A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

reply to post by petrus4


Let me know when you actually wish to join the debate over the civil war and whether or not South successfully achieved independence, I'm not interested in your speeches.

Originally posted by petrus4
Also, Southern Guardian...

Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.

-- 1:12, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

This has, at times, been the rhetorical position of a number of people, throughout history. If it is your position also, then I will accept it without judgement. I would, however, appreciate it if you would honestly admit it; rather than making implicit statements to that effect, and then ducking and weaving when confronted with their logical conclusion.

Nice.

Great thread. I'm fully with you guys. This Southern Guardian is some kind of central tyranny NWO apologist.

I did not know you were waiting for me Kyviecaldges,

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

This paper states that the people are the ultimate source of authority.
If they can give it then they can take it away, i.e. secede.

This is just a statement from James Madison. While he was a founding father, his words are not solid authority over history. While he may say that States may voluntarily leave, the civil war demonstrated otherwise. I already explained this to you clearly, it is irrelevent whether it was stated prior to the civil war that states could "volunarily secede", that doesn't mean that they could readily do so without force. The Union established the rules of secession in the 1860's through force regardless of what was said in various statements prior. The victor wrote the rules as the result of the civil war, much in the same way that patriots fought for independence against the crown, even though they held a contract understanding that the colonies were part of the British empire. They fought for that independence against the British and they won, in turn they wrote the rules over their own independence. The South failed to do this themselves by the 1860's.

Originally posted by CaptChaos
This Southern Guardian is some kind of central tyranny NWO apologist.

CaptainChaos, if you believe that the South seceded for the individual liberties of all Americans, I'd like for you to explain yourside of the debate here. I presume by central tyranny you mean the central government? The one that Southern backed Democratic politicians dominated throughout the 1850's, prior to Lincoln's win?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Valhall
The colonies declared their Independence. They were independent at that point. The crown decided to fight to revoke that declaration.

The colonies declared their indepedence, this is true, and they fought for that indepedence and successfully won it against British forces. Had the patriots of that time failed in their efforts against British forces, history would have shown differently, and American independence would have been delayed, possibly right into the 19th century. Tibet, the province of China, may consider itself at heart "independent", was it is part of China, we both know it is not a sovereign and independent State. Chechnya, Catalan, all had at one point attempted secession, called upon independence, but we both know that they are neither independent nor sovereign.

You need to get hold of the federal government then because they still think 1776 is our year of independence...not 1783 when the revolutionary war was finally won. Appears even the official record counts on when we said we were independent, not when we won the war.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I did not know you were waiting for me Kyviecaldges,

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

This paper states that the people are the ultimate source of authority.
If they can give it then they can take it away, i.e. secede.

This is just a statement from James Madison. While he was a founding father, his words are not solid authority over history. While he may say that States may voluntarily leave, the civil war demonstrated otherwise. I already explained this to you clearly, it is irrelevent whether it was stated prior to the civil war that states could "volunarily secede", that doesn't mean that they could readily do so without force. The Union established the rules of secession in the 1860's through force regardless of what was said in various statements prior. The victor wrote the rules as the result of the civil war, much in the same way that patriots fought for independence against the crown, even though they held a contract understanding that the colonies were part of the British empire. They fought for that independence against the British and they won, in turn they wrote the rules over their own independence. The South failed to do this themselves by the 1860's.

Considering that Madison was the forefront of the argument FOR federalism (while others tried to rally anti-federalism and block the ratification of the constitution) I THINK you ought put a little more weight in his words than you are putting.

Originally posted by Valhall
You need to get hold of the federal government then because they still think 1776 is our year of independence...not 1783

Had American patriots not successfully rebelled against British forces through force to earn that independence, neither of those years would be all that relevant. In an alternative universe, 1806 or 1843 could very well have been the year of independence for us. What's my point? Had we lost the war against the British and British control restored over the colonies, that year would have just been another smaller part to our history. A second attempt at a declaration of independence would have arisen later on.

Originally posted by Valhall
Considering that Madison was the forefront of the argument FOR federalism

Unfortunately Madison did not have a say in the Civil war regarding the right to secession, the Union did however, and they established their authority on this issue through force. What followed was Texas v. White of 1869.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You have several different comments that I would like to disprove.

first...

The Union never officially recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign and independent state, they rather viewed them as a rogue set of states within the Union.

This is only after Lincoln enacted maritime powers/martial law.
Prior to this the Union was a federation with a constitution that formed a loose union.
This loose union was actually not even a nation.
In Federalist Paper no. 39, James Madison states over, and over, and over, and over that the signing of the constitution was an act of federalism and not nationalism.

I have also shown you Thomas Jefferson's words that state this in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798-

That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government.

link to source

Here are more words from James Madison in the Virginia Resolution 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 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,

link to source

But hell, what do these guys know.
They only wrote the freaking constitution and declaration of independence.

I'm not personally aware of any state that formally recognized the Confederacy, there were European military observers sent during the civil war but no official recognition.

I will tell you for sure who recognized a threat from Europe, and that is the Union.

They were so worried about England and France interfering for the Confederacy that they paid to rent a naval fleet from Tsar Alexander II of Russia.
The fleet was then positioned to protect the shores of America in order to ensure a fair fight or some crap like that.

I wonder... hmmmm.. maybe..... maybe no official declaration of the Confederate States took place by England or France because... just maybe... they were afraid of kicking off a war in Europe with Russia.

Did you ever think of that?

This is just a statement from James Madison. While he was a founding father, his words are not solid authority over history.

Yeah... James Madison didn't have one iota of an idea about the Constitution.
He only helped write the thing with Gouverneur Morris by providing the majority of the ideas that formed it from his diaries.
James Madison was only a founding father along with the other guy that I quoted, Thomas Jefferson. You know Jefferson right?
The guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

The Union established the rules of secession in the 1860's through force regardless of what was said in various statements prior.

Just admit that we are right and the only thing on your side is the fact that the Yankees won the war.

That is all you got.
That is it.

I presume by central tyranny you mean the central government? The one that Southern backed Democratic politicians dominated throughout the 1850's, prior to Lincoln's win?

Yes. The Central Government that we are speaking of is tyrannical, but yet NO the government that we had prior to Lincoln enacted maritime power was a self-governing constitutional republic.

Had American patriots not successfully rebelled against British forces through force to earn that independence, neither of those years would be all that relevant.

Quite possibly the most ridiculous argument yet. It's all about fantasy land man.

Unfortunately Madison did not have a say in the Civil war regarding the right to secession, the Union did however, and they established their authority on this issue through force.

But Madison did however have say in the constitution that the confederate states successfully seceded from because according to him, they were free and independent and only bound by voluntary agreement.


Edit to Add: It was Tsar Alexander II of Russia, not Nicholas.

My bad. I fixed it

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Valhall
Considering that Madison was the forefront of the argument FOR federalism

Unfortunately Madison did not have a say in the Civil war regarding the right to secession, the Union did however, and they established their authority on this issue through force. What followed was Texas v. White of 1869.

So you don't understand that the Supreme Court has no say in whether a sovereign state can secede, right? You're admitting that here, I guess.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by CaptChaos
This Southern Guardian is some kind of central tyranny NWO apologist.

CaptainChaos, if you believe that the South seceded for the individual liberties of all Americans, I'd like for you to explain yourside of the debate here. I presume by central tyranny you mean the central government? The one that Southern backed Democratic politicians dominated throughout the 1850's, prior to Lincoln's win?

That's ok, these guys are doing a fine job of ripping you to shreds all by themselves.

Just to follow up, because you seem to be having trouble following along:

When it comes to the FEDERAL level of government...

the EXECUTIVE BRANCH gets its limited powers from the constitution
the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH gets its limited powers from the constitution
the JUDICIAL BRANCH gets its limited powers from the constitution

the CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS enumerated to those three FEDERAL branches apply and are honored only by AGREEMENT by each state - whether they existed at the time of ratification or agreed to accept the terms of the constitution as a new state.

The minute the majority of a state's populace (who holds the true SOVEREIGN power that is the engine of the whole ball of works) decides they feel oppressed by the FEDERAL government, they can vote to secede and sever their state's acceptance of the terms of the constitution.

At that point the EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL branches of FEDERAL government have no say because the limited powers they HAD with that state have been abolished by a SOVEREIGN state that no longer agrees.

You can't point to a JUDICIAL ruling and say it outlaws secession. It's against the constitution. (It's also circular, but you don't seem to get that.)

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
This is only after Lincoln enacted maritime powers/martial law.

Again, the Southern States seceded before Lincoln assumed office. They did not secede because Lincoln enacted the maritime powers/martial law, because he was not in office yet at the time they decided to secede.

The first batch of Southern states seceded in December of 1860, Lincoln assumed office in March of 1861. Blaming Lincoln for secession because of what he did in office is, well, delusional.

Just admit that we are right

Right for what? That the South did indeed gain independence in the civil war? They never did because they lost the war.

You mean you were right on whether the South had a right to independence? The South had as much right to independence as Tibet does from China, or Chechnya from Russia. Independence for the most part has to be achieved through force, this is how the Union gained it's independence from the British in the first place. At times independence is achieved peacefully but this is only if the ruling party agrees to a peaceful resolution, unfortunately for the South, The Union was not interested in allowing independence. The South lost the war in achieving independence, this is a reality. The Civil war established the right to secession, there is no "right" to the states to seceed, the only right they have is to fight for independence, and unfortunately the South lost that fight.

Madison is one of many men and women in history whom held various political ideas over the course of history, many of these ideas come and go. Many of the British felt that the New England colonies were rightfully that of the British empire, and that soon changed with the war. Secession may have been acceptable to many thinkers prior to the civil war, but it was equally unacceptable to many before and after the war. The Civil war ultimately settled the question of secession through force, and the answer was no, States do not have an automatic right to secession and independence when they see fit. The Union established this rule through force.

In history, actions often speak louder than words, this is how many things were achieved in the course of history in this nation. What Madison thought, or how you intepret his readings or the constitution, are irrelevant. History only caters to the victors, there is no heavenly "right" as you so try to make it for fairness in history. There is no real right to independence for the States, this question was settled.

But Madison did however have say in the constitution that the confederate states successfully seceded from because according to him, they were free and independent and only bound by voluntary agreement.

Madison died in 1836, 24 years before the civil war and the declaration from the Confederate States.

It is ironic you know? When Virginia was on the verge of declaring it's own secession from the Union to join the Confederate States, West Virginia declare independence within that same state to join the Union. Unfortunately the Confederates and their apologists, in all their insistence regarding the right to independence and secession, refused to acknowledge and accept West Virginia's secession from the State of Virginia and the Confederacy. This had little to do with any respect of "rights" other than those of The Confederacy.

Originally posted by CaptChaos
That's ok, these guys are doing a fine job of ripping you to shreds all by themselves.

In plain english, you have nothing of value to add or debate other than a mention of the New World Order?

Ok then.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The Civil war ultimately settled the question of secession through force, and the answer was no, States do not have an automatic right to secession and independence when they see fit. The Union established this rule through force.

OH MY GAWD...that's disgusting. You're really showing your proclivities and your yearnings. You just want everybody to shut up and just go along with whatever you want or you'll beat them into, right?

It is ironic you know? When Virginia was on the verge of declaring it's own secession from the Union to join the Confederate States, West Virginia declare independence within that same state to join the Union. Unfortunately the Confederates and their apologists, in all their insistence regarding the right to independence and secession, refused to acknowledge and accept West Virginia's secession from the State of Virginia and the Confederacy. This had little to do with any respect of "rights" other than those of The Confederacy.

And, yet, there is a West Virginia now.

hmmm

I don't remember reading about the war for West Virginia's independence. Must not have happened through force. Maybe it was biased decisions by????

Originally posted by Valhall
The minute the majority of a state's populace (who holds the true SOVEREIGN power that is the engine of the whole ball of works) decides they feel oppressed by the FEDERAL government, they can vote to secede and sever their state's acceptance of the terms of the constitution.

You think the South really seceded because of the actions of the Federal government? The South dominated the Federal government prior to Lincoln taking office. The Southern backed Democrats held the majority of congress, more tha 50% of the vote, between 1846 and 1859. Even after March 1859 they held 46% of congress. The whigs, the only other challanging party, failed time and time again to reach even 40% of the vote in all those years prior to the civil war. In both the 33rd and 34th congresses the democrats held more than 60% of the vote.

Both presidents prior to Lincoln were Southern backed democrats, Buchanan (1856) and Pierce (1852) were Democrats overwhelmingly voted for by the Slave holding states (Pierce only failed to win Tennessee and Kentucky).

So excuse me if I don't buy this excuse about the tyrannical Federal government, because essentially the South dominated the Federal government in the 1850's, prior to Lincoln's election win. This is how the Fugitive slave act and the Dred scott case came about, because the South dominated politics during that era. Their secession had little to do with the actions of the Federal government because essentially, they were the federal government.

The South lost the civil war, the civil was established the question of secession. More tha 150 years on and we are still a Union, and a very powerful one mind you.

Originally posted by Valhall
I don't remember reading about the war for West Virginia's independence.

I never stated that West Virginia declared independence as a sovereign nation, you're just being silly now. West Virginia only declared independence from Virginia as a State within the Union, it never declared independence as a sovereign and independent state. Because West Virginia had Union support, it was able to successfully achieve seperate State status within the Union, and despite confederate resistence, it remained that way throughout the civil war.

The Southern states lost plenty as the result of their decision to secede. Virginia is one such example, had they not made that choice to join with the other southern states, they would still be a single commonwealth state with west Virginia.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Valhall
The minute the majority of a state's populace (who holds the true SOVEREIGN power that is the engine of the whole ball of works) decides they feel oppressed by the FEDERAL government, they can vote to secede and sever their state's acceptance of the terms of the constitution.

You think the South really seceded because of the actions of the Federal government? The South dominated the Federal government prior to Lincoln taking office. The Southern backed Democrats held the majority of congress, more tha 50% of the vote, between 1846 and 1859. Even after March 1859 they held 46% of congress. The whigs, the only other challanging party, failed time and time again to reach even 40% of the vote in all those years prior to the civil war. In both the 33rd and 34th congresses the democrats held more than 60% of the vote.

Both presidents prior to Lincoln were Southern backed democrats, Buchanan (1856) and Pierce (1852) were Democrats overwhelmingly voted for by the Slave holding states (Pierce only failed to win Tennessee and Kentucky).

So excuse if I don't buy this excuse about the tyrannical Federal government, because essentially the South dominated the Federal government in the 1850's, prior to Lincoln's election win. This is how the Fugitive slave act and the Dred scott case came about, because the South dominated politics during that era. There secession had little to do with the actions of the Federal government because essentially, they were the federal government.

The South lost the civil war, the civil was established the question of secession. More tha 150 years on and we are still a Union, and a very powerful one mind you.

The South had been unhappy and growing more unhappy for decades before the secession took place. South Carolina had threatened, and almost completed, secession in the 1830's. Why would the number of southern politicians in the government prior to secession have a spitting thing to do with what eventually happened. What, do you think they didn't participate and try to sway the course of federal operations?

You can thank the tipping point to Lincoln and his House Divided speech and then his subsequent victory.

BUT, you're still trying to obfuscate from the current discussion aren't you? It doesn't matter what the core reason was for the feelings across 13 states of being oppressed by the federal government. It just matters they had the authority to do what they did. And states continue to have that authority.

Originally posted by Valhall
The South had been unhappy and growing more unhappy for decades before the secession took place. South Carolina had threatened, and almost completed, secession in the 1830's.

Personally I fail to see where they had been growing unhappy, I've read the history books through and through. South Carolina declared victory after the Tariff compromise of 1830's, tariffs were lowered to their lowest in 1858 thanks to the Southern Democratic majority. There was however frustrations with the residents of northern states, but anything, the South demanded complete dominance over the Union, over Northern States.

Why would the number of southern politicians in the government prior to secession have a spitting thing to do with what eventually happened. What, do you think they didn't participate and try to sway the course of federal operations?

Give me an example of one significant law passed in the 1850's, prior to the first attempts of secession, by congress that was initially met with Southern resistence within. I ask for one law passed where southern politicans were unable to, as you say, "sway".

You can thank the tipping point to Lincoln and his House Divided speech and then his subsequent victory.

You and I can agree on this, Lincoln's election win was the tipping point to the eventual secession. Unless I got your position mistakened? If not, I'm glad there's something we can agree on.

BUT, you're still trying to obfuscate from the current discussion aren't you?

Not really, both you and the other member have made references to a "tyrannical federal government" in your arguments, so naturally I felt the need to respond to this by pointing out southern dominance in the Federal government prior to the Civil war.

It just matters they had the authority to do what they did.

To me authority amounts to Power. The South lost the war against the Union, the Union overtook the South and resestablished them as Union territory, if anything the Union held authority over this matter the day they won the civil war.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
This is only after Lincoln enacted maritime powers/martial law.

Again, the Southern States seceded before Lincoln assumed office. They did not secede because Lincoln enacted the maritime powers/martial law, because he was not in office yet at the time they decided to secede.

Blaming Lincoln for secession because of what he did in office is, well, delusional.

What in the world are you talking about?

Did you read what I actually wrote in response to your comment about the Union never recognizing the Confederate States as sovereign and independent?
Or are you just making up nonsense to try and deflect away from the the fact that you are continually proven wrong.

I don't even know how to respond to this because you are making no sense whatsoever.

Do you realize how difficult it is for me not to completely ridicule this argument...
I mean like REALLY ridicule this argument.

WOW.

You mean you were right on whether the South had a right to independence?

Yes.

Independence for the most part has to be achieved through force, this is how the Union gained it's independence from the British in the first place.

Again... Independence was gained with the Declaration of Independence.
The same Declaration of Independence that was also a declaration of secession.

The same Declaration of Independence that was used to declare independence.

That is why the founding fathers named it the Declaration of Independence.

Here is the definition of the Declaration of Independence at thefreedictionary-

1. (Historical Terms) the proclamation made by the second American Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which asserted the freedom and independence of the 13 Colonies from Great Britain.

2. (Historical Terms) the document formally recording this proclamation.

link to source

Just to be sure, the second definition states that this was a document formally recording the proclamation of independence.

That would be the same Declaration of Independence that is itself a declaration of secession, which was used to declare independence.

Got it?

Gaining independence and keeping independence are mutually exclusive.
One can happen without the other.
It might not last too long, but it still happens.

The only reason that the Union invaded the Confederate states was because they were, in fact, independent.
If they were not independent then they wouldn't have been called the Confederate States of America.
The CSA wouldn't have existed, but believe it or not, it really existed.
Despite whatever propaganda that you might have heard, they existed and also had a flag.

The same flag that flies to this day on the state flag of Georgia.

The old stars and bars Southern cross battle flag that everybody was up in arms about was only a battle flag,
It was not the flag of the Confederate States of America.

The CSA sold cotton backed bonds on European markets, and despite what fantasy land you live in, the Europeans bought the bonds.
Apparently a lot of folks in Europe really wanted them. They were called Erlanger Bonds.

Look it up.

Madison is one of many men and women in history whom held various political ideas over the course of history, many of these ideas come and go.

He had a great idea called the Constitution of the united States of America.

Unfortunately it went by the wayside in 1871.
I have already explained this to you.

Secession may have been acceptable to many thinkers prior to the civil war, but it was equally unacceptable to many before and after the war.

And yet the Confederate States of America still seceded.

The Civil war ultimately settled the question of secession through force, and the answer was no, States do not have an automatic right to secession and independence when they see fit.

No, actually it decided if the CSA could continue acting independently.

States had the right to secession but now we live under a tyrannical central government.

Unfortunately the Confederates and their apologists, in all their insistence regarding the right to independence and secession, refused to acknowledge and accept West Virginia's secession from the State of Virginia and the Confederacy.

West Virginia was a border state with supporters on both sides.

list of West Virginia units for the Confederate States of America.