Bill would require paid Confederate holiday in SC

[Rebel]

So DJ, if it was about slavery, then why were there 4 slave-holding states in the north?

[rich_t]

Yep, here you go.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Georgia

Thank you.

I have book marked it for review.

[rich_t]

So DJ, if it was about slavery, then why were there 4 slave-holding states in the north?

I do note that you have asked that question several times today.

It has never been answered.

[Rebel]

I do note that you have asked that question several times today.

It has never been answered.

I started out with 3, but the 4th, Kentucky, was a bit loose with their affiliation.

[rich_t]

I started out with 3, but the 4th, Kentucky, was a bit loose with their affiliation.

The Yanks still have not responded.

[Chris_]

So DJ, if it was about slavery, then why were there 4 slave-holding states in the north?

You keep bringing this up so...

1) which states?
2) were these states opposed to ending slavery at the time of the War of Southern Insolence?

I am sure you have links at the ready.

[Chris_]

The Yanks still have not responded.

The "Yanks" who are, by the grace of Lincoln, your fellow countrymen, await answers to your assertions.

[djones520]

So DJ, if it was about slavery, then why were there 4 slave-holding states in the north?

 

So two sided Rebel.  It was more then just slavery.  As I said, slavery was one part of it.  A big part, and the driving impetus, but not the whole cause.

Why did they stay?

Deleware's people voted to remain in the Union.

Kentucky was attacked by the Confederacy when they tried to remain Neutral.

The people of Missourri voted to stay in the Union.

Maryland was split on the issue, but the government chose to remain in the union with portions of it's populace supporting the Confederacy crossing the river into Virginia.  On top of that, they wrote a new constitution during the war abolishing slavery within the state.

And the story of West Virginia is pretty clear.

[Chris_]

:whatever:

So two sided Rebel.  It was more then just slavery.  As I said, slavery was one part of it.  A big part, and the driving impetus, but not the whole cause.

Why did they stay?

Deleware's people voted to remain in the Union.

Kentucky was attacked by the Confederacy when they tried to remain Neutral.

The people of Missourri voted to stay in the Union.

Maryland was split on the issue, but the government chose to remain in the union with portions of it's populace supporting the Confederacy crossing the river into Virginia.  On top of that, they wrote a new constitution during the war abolishing slavery within the state.

And the story of West Virginia is pretty clear.

And all of them knew that by staying in the Union they would have to give up Slavery.

That tired cliche used by Southerners really doesn't have much traction.

[JohnnyReb]

"Property rights", the right to own property was part of what it was all about......plus the fact that southern states furnished 70% to 80% of the federal revenue at the time of the civil war.....thru tariffs. Tariffs placed on southern goods both being shipped aboard and imported from aboard.

....and why us southerners are such stauch republicans today is beyond me. It was, afterall, yankee republicans (carpetbaggers) running amuck in the south depriving white men the right to vote, installing ignorant negroes in public office(when there were plenty of well educated blacks in the south to choose from) and siezing property for unpaid high property taxes during "deconstruction". They caused untold hardships on whites and blacks that caused bitterness between the races that caused a 100 years of extreme civil strife that continues even today.





 

[Rebel]

I have yet to see any of you yahoos show me where it's specifically stated that a group of states could not secede. Conversely, I have shown you quotes and links showing that the right did, in fact, exist.

So, it comes down to this, if it was a right for a state to voluntarily leave a union that it voluntarily entered into, who was the aggressor?

Yes, the south is occupied territory.

[Chris_]

...
The confederacy was never a "sovereign nation" ...

I got a couple of bridges I'd be happy to sell you.   

[JohnnyReb]

HEY! Since we're the defeated, oppressed people of a war of imperilism, how come we ain't getting billions in aid and lots of love and sympathy from the liberals like that being lavished on the Palestinians?

[djones520]

I have yet to see any of you yahoos show me where it's specifically stated that a group of states could not secede. Conversely, I have shown you quotes and links showing that the right did, in fact, exist.

So, it comes down to this, if it was a right for a state to voluntarily leave a union that it voluntarily entered into, who was the aggressor?

Yes, the south is occupied territory.

Tell me Rebel.  Why is it the "War of Northern Agression" when it was the Confederates that opened fire?  They committed acts of war against the Union.  Long before Lincoln ever "invaded" the south, they attacked, seized, and put under seige installations of the United States Military.

And explain to me how it wasn't about Slavery when their letters of Secession clearly stated it was?  Your smart enough to know that politicians will hide behind the constitution to further their ends, and your smart enough to know that the war really was not about State Rights, but about keeping their money.

Abolishing slavery was going to seriously hurt the Southern economy, and that is why the States seceeded.  They didn't want to give up their "property" (human beings), because it was going to make them some poor broke bastards.  700,000 Americans where killed Rebel, because the South wanted to keep getting rich off the blood and tears of it's slaves.

[Rebel]

DJ, it was ALL about money. They were taxing the hell out of us. Lincoln, himself was on record as saying, "I don't care what they do with their darkies, so long as they pay their taxes". Another gem was, "If I could save the union by freeing every slave, I'd do it. If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I'd do it.". Wow, doesn't sound like the great emancipator really gave a rat's ass about the slaves, did it? As for those taxes, and that money, you apparently haven't studied up on the true founding of this country. It was NEVER supposed to be about bleeding the states to grow the federal government. It was ALWAYS supposed to be a union of strong states and a federal government with very limited power. There's a reason our forefathers only gave the fed two important jobs, to provide for the common defense, and to regulate interstate commerce. They stole money from the south to make purchases to expand the "empire".

As for Ft. Sumpter, they were given ample time to vacate. It was SC property leased to the federal government. Upon secession, that lease was null and void. They didn't leave. They chose their destiny.

[djones520]

DJ, it was ALL about money. They were taxing the hell out of us. Lincoln, himself was on record as saying, "I don't care what they do with their darkies, so long as they pay their taxes". Another gem was, "If I could save the union by freeing every slave, I'd do it. If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I'd do it.". Wow, doesn't sound like the great emancipator really gave a rat's ass about the slaves, did it? As for those taxes, and that money, you apparently haven't studied up on the true founding of this country. It was NEVER supposed to be about bleeding the states to grow the federal government. It was ALWAYS supposed to be a union of strong states and a federal government with very limited power. There's a reason our forefathers only gave the fed two important jobs, to provide for the common defense, and to regulate interstate commerce. They stole money from the south to make purchases to expand the "empire".

As for Ft. Sumpter, they were given ample time to vacate. It was SC property leased to the federal government. Upon secession, that lease was null and void. They didn't leave. They chose their destiny.

Leased?  Wrong.  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes it clear how Congress obtains the use of land from the States for Federal installations.  They PURCHASE the land from the State.  Every Federal installation, be it US Military, Federal prison, etc... is built on land OWNED by the United States Government.

Ft. Sumter was purchased like this, just like every other Federal installation.  The State of South Carolina sold that land, and the land of every other Federal installation the state seized in Charleston (as well as the seizures in the other Confederate States).  So that Fort was still legally in the hands of the United States Government when the forces of South Carolina attacked it.

[Rebel]

Leased?  Wrong.  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes it clear how Congress obtains the use of land from the States for Federal installations.  They PURCHASE the land from the State.  Every Federal installation, be it US Military, Federal prison, etc... is built on land OWNED by the United States Government.

Ft. Sumter was purchased like this, just like every other Federal installation.  The State of South Carolina sold that land, and the land of every other Federal installation the state seized in Charleston (as well as the seizures in the other Confederate States).  So that Fort was still legally in the hands of the United States Government when the forces of South Carolina attacked it.

Got anything to back that up, I.e. historical documents, etc.? That the land was sold?

As for Sumpter, do you honestly believe the state of SC was going to allow another nation's military installation right in the middle of one of it's major harbors?

[djones520]

Got anything to back that up, I.e. historical documents, etc.? That the land was sold?

As for Sumpter, do you honestly believe the state of SC was going to allow another nation's military installation right in the middle of one of it's major harbors?

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm

And whether or not I "believe it", the fact is that the United States Government legally owned that land, and the State of South Carolina attacked it, and the United States Soldiers manning it's walls.

[Rebel]

(unless it lay within the Public Domain)

You don't see how that could effectively be argued that Ft. Sumpter was in the public domain, rendering the sale unlawful? Have you been to Ft. Sumpter?

[djones520]

You don't see how that could effectively be argued that Ft. Sumpter was in the public domain, rendering the sale unlawful? Have you been to Ft. Sumpter?

   Read the whole damn article Rebel.  The state Congress held a special session regarding the sell of Ft. Sumter.  And I'm pretty sure that Charlestons lay out was quite differant in 1827.

[Rebel]

A lot of things changed after secession, DJ. Do we still own properties in and around Havana that we owned prior to Castro?

[Rebel]

BTW, you're arguing the point about who started the hostilities, not the legality of secession.

[djones520]

A lot of things changed after secession, DJ. Do we still own properties in and around Havana that we owned prior to Castro?

When was Cuba ever a State?

As for the legallity of secession, show me in writing where it is legal.  There is nothing out there that shows it's legality.  There are arguments just as strong against it as their is for it.  It's one of the most argued points out there.  I personally feel that if it had been an intended right of the states, they would have put it into the Constitution.

Furthermore, the States always had the option of making it clearly legal by working for a Constitutional Amendment to make it clear cut and legal for secession to occur.  No such efforts where ever taken.  Instead, they opted to take the path of bloodshed.

[Rebel]

As for the legallity of secession, show me in writing where it is legal.  There is nothing out there that shows it's legality.  There are arguments just as strong against it as their is for it.  It's one of the most argued points out there.  I personally feel that if it had been an intended right of the states, they would have put it into the Constitution.

If that's your argument, you know dick about the US Constitution. There's nothing that says it ISN'T legal and since the US Constitution is a limitation placed on the federal government, the 10th Amendment gives us that right. There's nothing in the USC that says we can hunt, walk, breath either. Does it mean we can't? THE USC wasn't created to identify things we, as citizens, COULD do, DJ.

[formerlurker]

Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725]   arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726]   When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=74&invol=700


I haven't had a chance to read through the pages here I missed so I apologize if this has already been posted.   This pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.

If the South wanted out, then they would have had to seek agreement from the Union.