Hey Q9!!! Calling Q9!.....

[mom'sfolly]

Why would Lincoln let go of federal land? Because the confederacy said it was theirs?

And no, I don't believe that the Confederacy had the right to secede. And no, despite Gov. Perry's words,Ido not believe that Texas has a right to secede.

Another question... If this was all about states rights, why did these states band together to form a country, whose constitution states "to form a permanent federal government" and lacks any clause for secession? Wouldn't have each state stood alone? And why if the United States government was so awful, was the confederate constitution virtually identical, differing only on minor points, such as; voter country of origin, impeachment clauses, a line item veto power, spending for commerce, and specifically saying no state could restrict slavery?

 

[gamebirdboy]

mom'sfolly :

Why would Lincoln let go of federal land? Because the confederacy said it was theirs?

And no, I don't believe that the Confederacy had the right to secede. And no, despite Gov. Perry's words, do I not believe that Texas has a right to secede.

Another question. If this was all about states rights, why did these states band together to form a country, whose constitution states "to form a permanent federal government" and lacks any clause for secession? Wouldn't each state stood alone? And why is the United States government was so awful, was the confederate constitution virtually identical, differing only on minor points such as voter country of origin, impeachment clauses, a line item veto power, spending for commerce, and specifically saying no state could restrict slavery?

The U'S. government was building roads and canals in the North, placing extremely high tariffs on the South, the national bank, and giving business loans to northerners. The South had little voice in government. Would that make you want to secede if you were a middle classed farmer? States rights is not each state being a completely independent country, sort of like a colony with voting rights and voice in government. The Confederate Constitution was like the United State's old one. The Articles of Confederation. So we had no right to leave Britain?​

 

[mom'sfolly]

The Confederate Constitution was identical to the United States Constitution with minor changes; not identical to the Articles of Confederation.

This website might prove helpful:

http://www.usconstitution.net/map.html

 

[gamebirdboy]

mom'sfolly :

The Confederate Constitution was identical to the United States Constitution with minor changes; not identical to the Articles of Confederation.

Not identical, but incorporated some ideas. Should have said it differently. The United States Constitution wasn't the problem. The problem was the government was hurting the South and helping the North...​

 

[Q9]

Quote:
I'm curious ... Just what fort would that be? Fort Sumter? The fort that was there, on UNION SOIL, BEFORE the confederacy
was even formed? Soil that the confederacy tried to take? Is that the one in question? Isn't that the same one that Lincoln
didn't send more to to BECAUSE he did not want to push a war. He sent SUPPLIES...not men. (and even those supplies were
not allowed to be received by the fort, thanks to the confederate soldiers blocking the port.)

Supplies in this case including arms and ammo. In fact, (I may be mistaken here) I'm fairly sure the ships were carrying mortars, used specifically for coastal bombardment. The Union garrison was actually provided with foodstuffs by the Confederates, believe it or not, so there was no good reason to send a squadron of ships (ships with guns, mind you) to "resupply" the fort.

Let me remind you, as well. Total casualties of the bombardment of Sumter: 1 horse.
Total casualties of Lincoln's unilaterally declared unconstitutional war in response: 600,000 soldiers and Heaven only knows how many civilians.

 

[Q9]

mom'sfolly :

Why would Lincoln let go of federal land? Because the confederacy said it was theirs?

And no, I don't believe that the Confederacy had the right to secede. And no, despite Gov. Perry's words, do I not believe that Texas has a right to secede.

Another question. If this was all about states rights, why did these states band together to form a country, whose constitution states "to form a permanent federal government" and lacks any clause for secession? Wouldn't each state stood alone? And why is the United States government was so awful, was the confederate constitution virtually identical, differing only on minor points such as voter country of origin, impeachment clauses, a line item veto power, spending for commerce, and specifically saying no state could restrict slavery?

Where does it it say ANYTHING about a "permanent federal government?" I just re-read the entire thing, and couldn't find the phrase anywhere.

They used "perpetual Union" in the Articles of Confederation - look how that worked out. Everyone seceded from it and ratified the Constitution. Thus, "perpetual Union" was not used in the Constitution.

Tell me this, then. Did the former Soviet republics have a right to leave the Soviet Union? Did the 13 colonies have a right to secede from the British Empire? Does southern Sudan have a right to leave the rest of Sudan? More to the point, how have you not noticed your glaringly obvious double standard?

BTW, do you really consider the inclusion of a line-item veto "minor?" That's HUGE, and is a significant difference between the US Constitution and the CS Constitution, as is the restriction of the president to a single six-year term, which was brilliant, IMHO. Also, I believe they got rid of the general welfare clause and banned the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

As to your question, they banded together to form a union, not a single, consolidated country. A confederacy, if you will. It was mostly for defense and foreign-relations issues, which actually makes a lot of sense, considering the numerous trigger-happy empires at the time.​

 

[mom'sfolly]

In the preamble:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent government, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure.....

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html#Preamble

So yes it is there, in the intro to the Confederate constitution.

Since I haven't mentioned anything other than the Southern states secession, I don't know how I can be advocating a double standard. I was asked a specific question about the secession from the US.

 

[mom'sfolly]

As for arguing the legitimacy of every rebellion or civil war world wide; I think it has little to do with American Civil War.

I'm not really interested arguing if the revolution in Iran was not okay, but the Chechen rebellion is. Although it would be an interesting argument on what are the valid reasons are for divesting yourself of your government, how many followers do you have to have before it is legitimate, and what kind of war/turmoil/oppression/genocide etc is acceptable to achieve the wished for results.

 

[Q9]

mom'sfolly :

In the preamble:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent government, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure.....

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html#Preamble

So yes it is there, in the intro to the Confederate constitution.

Since I haven't mentioned anything other than the Southern states secession, I don't know how I can be advocating a double standard. I was asked a specific question about the secession from the US.

Oh, I see, I was under the impression that you were referring to the US Constitution. My mistake. Do notice the fact, however, that it also very clearly states that each State is acting in its sovereign and independent character. In context, it basically means not that the government will be permanent not by force arms, but by virtue of the fact that each State's interests are protected by said government.

The Confederacy's secession was just as justified as the secession of the 13 colonies - both secessions were specifically to preserve self-government.

You do raise a good point, however - how much death is justified in a war of secession? A better question, however, is, "Is force ever justified in PREVENTING a secession?" The Confederacy intended no harm to the United States, and was perfectly ready to continue peaceful trade relations with them.

Ironically, secession would have been slavery's death sentence. Just think about it for a minute - the fugitive slave law would have been completely irrelevant. Slavery would have died out the same way it did in Brazil, with better race relations to boot.

ETA: Never say that an issue is irrelevant to another issue. You'd be shocked at how many things are VERY relevant to each other.

 

[Steve_of_sandspoultry]

Not to rain on your day but...

http://www.nps.gov/apco/the-surrender.htm

Lost and surrendered to the tune of approximately 630,000 deaths and over 1 million casualties. Sugar coat and justify that all you want, but that's alot of dead and alot of victims. For what???

Steve