial boundaries of the United States.
(2) Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution clearly prohibits the States from exercising powers of national sovereignty (ie, joining Confederations; keeping troops, etc.) without the consent of Congress.

For a State to secede under the Constitution, it needs to meet two criteria:

First, it needs to show a clear desire to secede - via the processes of it's republican government, as guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4; and second, under Article IV, Section 3, it needs the consent of Congress to the adjustment of US territory caused by the State's secession.

Divorce needs both sides to sign off.”
- @Cordelier
Sorry my friend i could not add the post from the thread then put it here because the thread was closed.

 

[Tangmo]

Eventually, the fact he issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in the states in rebellion puts him on the record, even if limited to the states in rebellion. He did lead the cause to preserve the Union.

I imagine if the CSA had won, we'd all be accustomed to it by now. Entry would be just like crossing over to Canada or Mexico. But they did not win.

More like from West Germany into East Germany I'm afraid. So it's a good thing the East Germans didn't win either. Your posts keep having these fantasies about the Confederacy that was a single party WASP fascist state before there was fascism.

 

[bomberfox]

That was the secessionists' reason. Not the reason the North went to war with them. If there was a moral question, it was did the North have the right to make the South stay when they clearly wanted to leave?

The south started the war:

 

[Tangmo]

That was the secessionists' reason. Not the reason the North went to war with them. If there was a moral question, it was did the North have the right to make the South stay when they clearly wanted to leave?

If either way the CSA had become a sovereign and independent state it would have aligned with Hitler and Mussolini during the first half of the 20th century. CSA would have become a hostile fascist power on the same continent as the USA and right at the southern border of the US while having contiguous bodies of water.

The South would have become more industrialized by the time of WW I while remaining agricultural at its historical core and in its climate. And it's the South that has the military culture and traditions that with its racism and WASP single party rule would have identified strongly with the strongmen of Europe and Imperial Japan post WW I. This would have been a crucial negative factor affecting the USA ability and strategy to fight World War II. Likely problematical.

 

[Along Came Jones]

The south started the war:

They certainly fired first.

 

[Along Came Jones]

“No, it's not... the 10th Amendment only covers unenumerated powers (1) not given to the United States (2) nor prohibited to the States. To be covered by the 10th Amendment, the unenumerated power in question has to meet both of those criteria. Unilateral secession meets neither one:

- @Cordelier
Sorry my friend i could not add the post from the thread then put it here because the thread was closed.

Quote edited simply to make room.

Thanks for clearing up the Cordelier mystery. Just never occurred to me he might be a DB member. As for his theory, it does not appropriately apply. The issue in 1861 was the nature of the union. Was it a voluntary compact among states or was it an indissoluble union? Here, I'll use Texas as my test confederate state, partially because eventually it gives rise to the defining Texas v. White. This is the interpretative conflict at the commencement of the Civil War:

[From] An Ordinance: To dissolve the union between the State of Texas and the other States, united under the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
Adopted in Convention, at Austin City, the first day of February, A.D. 1861

We, the People of the State of Texas, by Delegates in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, that the Ordinance adopted by our Convention of Delegates, on the Fourth day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into Union with other States and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America" be, and is hereby repealed and annulled; That all the powers, which by said compact were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government, are revoked and resumed; That Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate Sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the Government thereof.



[From] Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.