Confederate States of America micronational announcement

[nate895]

History (mostly from Wikipedia):

Seceding States:

Seven states seceded by February 1861:

South Carolina (December 20, 1860)
Mississippi (January 9, 1861)
Florida (January 10 1861),
Alabama (January 11 1861)
Georgia (January 19, 1861)
Louisiana (January 26 1861)
Texas (February 1 1861)


After Lincoln called for troops, six more states seceded:


Virginia (April 17, 1861)
Arkansas (May 6, 1861),
North Carolina (May 20 1861)
Tennessee (June 8 1861)
Missouri (October 31, 1861)
Kentucky (November 30, 1861)






Rise and fall of the Confederacy

The American Civil War broke out in April 1861 with the Battle of Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops of the U.S. had retreated to Fort Sumter soon after South Carolina declared its secession. U.S. President Buchanan had attempted to resupply Sumter by sending the Star of the West, but Confederate forces fired upon the ship, driving it away. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln also attempted to resupply Sumter. Lincoln notified South Carolina Governor Francis W. Pickens that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort." However, suspecting that just such an attempt to reinforce the fort would be made, the Confederate cabinet decided at a meeting in Montgomery to capture Fort Sumter before the relief fleet arrived.

On April 12, 1861, Confederate troops, following orders from Davis and his Secretary of War, fired upon the federal troops occupying Fort Sumter, forcing their surrender.

Following the Battle of Fort Sumter, Lincoln called for the remaining states in the Union to send troops to recapture Sumter and other forts and customs-houses[30] in the South that Confederate forces had claimed, some by force. This proclamation was made before Congress could convene on the matter, and the original request from the War Department called for volunteers for only three months of duty.[30] Lincoln's call for troops resulted in four more states voting to secede, rather than provide troops for the Union. Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina joined the Confederacy, bringing the total to eleven states. Once Virginia joined the Confederate States, the Confederate capital was moved from Montgomery, Alabama, to Richmond, Virginia. All but two major battles (Antietam and Gettysburg) took place in Confederate territory.

Alexander H. Stephens maintained that Lincoln's attempt to reinforce Sumter had provoked the war.[31]

Kentucky was a border state during the war and, for a time, had two state governments, one supporting the Confederacy and one supporting the Union. The original government remained in the Union after a short-lived attempt at neutrality, but a rival faction from that state was accepted as a member of the Confederate States of America; it did not control any territory. A more complex situation surrounds the Missouri Secession. Although the Confederacy considered Missouri a member of the Confederate States of America; it did not control any territory. With Kentucky and Missouri, the number of Confederate states can be counted as thirteen; later versions of Confederate flags had thirteen stars, reflecting the Confederacy's claims to those states.

The five tribal governments of the Indian Territory — which became Oklahoma in 1907 — also mainly supported the Confederacy, providing troops and one General officer. They were represented in the Confederate Congress after 1863 by Elias Cornelius Boudinot representing the Cherokee, and Samuel Benton Callahan representing the Seminole and Creek people. The Cherokee, in their declaration of causes, gave as reasons for aligning with the Confederacy the similar institutions and interests of the Cherokee nation and the Southern states, alleged violations of the Constitution by the North, claimed that the North was waging war against Southern commercial and political freedom and for the abolition of slavery in general and in the Indian Territory in particular, and that the North intended to seize Indian lands as had been done in the past[32].

Citizens at Mesilla and Tucson in the southern part of New Mexico Territory formed a secession convention and voted to join the Confederacy on March 16, 1861, and appointed Lewis Owings as the new territorial governor. In July, Mesilla appealed to Confederate troops in El Paso, Texas, under Lieutenant Colonel John Baylor for help in removing the Union Army under Major Isaac Lynde that was stationed nearby. The Confederates defeated Lynde at the Battle of Mesilla on July 27. After the battle, Baylor established a territorial government for the Confederate Arizona Territory and named himself governor. In 1862, a New Mexico Campaign was launched under General Henry Hopkins Sibley to take the northern half of New Mexico. Although Confederates briefly occupied the territorial capital of Santa Fe, they were defeated at Glorietta Pass in March and retreated, never to return.

The northernmost slave states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and West Virginia) were contested territory, but the Union won control by 1862. In 1861, martial law was declared in Maryland (the state which borders the U.S. capital, Washington, D.C., on three sides) to block attempts at secession. Delaware, also a slave state, never considered secession, nor did Washington, D.C. In 1861, a Unionist legislature in Wheeling, Virginia seceded from Virginia, claiming 48 counties, and joined the United States in 1863 as the state of West Virginia with a constitution that gradually abolished slavery.

Attempts to secede from the Confederate States of America by some counties in East Tennessee were held in check by Confederate declarations of martial law[33][34].

The surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia by General Lee at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, is generally taken as the end of the Confederate States. President Davis was captured at Irwinville, Georgia, on May 10, and the remaining Confederate armies surrendered by June 1865. The last Confederate flag was hauled down from CSS Shenandoah on November 6, 1865.

Our mighty territories:
http://www.worldbook.com/wb/content/np/na/fom/civil_war/img/dividednation.gif

We need to decide on our flag, for complete list of possibilities visit Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America)

Our Constitution is located here: http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm

We intend to eliminate all vestiges of slavery and racism from the document ASACP.

We intend to be peaceful and tolerant, Klansmen and members of violent organizations, stay away.

[Monolithic]

yes, please, i would love for the south to leave

take oklahoma with you

[tribute_13]

How do you propose you will rally enough support for this? Just wondering...

[nate895]

yes, please, i would love for the south to leave

take oklahoma with you

I think you should read the micronations thread below this one, you might get a good idea what we're talking about. I would also like to point out our most promising candidates are in the South (Ron Paul chief among them, with BJ Lawson in NC and Bob Conley in SC are two great Paulites running). Without the South, true conservatives would have very little hope of taking this country back.

[nate895]

How do you propose you will rally enough support for this? Just wondering...

See the micronations thread.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

People: this is a new micronation project. Thousands of micronations exist all over the world. We would create a site for this, a forum, we would conduct diplomacy with other micronations, hold elections, coin currency [some do], appoint ambassadors, and tons of other functions. We are going to function as the real CSA, the only thing we won't have are the actual states, that's why we will just build and see where it all leads. It's a nice project, it can fun, it makes for a great hobby. There are literally thousands of these all over the world, there's nothing illegal about it, don't worry about getting arrested becaus it won't happen, unless you..break the macronation's law [USA].

research micronations

http://www.micronations.net

google it

any and all interested parties, pm me your email address. we're going to be moving forward with this over the next few weeks.

[The Moog Magician]

Yeah good luck with that.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yeah good luck with that.

Why aren't you interested?

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5111/archive/patsilor.htm

here's a rundown on what a micronation is

[JosephTheLibertarian]

bump. no interest?

[acptulsa]

Thank you for leaving Oklahoma out, actually, though why Oklahoma would be excluded from anything claiming to represent former CSA territory is a mystery. Simply, the CSA has way, way too much baggage. Regardless of the intricate facts, most associate the CSA with an attempt to prolong the barbaric practice of human slavery. Nothing I want to promote there...

[Agent Chameleon]

I don't believe that secession is the answer.

We need to fight for the liberation of the entire country, not just one quarter of it.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Just my personal opinion, the rise of the CSA would be a glorious thing and I would be onboard in a heartbeat. I strongly feel that the south is merely occupied territory anyway.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Thank you for leaving Oklahoma out, actually, though why Oklahoma would be excluded from anything claiming to represent former CSA territory is a mystery. Simply, the CSA has way, way too much baggage. Regardless of the intricate facts, most associate the CSA with an attempt to prolong the barbaric practice of human slavery. Nothing I want to promote there...

We can only claim disputed or pre-existing CSA states. We need to build a government before we can claim anything we didn't have a right to before ;) Oklahoma? I believe it was claimed by the CSA. We are not for slavery, the first act of government should be to abolish slavery, and make a constitutional amendment out of it. There's some baggage, but who cares? There's a RIGHTFUL claim here. And this is for fun anyway, but as I've stated on earlier, we do reserve the right to be more serious later on. We are just looking to build a core right now, build a website, hold elections, and then interact with the micronational community. From there we will build.


I don't believe that secession is the answer.

We need to fight for the liberation of the entire country, not just one quarter of it.

There's a rightful claim to the CSA. And this is for shits and giggles, no need to get your panties in a bunch.


Just my personal opinion, the rise of the CSA would be a glorious thing and I would be onboard in a heartbeat. I strongly feel that the south is merely occupied territory anyway.

ok. Cool. I'll just need your email address in my pm box. This is just to keep you updated. We're getting some support here, then we are going to build a site, or at least an email list so that we can communicate off of here.

[acptulsa]

We can only claim disputed or pre-existing CSA states. We need to build a government before we can claim anything we didn't have a right to before ;) Oklahoma? I believe it was claimed by the CSA.

We escaped through a loophole? Our status as a territory saved us? Cool...

[sratiug]

Thank you for leaving Oklahoma out, actually, though why Oklahoma would be excluded from anything claiming to represent former CSA territory is a mystery. Simply, the CSA has way, way too much baggage. Regardless of the intricate facts, most associate the CSA with an attempt to prolong the barbaric practice of human slavery. Nothing I want to promote there...

Only people ignorant of actual history believe that the civil war was about slavery. One slave country cannot invade another slave country to end slavery. The United States was a slave country during the civil war. If the US under Lincoln wanted to end slavery in the US (which Lincoln plainly stated he did not intend to do) then secession of the Southern states was a perfect opportunity with no dissenting southern votes in Congress, but somehow that was not very popular.

Stop blaming slavery on the south. It should've been abolished in the beginning in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson knew that. We all know that. Northerners wanted cheap products produced by slaves then, just as they get them now from China.

[acptulsa]

Stop blaming slavery on the south. It should've been abolished in the beginning in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson knew that. We all know that. Northerners wanted cheap products produced by slaves then, just as they get them now from China.

I didn't blame slavery on the south. I merely commented on how such would be perceived by those ignorant of the intricate facts you rightly mention. That's all.

[Agent Chameleon]

There's a rightful claim to the CSA. And this is for shits and giggles, no need to get your panties in a bunch.


I'm glad you're doing this for the lulz, but I was simply responding to sentiments that the South should secede again.

I'm a daily reader of LewRockwell and I've read plenty of pro-CSA and pro-secession arguments. I guess I was looking for a chance to debate with people over the merits of secession. That being said, I don't view the CSA as evil nor am I a card-carrying member of the Lincoln cult ;p

[sratiug]

I didn't blame slavery on the south. I merely commented on how such would be perceived by those ignorant of the intricate facts you rightly mention. That's all.

It is hardly an "intricate fact" that the United States was a slave nation during the civil war. That is a basic fact that exposes the lie of the Civil War being about slavery. Opening eyes to these lies will enable people to see more of the lies surrounding them.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

We escaped through a loophole? Our status as a territory saved us? Cool...

States in our micronation [CSA] would create their own laws and such.... you're not going to have any authority in Union-Oklahoma, but that's just because we don't have the support right now. That takes time. What we CAN do is: conduct diplomatic relations with other serious micronations, appoint ambassadors to other micronations, conduct government business, collaborate, recruit, improve, join micronational organizations, contact foreign macronations/organizations, we mint the CSA dollar, we advertise, we try to earn the CSA some revenue, so that we can do more things, etc.

It's mostly fun. but the rightful claim is there.... CSA was quashed... but it was a sovereign nation for over 4 years.

[Agent Chameleon]

It's mostly fun. but the rightful claim is there.... CSA was quashed... but it was a sovereign nation for over 4 years.

How many nations of the world recognized it?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How many nations of the world recognized it?

What does that matter? No micronation I know of has achieved this. Many European countries directly traded with the CSA.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm glad you're doing this for the lulz, but I was simply responding to sentiments that the South should secede again.

I'm a daily reader of LewRockwell and I've read plenty of pro-CSA and pro-secession arguments. I guess I was looking for a chance to debate with people over the merits of secession. That being said, I don't view the CSA as evil nor am I a card-carrying member of the Lincoln cult ;p

I'm not looking for a historical debate, I'm trying to drum up some support for this new project.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

We will also be accepting citizenships from people all over the world. They would fill out a form, choose a CSA state, and await approval. Thiswould mean that they can be apart of it, maybe run for office. Or do nothing... whatever they want. Having inactive citizens bolsters our numbers anyway.

[Agent Chameleon]

What does that matter? No micronation I know of has achieved this. Many European countries directly traded with the CSA.

Well how can you justify the sovereignty of the CSA if it only existed for four years and no one recognized it?

Does the nation of Akkad have sovereignty even though its been extinct for thousands of years?

If I just declare the borders of my room to be a sovereign nation, and name it AgentChameleonotopia, does it have a valid claim to sovereignty?

[Agent Chameleon]

I'm not looking for a historical debate, I'm trying to drum up some support for this new project.

Alright if you want this thread to be just about the project I'll stop.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well how can you justify the sovereignty of the CSA if it only existed for four years and no one recognized it?

Does the nation of Akkad have sovereignty even though its been extinct for thousands of years?

If I just declare the borders of my room to be a sovereign nation, and name it AgentChameleonotopia, does it have a valid claim to sovereignty?

Your room? Micronations have started that way, but they don't have any historical claims. You're just siding with the Union.

Go troll somewhere else. The project stands with or without you. Goodbye.

[Agent Chameleon]

Your room? Micronations have started that way, but they don't have any historical claim. You're just siding with the Union.

Go troll somewhere else. The project stands with or without you. Goodbye.

Well now you are being an asshole.

I interpreted the thread as open to debate over secession. I was wrong, I said I'd stop. You don't need to accuse me of being a troll.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well now you are being an asshole.

I interpreted the thread as open to debate over secession. I was wrong, I said I'd stop. You don't need to accuse me of being a troll.

lol. Who recognized Kurdistan in all of its history? hmmmmmm

The states seceded. That's all you need.

[acptulsa]

Go troll somewhere else. The project stands with or without you. Goodbye.

I think someone wants to follow Kludge into the ranks of very short term moderators. Joe, I'd consider looking for people who will say "the CSA is cool" openly on this forum is more akin to trolling than engaging in a substantive debate is...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think someone wants to follow Kludge into the ranks of very short term moderators. Joe, I'd consider looking for people who will say "the CSA is cool" openly on this forum is more akin to trolling than engaging in a substantive debate is...

This is not the old CSA. This is the new CSA. I hope you're able to comprehend this fact. :)

This is a serious project, you're the one trolling nate's thread. I don't think he would appreciate this. If you're not on board, then we don't need you... but thanks for the bumps

[Agent Chameleon]

This is a serious project, you're the one trolling nate's thread. I don't think he would appreciate this. If you're not on board, then we don't need you... but thanks for the bumps

For the record this is a board for general discussion of politics.

Don't be surprised if people come to debate the merits of the CSA on this board.

If you want this to be about the project in particular, then move it to Off Topic.

[acptulsa]

This is a serious project, you're the one trolling nate's thread. I don't think he would appreciate this. If you're not on board, then we don't need you... but thanks for the bumps

It's a serious game, and what am I trolling for? You have the bait and hooks out, not me...

...Never mind. We've established that this isn't for the purpose of promoting human slavery, so I guess it's all good. Call anyone you want a troll--if you use the term too loosely it's no reflection on me.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The mods are free to move it.

From the words of George Dubya Bush: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists

;)

[Agent Chameleon]

The mods are free to move it.

And until then don't denounce people who disagree as being trolls.



From the words of George Dubya Bush: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists

;)

A whole lot of good that thinking got us. ;p

[JosephTheLibertarian]

And until then don't denounce people who disagree as being trolls.



A whole lot of good that thinking got us. ;p

Yeah well, your historical bickering of "who recognizd it" kind of destroys the spirit of the CSA. This isn't a debate, it's a proposition. If you want to debate, maybe nate can oblige, but I don't care to..

You're a union sympathizer. gotcha. Don't be ashamed. Lincoln freed them slaves after all, right? :rolleyes:

You truly are a chameleon.

[Agent Chameleon]

Yeah well, your historical bickering of "who recognizd it" kind of destroys the spirit of the CSA. This isn't a debate, it's a proposition. If you want to debate, maybe nate can oblige, but I don't care to..

You'ree a union sympathizer. gotcha. Don't be ashamed. Lincoln freed them slaves after all, right? :rolleseyes:

If you don't want to debate me, then you didn't need to respond to me in the first place.

And like I said, I'm not a Lincoln worshiper. I don't think the CSA was evil nor do I think the sole reason was slavery. Cut the black-and-white thinking.

But I have a problems with the ideas of secession. Unless the mods move this to off topic you have no right to say that I can't debate the merits of secession on this thread.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

If you don't want to debate me, then you didn't need to respond to me in the first place.

And like I said, I'm not a Lincoln worshiper. I don't think the CSA was evil nor do I think the sole reason was slavery. Cut the black-and-white thinking.

But I have a problems with the ideas of secession. Unless the mods move this to off topic you have no right to say that I can't debate the merits of secession on this thread.

Good. Just keep bumping it. We aren't seceding, we're just acting like the CSA, for the time being. Who knows what the future will bring.

The states already seceded, so why should they have to do it two times? :p

[Agent Chameleon]

Good. Just keep bumping it. We aren't seceding, we're just acting like the CSA, for the time being. Who knows what the future will bring.

The states already seceded, so why should they have to do it two times? :p

Because the secession was nullified by Congress. So far no state has seceded successfully and where it's legally acknowledged.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Because the secession was nullified by Congress. So far no state has seceded successfully and where it's legally acknowledged.

By the Unon congress, yes. The Union congress could also nullify the sovereignty of any other nation. yup

[nate895]

How many nations of the world recognized it?

I believe the Vatican City recognized the Confederacy, that is the only "country" I can think of. In fact, several pieces of artwork in the Vatican were made by a Southern artist who Jefferson Davis sent over as a sort of gift for recognition. He only came back to America to build Confederate memorials in the latter part of the century.

[nate895]

I think we need to ask the Lakota (http://www.republicoflakotah.com/portfolio.html) for recognition in exchange for recognition of their country. It would also help with the "racist" thing if it ever became successful.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think we need to ask the Lakota (http://www.republicoflakotah.com/portfolio.html) for recognition in exchange for recognition of their country. It would also help with the "racist" thing if it ever became successful.

Yes, we should pursue this. The CSA has nothing to do with racism. It's about fun, political exercise, and who knows...

[Agent Chameleon]

By the Unon congress, yes. The Union congress could also nullify the sovereignty of any other nation. yup

Well the Union never recognized the legitimacy of the secession and with no nation besides the Vatican recognizing it, its hard for the CSA to have any sort of legitimate sovereignty.

[Agent Chameleon]

I believe the Vatican City recognized the Confederacy, that is the only "country" I can think of. In fact, several pieces of artwork in the Vatican were made by a Southern artist who Jefferson Davis sent over as a sort of gift for recognition. He only came back to America to build Confederate memorials in the latter part of the century.

Interesting. I'm surprised, considering that the North had a large Catholic population while the South was mostly Protestant.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well the Union never recognized the legitimacy of the secession and with no nation besides the Vatican recognizing it, its hard for the CSA to have any sort of legitimate sovereignty.

That would be your opinion. Stop being a party pooper. I am not expecting secession, I just want to be apart of a real CSA project. Who recognized Kurdistan? You're trolling.

[Agent Chameleon]

That would be your opinion. Stop being a party pooper. I am not expecting secession, I just want to be apart of a real CSA project. Who recognized Kurdistan? You're trolling.

And you're being irrational.

You say you want me to stop, I stop, then you throw more arguments at me then bitch when I respond to them?

Grow up.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

And you're being irrational.

You say you want me to stop, I stop, then you throw more arguments at me then bitch when I respond to them?

Grow up.

lol. I don't see the harm. ohhh we run a virtual government.. god forbid

[Agent Chameleon]

lol. I don't see the harm. ohhh w run a virtual government.. god forbid

I'm not criticizing that. Chill out.

[Kludge]

And you're being irrational.

You say you want me to stop, I stop, then you throw more arguments at me then bitch when I respond to them?

Grow up.

Ha... You've been lurking for a year and haven't figured out Joe, yet?


He never lets up. He's trying to cool his hands by touching a hot stove, and doesn't care how many times he gets burned, because people apparently (to him) made the stove wrong.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm not criticizing that. Chill out.

So what are you criticizing? That maybe no macronation will recognize it? That's not the reason I want to start this. I don't want civil war :p

[Agent Chameleon]

So what are you criticizing? That maybe no macronation will recognize it? That's not the reason I want to start this. I don't want civil war :p

Great. What am I criticizing is the notion that states need to secede. The OP talked about the ACTUAL Civil War, not just this virtual project, and I wanted to talk about that.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Great. What am I criticizing is the notion that states need to secede. The OP talked about the ACTUAL Civil War, not just this virtual project, and I wanted to talk about that.

Well, the CSA has a right [according to some people] to return. That's the notion that this project is based on lol

[Agent Chameleon]

Well what are the rights of CSA to return? Let's hear them.

So far I've seen that it existed for four years as an argument. I'm sure there's more.

And Joe, if you don't want to debate, that's fine. Don't answer. However I'll appreciate answers from anyone.

[sratiug]

Because the secession was nullified by Congress. So far no state has seceded successfully and where it's legally acknowledged.

If secession was nullified by the Union congress, then why did states have to apply to be "readmitted" to the union after the war?

[Agent Chameleon]

If secession was nullified by the Union congress, then why did states have to apply to be "readmitted" to the union after the war?

Because Congress was controlled by the Radical Republicans and they nullified the very statehood of the states and made them territories.

One of the many things that the Radical Republicans did that I hate.

[sratiug]

Because Congress was controlled by the Radical Republicans nullified the very statehood of the states and made them territories.

One of the many things that the Radical Republicans did that I hate.

So your argument was dumb. Please apologize to the forum.

[Agent Chameleon]

So your argument was dumb. Please apologize to the forum.

WTF is up with the hostility from pro-Confederate people?

My argument was not dumb. Congress nullified secession along with the very statehood of the states. I'm just pointing out that because secession was never treated as legitimate, therefore the CSA doesn't have a claim to sovereignty.

[sratiug]

WTF is up with the hostility from pro-Confederate people?

My argument was not dumb. Congress nullified secession along with the very statehood of the states. I'm just pointing out that because secession was never treated as legitimate, therefore the CSA doesn't have a claim to sovereignty.

Your argument is dumb. Read it. It is dumb. You are saying the state has no choice and is subservient to congress. That is dumb. That is not the way our republic works. Admit your mistake and apologize to us all.

The South was invaded by a Union army and terrorized. Exactly what happened in Iraq. There are no pro aggressive war Ron Paul supporters.

[Agent Chameleon]

Your argument is dumb. Read it. It is dumb. You are saying the state has no choice and is subservient to congress. That is dumb. That is not the way our republic works. Admit your mistake and apologize to us all.

The South was invaded by a Union army and terrorized. Exactly what happened in Iraq. There are no pro aggressive war Ron Paul supporters.

Stop being such a jackass.

How can the South been considered invaded if it was never its own country to begin with?

You can't just say "X-land" was/is a country just because some people think it is. It was NEVER recognized as a legitimate country and never treated as such. It lasted for only four years.

The Republic of Texas has a much better case for being a country then the CSA.

The Ron Paul Revolution has no place for immature people like you. Come back when you've grown up a bit.

[Agent Chameleon]

In fact straiug I find it insulting that you compare the CSA to Iraq. Iraq was never apart of the US and has been its own country for a long time prior to 2003.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Stop being such a jackass.

How can the South been considered invaded if it was never its own country to begin with?

You can't just say "X-land" was/is a country just because some people think it is. It was NEVER recognized as a legitimate country and never treated as such. It lasted for only four years.

The Republic of Texas has a much better case for being a country then the CSA.

The Ron Paul Revolution has no place for immature people like you. Come back when you've grown up a bit.

I guess you don't believe in states' rights :)

[Agent Chameleon]

I guess you don't believe in states' rights :)

I believe in the tenth amendment but I don't believe in secession.

Whether that makes me a states rightist or not is up to you and anyone else. :cool:

[torchbearer]

I believe in the tenth amendment but I don't believe in secession.

Whether that makes me a states rightist or not is up to you and anyone else. :cool:

What JTL means is.. "a republic of republics" federalism with state's rights, means each state itself is still an republic with its own soveriengty.

And secession is acceptable.

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.

We seceeded from England. Remember?

[Agent Chameleon]

What JTL means is.. "a republic of republics" federalism with state's rights, means each state itself is still an republic with its own soveriengty.

And secession is acceptable.

Nice quotation, but that isn't from a legal document. The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document. Therefore it can't be used to legally justify secession.

I understand federalism and the separation of powers. However, the Constitution provides no basis for the states to willingly leave the Union. The tenth amendment is written in the context that the states are a part of the Union.

Yes we seceded from England. But unlike the CSA, the USA is internationally recognized and has been for a long time.

[nate895]

Interesting. I'm surprised, considering that the North had a large Catholic population while the South was mostly Protestant.

At the time, the only significant amount of Catholics in the US lived in Louisiana and Florida. The Catholics in the North didn't come over, for the most part, until the immigration boom after 1880.

[nate895]

The states are sovereign

Articles of Confederation, Article II:


Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Nothing in the US Constitution says they gave that up (and to say they gave it away by implication is contrary to the Law of Nations of both then and now), and the sovereignty of the state (and therefore, the right to withdraw from the Union) was the number one issue of the ratifiers. Most states wouldn't have ratified if they weren't assured of their right, if they ever needed it, to leave the Union.

[Agent Chameleon]

At the time, the only significant amount of Catholics in the US lived in Louisiana and Florida. The Catholics in the North didn't come over, for the most part, until the immigration boom after 1880.

From my understanding there was a large presence of Irish Catholics in NY but maybe I'm wrong.

Then again they opposed getting drafted into the Union army. ;p

[nate895]

From my understanding there was a large presence of Irish Catholics in NY but maybe I'm wrong.

Then again they opposed getting drafted into the Union army. ;p

Not as much as there are now, and they were generally neutral, since many had family in the South.

[Agent Chameleon]

The states are sovereign

Articles of Confederation, Article II:



Nothing in the US Constitution says they gave that up (and to say they gave it away by implication is contrary to the Law of Nations of both then and now), and the sovereignty of the state (and therefore, the right to withdraw from the Union) was the number one issue of the ratifiers. Most states wouldn't have ratified if they weren't assured of their right, if they ever needed it, to leave the Union.

Articles of Confederation are not valid. They were scraped for a reason.

No mention of the US Constitution giving states the right to secede. The whole reason why the Constitution was written was to make a country and not a confederation of ex-colonies.

[sratiug]

Stop being such a jackass.

How can the South been considered invaded if it was never its own country to begin with?

You can't just say "X-land" was/is a country just because some people think it is. It was NEVER recognized as a legitimate country and never treated as such. It lasted for only four years.

The Republic of Texas has a much better case for being a country then the CSA.

The Ron Paul Revolution has no place for immature people like you. Come back when you've grown up a bit.

The South was invaded. Stop making stupid arguments on a good thread and I will stop saying they are stupid. I am trying to point out to you the ludicrousness of your postition, which will also demonstrate the reasoning for this entire discussion. The facts of the war of Northern Aggression are plain.

[Agent Chameleon]

The South was invaded. Stop making stupid arguments on a good thread and I will stop saying they are stupid. I am trying to point out to you the ludicrousness of your postition, which will also demonstrate the reasoning for this entire discussion. The facts of the war of Northern Aggression are plain.

You are failing to convince me of your position when you call me stupid. Try to be less obnoxious and maybe I'll weigh your words a little more carefully.

How can you say the South was invaded when the South fired the first shot on the North? Couldn't you say when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter that they were in fact the invaders?

What about Lee's invasion into PA? Can I call that the War of Southern Aggression?

[nate895]

Articles of Confederation are not valid. They were scraped for a reason.

No mention of the US Constitution giving states the right to secede. The whole reason why the Constitution was written was to make a country and not a confederation of ex-colonies.

The States had sovereignty, and the ratifiers of the Constitution made sure the Constitution let them retain that sovereignty. They would have voted, not just "no," but "Hell no and get the f!@# out," had they been told they lost their sovereignty. One of the main points of the Revolution was local self-government, and a Central Government with the authority to invade states who resisted it would be contrary to that point. Also, there is nothing that specifically says anything about a change in sovereignty, and the language used (such as powers delegated, and a government between the states) suggests that the states are parties to a contract, and if it is a contract between sovereign states, the state has the ability to withdraw if it views there has been an infraction.

[nate895]

You are failing to convince me of your position when you call me stupid. Try to be less obnoxious and maybe I'll weigh your words a little more carefully.

How can you say the South was invaded when the South fired the first shot on the North? Couldn't you say when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter that they were in fact the invaders?

What about Lee's invasion into PA? Can I call that the War of Southern Aggression?

Lee's invasion was meant to end a war of aggression against them, first of all.

As for Fort Sumter, if Germany withdrew from NATO, and we refused to leave Ramstein, would Germany be the aggressor if they decided to kick us out?

[Agent Chameleon]

The States had sovereignty, and the ratifiers of the Constitution made sure the Constitution let them retain that sovereignty. They would have voted, not just "no," but "Hell no and get the f!@# out," had they been told they lost their sovereignty. One of the main points of the Revolution was local self-government, and a Central Government with the authority to invade states who resisted it would be contrary to that point. Also, there is nothing that specifically says anything about a change in sovereignty, and the language used (such as powers delegated, and a government between the states) suggests that the states are parties to a contract, and if it is a contract between sovereign states, the state has the ability to withdraw if it views there has been an infraction.

Put the whole point of creating a Constitution was to create an actual nation. You can't have a nation where each member can just leave on a whim. The U.S. is not like the U.N.

[Agent Chameleon]

Lee's invasion was meant to end a war of aggression against them, first of all.

As for Fort Sumter, if Germany withdrew from NATO, and we refused to leave Ramstein, would Germany be the aggressor if they decided to kick us out?

Again, NATO isn't a country, it's an alliance. Just like the U.S. is a country, not an alliance.

It is not a valid comparison.

[tonesforjonesbones]

The Confederate States of America was most certainly it's own country. We had a Constitution, system of government, president etc...we had our own flag and our own money.

The southern states are not the only ones talking about secession...Vermont, Montana and Hawaii want independence.

I am ready to seceed...we should have been left alone to begin with. Fat chance of getting Florida onboard...Florida is now New York, Cuba , haiti...that's ok. I'll move. Tones

[Agent Chameleon]

The Confederate States of America was most certainly it's own country. We had a Constitution, system of government, president etc...we had our own flag and our own money.

The southern states are not the only ones talking about secession...Vermont, Montana and Hawaii want independence.

I am ready to seceed...we should have been left alone to begin with. Fat chance of getting Florida onboard...Florida is now New York, Cuba , haiti...that's ok. I'll move. Tones

Here's where we get to the problem of what makes a country. Is it simply by will of the people? I've heard that argument made, but of course how can that be so when there were many Southerners who opposed Secession and were persecuted for it. What majority is needed to make a country? 60%? 70%?

[tonesforjonesbones]

Our Links Page
We may be reached at
beaner1219@yahoo.com

Membership info

website: chevelle@flatfenders.com

Not A War To End Slavery:

"On the 22nd of July, 1861, both Houses of Congress with but a few dissenting votes adopted a joint resolution which declared:
"This war is not waged, on our part, in any spirit of oppression, not for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the constitution, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired; that, as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease."
Such were the attitude of the Republican party, the avowals and pledges of President Lincoln and the enactments of Congress, with respect to slavery, at the time of Virginia's secession."

(Virginia's Attitude Toward Slavery and Secession," Beverley Mumford, L.H. Jenkins, 1909, page 197)

[nate895]

Put the whole point of creating a Constitution was to create an actual nation. You can't have a nation where each member can just leave on a whim. The U.S. is not like the U.N.

Why not? The U.N. certainly has the same style. We are the "United States of America," if we were instead the "Republic of British America," I would take a different stance, but I'd still say people had a right, should they want to defend it, to break off (we do have the Right of Revolution). "United Nations of Earth" sounds awful similar to "United States of America."

P.S. The only definition of a state, in the political sense, at the time of ratification of the Constitution was "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation."

[tonesforjonesbones]

10 Causes of the War of Northern Aggression

1. TARIFF--Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%-20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to themselves. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South.
Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 era ( between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

2. CENTRALIZATION VERSUS STATES RIGHTS---The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic in 1789 composed of a Limited Federal Government and Sovereign States. The North wanted to and did alter the form of Government this nation was founded upon. The Confederate States of America fought to preserve Constitutional Limited Federal Government as established by America’s founding fathers who were primarily Southern Gentlemen from Virginia. Thus Confederate soldiers were fighting for rights that had been paid for in blood by their forefathers upon the battlefields of the American Revolution. Abraham Lincoln had a blatant disregard for The Constitution of the United States of America. His 'War of Aggression Against the South' changed America from a Constitutional Federal Republic to a Democracy ( with Socialist leanings ) and broke the original Constitution.
The infamous Socialist Karl Marx sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations after his reelection in 1864. A considerable number of European Socialists came to America and fought for the Union (North).

3. CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM--The South believed in basic Christianity as presented in the Holy Bible. The North had many Secular Humanists (atheists, transcendentalists and non-Christians). Southerners were afraid of what kind of country America might become if the North had its way. Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no God and that man, science and government can solve all problems. This philosophy advocates human rather than religious values. Reference : Frank Conner’s book "The South Under Siege 1830-2000."

4. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES--Southerners and Northerners were of different Genetic Lineages. Southerners were primarily of Western English (original Britons), Scottish, and Irish linage (Celtic) whereas Northerners tended to be of Anglo-Saxon and Danish (Viking) extraction. The two cultures had been at war and at odds for over 1000 years before they arrived in America. Our ancient ancestors in Western England under King Arthur humbled the Saxon princes at the battle of Baden Hill ( circa 497 AD --516 AD ). The cultural differences that contributed to the War Between the States (1861-1865 ) had existed for 1500 years or more.

5. CONTROL OF WESTERN TERRITORIES-- The North wanted to control Western States and Territories such as Kansas and Nebraska. New England formed Immigrant Aid Societies and sent settlers to these areas that were politically attached to the North. They passed laws against slavery that Southerners considered punitive. These political actions told Southerners they were not welcome in the new states and territories. It was all about control--slavery was a scapegoat.

[tonesforjonesbones]

10 Causes of the War of Northern Aggression (cont)

6. NORTHERN INDUSTRIALISTS WANTED THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES. The Northern Industrialists wanted a war to use as an excuse to get the South's resources for pennies on the dollar. They began a campaign about 1830 that would influence the common people of the North and create enmity that would allow them to go to war against the South. These Northern Industrialists brought up a morality claim against the South alleging the evils of slavery. The Northern Hypocrites conveniently neglected to publicize the fact that 5 New England States ( Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New York ) were primarily responsible for the importation of most of the slaves from Africa to America. These states had both private and state owned fleets of ships.

7. SLANDER OF THE SOUTH BY NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS. This political cause ties in to the above listed efforts by New England Industrialists. Beginning about 1830 the Northern Newspapers began to slander the South. The Industrialists used this tool to indoctrinate the common people of the North. They used slavery as a scapegoat and brought the morality claim up to a feverish pitch. Southerners became tired of reading in the Northern Newspapers about what bad and evil people they were just because their neighbor down the road had a few slaves. This propaganda campaign created hostility between the ordinary citizens of the two regions and created the animosity necessary for war. The Northern Industrialists worked poor whites in the factories of the North under terrible conditions for 18 hours a day ( including children ). When the workers became old and infirm they were fired. It is a historical fact that during this era there were thousands of old people living homeless on the streets in the cities of the North. In the South a slave was cared for from birth to death. Also the diet and living conditions of Southern slaves was superior to that of most white Northern factory workers. Southerners deeply resented this New England hypocrisy and slander.

8. NEW ENGLANDERS ATTEMPTED TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SLAVE REBELLIONS IN THE SOUTH. Abolitionists were a small but vocal and militant group in New England who demanded instant abolition of slavery in the South. These fanatics and zealots were calling for massive slave uprisings that would result in the murder of Southern men, women and children. Southerners were aware that such an uprising had occurred in Santa Domingo in the 1790 era and that the French (white) population had been massacred. The abolitionists published a terrorist manifesto and tried to smuggle 100,000 copies into the South showing slaves how to murder their masters at night. Then when John Brown raided Harpers Ferry,Virginia in 1859 the political situation became inflammatory. Prior to this event there had been more abolition societies in the South than in the North. Lincoln and most of the Republican Party ( 64 members of congress ) had adopted a political platform in support of terrorist acts against the South. Some (allegedly including Lincoln) had contributed monetarily as supporters of John Brown's terrorist activities. Again, slavery was used as a scapegoat for all differences that existed between the North and South.

9.. SLAVERY. Indirectly, slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery.
However, they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North.
Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the 'morality' claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy. The first state to legalize slavery had been Massachusetts in 1641 and this law was directed primarily at Indians. In colonial times the economic infrastructure of the port cities of the North was dependent upon the slave trade. The first slave ship in America, "THE DESIRE", was fitted out in Marblehead, Massachusetts.
Further proof that Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery is found in the diary of an officer in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. He stated that "he had never met a man in the Army of Northern Virginia that claimed he was fighting to preserve slavery". If the war had been over slavery, the composition of the politicians, officers, enlisted men, and even African Americans would have been different.
Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves (they had not been purchased by him, they were inherited by his wife's estate) prior to 1863 whereas Union General Grant's wife Julia did not free her slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South.
Mildred Lewis Rutherford ( 1852-1928 ) was for many years the historian for the United Daughters Of The Confederacy (UDC). In her book Truths Of History she stated that there were more slaveholders in the Union Army ( 315,000 ) than the Confederate Army ( 200,000 ). Statistics and estimates also show that about 300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the Union. Clearly the war would have been fought along different lines if it had been fought over slavery.
The famous English author Charles Dickens stated " the Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states."

10, NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES, Proof that Abraham Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort ( The Union was using Fort Sumter as A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY ). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy 'started' the war. Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war and he refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a 'rebellion'. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln's act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States.

[nate895]

Here's where we get to the problem of what makes a country. Is it simply by will of the people? I've heard that argument made, but of course how can that be so when there were many Southerners who opposed Secession and were persecuted for it. What majority is needed to make a country? 60%? 70%?

Support for secession was almost unanimous in the deep South (an initial opponent of secession in the deep South wound up being VP of the CSA). While not as popular in the upper South, it still had enough that a 2-1 vote in favor was considered close.

[Agent Chameleon]

Tones, I never said it was a war to end slavery. ;p

I believe the South had many legitimate concerns and the Northern abolitionists didn't help maintain peace.

[Agent Chameleon]

Why not? The U.N. certainly has the same style. We are the "United States of America," if we were instead the "Republic of British America," I would take a different stance, but I'd still say people had a right, should they want to defend it, to break off (we do have the Right of Revolution). "United Nations of Earth" sounds awful similar to "United States of America."

P.S. The only definition of a state, in the political sense, at the time of ratification of the Constitution was "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation."

That's where I disagree. The UN considers itself an organization (although there is definitely a movement to make it an actual government which I will oppose to the death)

And I think the definition of state you mentioned applied to the US at the time. Even though there were social divisions, Northerners and Southerners still had a lot in common: they were Americans. They had a shared history, shared heritage, shared struggles, and shared culture.

[nate895]

That's where I disagree. The UN considers itself an organization (although there is definitely a movement to make it an actual government which I will oppose to the death)

And I think the definition of state you mentioned applied to the US at the time. Even though there were social divisions, Northerners and Southerners still had a lot in common: they were Americans. They had a shared history, shared heritage, shared struggles, and shared culture.

Then, are you saying that the founders created a new definition of a word and never told us about it?

As for the UN, having read the charter of the UN, it gives very similar powers to the Security Council as the US Federal government has, with the exception of taxation.

[Agent Chameleon]

Then, are you saying that the founders created a new definition of a word and never told us about it.

I don't see any proof that the Founders had no intention of creating a nation when they wrote the Constitution.

There was a reason why the anti-Federalists refused to get involved with the Constitutional Convention, since they favored the Articles of Confederation, where secession would have been legally feasible.

[Agent Chameleon]

Then, are you saying that the founders created a new definition of a word and never told us about it?

As for the UN, having read the charter of the UN, it gives very similar powers to the Security Council as the US Federal government has, with the exception of taxation.

Yes but it does not call itself a country.

[nate895]

I don't see any proof that the Founders had no intention of creating a nation when they wrote the Constitution.

There was a reason why the anti-Federalists refused to get involved with the Constitutional Convention, since they favored the Articles of Confederation, where secession would have been legally feasible.

Do you have any proof they had that intention? You must prove your theory that was their intention, and that they told the delegates to the ratification conventions that that was the case.

[tonesforjonesbones]

My post on the 10 Causes was just for general information. The Southern outlook on the entire situation has been ignored and southerners and the south have been demonized for over 150 years and it continues. Tones

[Agent Chameleon]

My post on the 10 Causes was just for general information. The Southern outlook on the entire situation has been ignored and southerners and the south have been demonized for over 150 years and it continues. Tones

I totally agree with that. I think for one thing that the rise of the KKK was the fault of the Radical Republicans, who basically established a military dictatorship in the south and dehumanized white Southerners.

[Agent Chameleon]

Do you have any proof they had that intention? You must prove your theory that was their intention, and that they told the delegates to the ratification conventions that that was the case.

Read the federalist papers. They advocate the creation of a nation.

That was in contrast to the anti-federalists. The anti-federalists refused to participate in the convention, which is why our Constitution is the way it is.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Yes of course. Remember , during reconstruction the south was under martial law for 7 years. Southerners had no vote or if they did it was for whoever the Yankee military put up. There were yankee carpetbaggers elected to office and many freed blacks who couldn't even read. It was a MESS. I hear so many northerners talk about how downtrodden and behind the south is..well I wonder why. The south was NEVER like that before Lincoln's war. It was thriving. All Lincoln did was kill a bunch of Americans, destroy the south and throw the slaves under the bus. Very very bad. Tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

Actually Jefferson , who was an anti federalist, wasn't even invited to the convention. tones

[Agent Chameleon]

Just to clarify things; I'm not an unblinking Union supporter.

I feel very conflicted on the issue. On the one hand, I hate Lincoln's actions during the war, his tyranny. I also hate the Radical Republicans and the disaster that was Reconstruction. But I'm also a patriot; I love my country, all of it, including the South even though I've never been there. I defend Southerners from attacks by liberals up here in CT because I view them as my fellow countrymen.

That is why I have a hard time accepting secession as legitimate, because I view this nation as one nation.

[nate895]

Read the federalist papers. They advocate the creation of a nation.

That was in contrast to the anti-federalists. The anti-federalists refused to participate in the convention, which is why our Constitution is the way it is.

The Federalist wasn't published until after most of the states had already ratified. Besides, the Federalist, at several points, denies that the Constitution was creating a nation (to do so in New York would be political suicide, with 2/3 of convention delegates opposed to the Constitution to begin with).

[nate895]

As for Anti-Federalists not participating, that is true, but at the Convention, the plans to create a national government were shot down, even to the point of amending a resolution with no force that the word nation in it when the framers wanted the government to be federal.

[Agent Chameleon]

The Federalist wasn't published until after most of the states had already ratified. Besides, the Federalist, at several points, denies that the Constitution was creating a nation (to do so in New York would be political suicide, with 2/3 of convention delegates opposed to the Constitution to begin with).

That being said, it was still the intention of the authors of the Constitution, of which the Federalist writers belonged to, to create a nation. Alexander Hamilton was perhaps the most nationalist at out of any of the delegates. James Madison was also in favor of creating a nation.

[Agent Chameleon]

As for Anti-Federalists not participating, that is true, but at the Convention, the plans to create a national government were shot down, even to the point of amending a resolution with no force that the word nation in it when the framers wanted the government to be federal.

I don't understand. The Constitution provides for a national government. In fact national government is a much better term than "federal government" as the latter term is a mockery of federalism itself.

[nate895]

Just to clarify things; I'm not an unblinking Union supporter.

I feel very conflicted on the issue. On the one hand, I hate Lincoln's actions during the war, his tyranny. I also hate the Radical Republicans and the disaster that was Reconstruction. But I'm also a patriot; I love my country, all of it, including the South even though I've never been there. I defend Southerners from attacks by liberals up here in CT because I view them as my fellow countrymen.

That is why I have a hard time accepting secession as legitimate, because I view this nation as one nation.

We aren't a nation, if we were, there would all have the same accent and not have different types of food we eat. I dare you to find me grits and country ham on the West Coast. We eat different foods, we speak with different accents, we have different histories (though they share some things in common, as does all of Europe), and we have different native forms of music. All the things that make a nation are different. We are separated by state borders, we have different accents (though we speak the same language), and we have totally different cultures.

[nate895]

I don't understand. The Constitution provides for a national government. In fact national government is a much better term than "federal government" as the latter term is a mockery of federalism itself.

You must have idea what "federal" means then.

pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states: the federal government of the U.S.

We are the world example of Federalism.

[nate895]

That being said, it was still the intention of the authors of the Constitution, of which the Federalist writers belonged to, to create a nation. Alexander Hamilton was perhaps the most nationalist at out of any of the delegates. James Madison was also in favor of creating a nation.

Alexander Hamilton's plan and James Madison's original plan, which made nations, were shot down, unanimously (each state got one vote), not even supported by either of the men's state delegations.

[Agent Chameleon]

We aren't a nation, if we were, there would all have the same accent and not have different types of food we eat. I dare you to find me grits and country ham on the West Coast. We eat different foods, we speak with different accents, we have different histories (though they share some things in common, as does all of Europe), and we have different native forms of music. All the things that make a nation are different. We are separated by state borders, we have different accents (though we speak the same language), and we have totally different cultures.

A nation doesn't have to be the same. There can be variations in culture. As for grits, my stepmother has a southern background and she occasionally makes grits. I can't speak for the West coast but I'm sure there's southerners in the West.

And as far as your claim that we have different histories, I don't see how that's possible. Many of the Founding Fathers are from the South, and I revere them as heroes. If I was from a different country, how could I view men from your "country" as heroes?

There are differences in accents, but that can be found almost anywhere. There's distinct differences between Brooklyn and Bronx accents for example. And despite those state borders we all have the right to travel within the country, causing much immersion between southern and northern culture.

And if I go around the South and ask southerners questions about our culture I'm sure they can answer. We are of the same culture, overall (variations not withstanding.)

How can you say the South is not a part of America when the majority of our soldiers are from the South? So many things of our nation are in part, thanks to the South; I don't see how the North could survive without the South.

[nate895]

A nation doesn't have to be the same. There can be variations in culture. As for grits, my stepmother has a southern background and she occasionally makes grits. I can't speak for the West coast but I'm sure there's southerners in the West.

And as far as your claim that we have different histories, I don't see how that's possible. Many of the Founding Fathers are from the South, and I revere them as heroes. If I was from a different country, how could I view men from your "country" as heroes?

There are differences in accents, but that can be found almost anywhere. There's distinct differences between Brooklyn and Bronx accents for example. And despite those state borders we all have the right to travel within the country, causing much immersion between southern and northern culture.

And if I go around the South and ask southerners questions about our culture I'm sure they can answer. We are of the same culture.

How can you the south is not a part of America when the majority of our soldiers are from the South? So many things of our nation are in part, thanks to the South; I don't see how the North could survive without the South.

I'm sure the same can be said of the Scottish and English. But Scotland and England, even though they are united under one government, cannot be argued to be one nation, with one culture. A nation is a people who share all the same language and culture. The difference in accents between those Brooklyn and the Bronx are nothing when compared to them and Georgians.

[Agent Chameleon]

I'm sure the same can be said of the Scottish and English. But Scotland and England, even though they are united under one government, cannot be argued to be one nation. A nation is a people who share all the same borders, language, and culture. The difference in accents between those Brooklyn and the Bronx are nothing when compared to them and Georgians.

Well see I would never make the argument that England and Scotland are one nation because its fairly apparent that they are not. Certainly the English and Scottish feel that way. But there's also other reasons.

Scotland is autonomous, Scotland is a Celtic culture, while England is Anglo-Saxon in culture.

Scotland's hero is William Wallace. England's hero is Alfred the Great.

They have different origins, and they came together mostly due to English domination.

Whereas, the South and North had a common origin. We have the same founding. We are both English-speaking in origin. We both called ourselves Americans before we started dividing ourselves into Northerners and Southerners.

As far as accents go, how can you use them to define nations? Iowa has a diverse collection of accents. Southern Iowa has a bit of Southern twang, eastern Iowa has a general American accent, and Northern Iowa has more of an upper Midwest accent. Yet they all consider themselves Iowans as well as Americans, just like I view you as my fellow American even though we are born on opposite sides of the Mason-Dixon line.

[nate895]

Well see I would never make the argument that England and Scotland are one nation because its fairly apparent that they are not. Certainly the English and Scottish feel that way. But there's also other reasons.

Scotland is autonomous, Scotland is a Celtic culture, while England is Anglo-Saxon in culture.

Scotland's hero is William Wallace. England's hero is Alfred the Great.

They have different origins, and they came together mostly due to English domination.

Whereas, the South and North had a common origin. We have the same founding. We are both English-speaking in origin. We both called ourselves Americans before we started dividing ourselves into Northerners and Southerners.

As far as accents go, how can you use them to define nations? Iowa has a diverse collection of accents. Southern Iowa has a bit of Southern twang, eastern Iowa has a general American accent, and Northern Iowa has more of an upper Midwest accent. Yet they all consider themselves Iowans as well as Americans, just like I view you as my fellow American even though we are born on opposite sides of the Mason-Dixon line.

If you would have read the posts by tones, you would have read on to find out that Southerners have a culture based in Scotland, Ireland, and west England, while Northerners' culture comes from Anglo-Saxon culture. Southern and Northern culture are congealing into one, but I regret that, it is destroying two beautiful cultures, there is time to salvage it, but very little, and it will require a concerted effort. I would also say that most Southerners would say they have a different culture from Northerners.

As far as Scotland being autonomous, they South was until it was stolen from them.

BTW, I was born in San Jose, California, on the same side of the Mason-Dixon as you were, but my family is (mostly) from the South.

[nate895]

Stolen, in its entirety, from http://www.secessionist.us/

Secession as a Legitimate Recourse of the States - is secession legal?

Secession is a term and a concept that holds various and differing connotations to many individuals. It is an idea seldom thought about by most Americans in our day. Those that have some familiarity with the term generally associate it primarily with the War of 1861-1865. To the majority the concept of secession is a far away notion, little understood and even less thought of as a practical concept applicable to our current political arrangement. After all, most Americans believe that whatever secession was all about the issue must have been settled when the forces of the Union defeated the South.

This treatment of secession is one dimensional and flawed. Most Americans would agree that it is impossible, nay unjust, to settle matters of legal principle through the use of force. On the schoolyard we do not reward the bully that is stronger than his fellows by accepting that his point of view must be right just because he is stronger. We do not accept this in our system of civil law. A mere individual with a right and just cause can and often does prevail against large and powerful corporations on points of justice and legality. It seems un-American to simply accept that a question as powerful as the nature of the compact that holds the Union together might be answered in no other way than force.

The commonplace view of secession is also flawed in that the idea is generally applied only to the South and the Southern political mind. This treatment of secession denies the fact that our very independence from the British Crown was a result of secession. It also ignores the principles expressed in the founding documents and the words and thoughts of those that shaped our early history. Finally this line of thought also ignores the fact that secession was first proposed not in the South but in New England. Secession is as American as apple pie. The first American Patriots were secessionist and throughout our history men that understood the primary nature of the federal compact supported the principle of secession.
A Summary of the Nature and Role of Government

Man is by necessity a social creature. It has been thus since the dawn of man. We banded together in small hunter-gatherer groups in prehistoric times, we built tribal communities and over time developed the system of government that gave rise to the modern nation state. Government is the guarantor of greater peace, tranquility and health than might otherwise be obtainable. It serves to protect property and rights; its does not grant or create them.

John C. Calhoun in his Disquisition on Government viewed the institution of government as; "although intended to protect and preserve society, has itself a strong tendency to disorder and abuse its powers, as all experience and almost every page of history testify.”

What then are we to make of this fearful beast that we rely on so heavily. How might a people make government a servant of their needs and avoid becoming servants of the government itself? John Ponet in 1556 argued that the power of any ruler is not absolute but is constrained by natural law. Christopher Goodman in 1558 expanded on the ideas of Ponet and argued that The People were not required to obey unjust rulers in every circumstance. These thoughts and those of others combined to bring an end to the concept of the divine right of kings. Our tradition of political thought in the West is heavily influenced by the idea that no government retains absolute right to rule.

Read more...
A Brief Primer on the Origin, Nature and Role of the Federal Compact

It is pointless to discuss the justness of the principle of secession without first discussing our federal compact. Our thoughts on the perpetuity of the Federal Union have been continually reinforced since 1892 by items like the Pledge of Allegiance with the "indivisible" phrase (never mind that the Pledge itself was written by a socialist with grand ideas of a Socialist Utopia in the US based upon very un-American ideals). US history as taught in most US schools only adds to the confusion and misunderstanding concerning the true nature of the federal compact as envisioned by those who created the nation.

Read More...
The Undeniable Legality of Secession

At the most fundamental and basic level of our political belief system as Americans rests the idea that men ought to be free to determine their own form of government. Our Declaration of Independence states this fact clearly:

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

Few Americans would deny that our founders in 1776 had among other inalienable rights the justification and right to assert a form of government "most likely to effect Safety and Happiness". With such a strong sense of the rights of the people inherent in our most foundational of beliefs, it is amazing that Americans so easily view these concepts as applicable only to another time and place.

Secession is legal under natural law, biblical law and in accordance with the State-Federal compact theory of government.
The Unconstitutionality of Using Force to Coerce a State

President James Buchanan stated succinctly in a speech before Congress, December 1860 that the Constitution does not delegate to the Federal government the power to use force against a state:

"The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not " necessary and proper for carrying into execution " any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution."

[Agent Chameleon]

If you would have read the posts by tones, you would have read on to find out that Southerners have a culture based in Scotland, Ireland, and west England, while Northerners' culture comes from Anglo-Saxon culture. Southern and Northern culture are congealing into one, but I regret that, it is destroying two beautiful cultures, there is time to salvage it, but very little, and it will require a concerted effort. I would also say that most Southerners would say they have a different culture from Northerners.

As far as Scotland being autonomous, they South was until it was stolen from them.

BTW, I was born in San Jose, California, on the same side of the Mason-Dixon as you were, but my family is (mostly) from the South.

I don't deny that there was a lot of Southerners descended from Scotch-Irish, but from my understand many of the southerners who were wealthy and lived along the coast (like the Founding Fathers) were of English noble origin. And they had a vast influence on the south. And certainly it seems like there was no alienation between men like George Washington and Ben Franklin due to cultural reasons. The early days of the US was when both Southerners and Northerners interacted with each other like countrymen rather than two distinct peoples. In fact, alienation didn't really start until the 1830's (no thanks to Northern abolitionists who demonized the South unfairly).

Just because we are both Americans doesn't mean our cultures have to be exactly the same. We can have a common thread while at the same time being different flavors of that same thread. Alabama can have its grits and Connecticut can have puritan-era churches. But there's still things we share in common. Liberals up north like to stereotype southerners as being gun-toting pickup truck drivers, but of course, we have plenty of gun-owners and pick up trucks in CT as well.

[Agent Chameleon]

The people the article mentions like Calhoun and Buchanan were pro-secession or sympathetic to it. And they were around long after the Constitution was written.

And I see these comparisons between the American Revolution and the Civil War which I disagree with. While there may have been originally legal problems for the justification of the 13 colonies breaking off from the British Empire, those issues were resolved when the US gained international recognition as a sovereign nation. I can't think of one country that recognizes the US as British territory.

Sovereignty is a problem in the sense that who can define it? Anyone can declare any patch of the world to be a sovereign nation, and yet it means nothing, for no one recognizes it. There needs to be a legitimacy behind the sovereignty, and for good or bad, the Confederacy never gained that. They made allies amongst some European powers but that fizzled since many of the European allies wanted slavery banned. There has not been a revolution to restore the Confederacy and it doesn't seem like theres any will amongst most Southerners to do so. The South as being apart of the US is almost undisputed.

[nate895]

I don't deny that there was a lot of Southerners descended from Scotch-Irish, but from my understand many of the southerners who were wealthy and lived along the coast (like the Founding Fathers) were of English noble origin. And they had a vast influence on the south. And certainly it seems like there was no alienation between men like George Washington and Ben Franklin due to cultural reasons. The early days of the US was when both Southerners and Northerners interacted with each other like countrymen rather than two distinct peoples. In fact, alienation didn't really start until the 1830's (no thanks to Northern abolitionists who demonized the South unfairly).

Just because we are both Americans doesn't mean our cultures have to be exactly the same. We can have a common thread while at the same time being different flavors of that same thread. Alabama can have its grits and Connecticut can have puritan-era churches. But there's still things we share in common. Liberals up north like to stereotype southerners as being gun-toting pickup truck drivers, but of course, we have plenty of gun-owners and pick up trucks in CT as well.

The reason why they got along was that neither side intended to destroy the culture of the other, as the Federal Government has been doing to both sides. People from Massachusetts generally thought women from Virginia (and Virginians wondered how Puritans lived like they did) were a bit too loose (and Virginians wondered how Puritans lived like they did), but Massachusetts didn't want to tell Virginia how to govern their affairs in those days, but the North did begin to want to tell the South what to do, leading to alienation. They were always different, it's just before, the North let the South be different and visa versa, but eventually the North realized they could soak money from the South.

[nate895]

The people the article mentions like Calhoun and Buchanan were pro-secession or sympathetic to it. And they were around long after the Constitution was written.

And I see these comparisons between the American Revolution and the Civil War which I disagree with. While there may have been originally legal problems for the justification of the 13 colonies breaking off from the British Empire, those issues were resolved when the US gained international recognition as a sovereign nation. I can't think of one country that recognizes the US as British territory.

Sovereignty is a problem in the sense that who can define it? Anyone can declare any patch of the world to be a sovereign nation, and yet it means nothing, for no one recognizes it. There needs to be a legitimacy behind the sovereignty, and for good or bad, the Confederacy never gained that. They made allies amongst some European powers but that fizzled since many of the European allies wanted slavery banned. There has not been a revolution to restore the Confederacy and it doesn't seem like theres any will amongst most Southerners to do so. The South as being apart of the US is almost undisputed.

The reason why Europe didn't recognize the South was they were already at war and couldn't risk another front. If the French were at war with the Spanish in 1776-1783, you can rest assure that they wouldn't have recognized the United States.

Oh, and by the Treaty of Paris, the Monarch of England (then George III, currently Elizabeth II) recognizes each state separately, and there have been no laws in the United Kingdom (or treaties with the United States) to change that.

[Agent Chameleon]

The reason why they got along was that neither side intended to destroy the culture of the other, as the Federal Government has been doing to both sides. People from Massachusetts generally thought women from Virginia (and Virginians wondered how Puritans lived like they did) were a bit too loose (and Virginians wondered how Puritans lived like they did), but Massachusetts didn't want to tell Virginia how to govern their affairs in those days, but the North did begin to want to tell the South what to do, leading to alienation. They were always different, it's just before, the North let the South be different and visa versa, but eventually the North realized they could soak money from the South.

Those distinctions can be made on levels beyond statehood. For example, there's different stereotypes and assumptions made about people from my town of Wilton, which is that they are snotty, and there's stereotypes of people from my Mom's town of Bethel which is 45 minutes north of Wilton, which is that they are low-class and crude.

As I said before, a country doesn't have to be monolithic, there can be flavors of the same culture that exists throughout the country. I'm sure there's cultural differences between Texans and Virginians, even though they were both apart of the CSA.

Well I'm tired and I'm going to bed soon. I'm grateful for this discussion as I've wanted to debate the merits of secession for a long time. I've learned a lot from this, and I thank you nate for being much more civil than some of the other people on this thread.

I hope the South never leaves, and that a great division between the two regions will never happen again. But I also hope that Southern culture preserves and I wish you luck in that endeavor.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well the new englanders were trying to thump on the south 100 years before the War, but they had to put it aside. I disagree with slavery..I don't think anyone in 2008 agrees with it, but I certainly believe there was a better, gentler way to end it. I really don't believe that the north gave a doodly squat about the slaves. I watched a documentary about blacks migrating to Chicago from the south and they weren't treated any better. I,m just so tired of northern hypocracy..to this day, the minute I open my mouth, with what little southern accent I have, in voice chats I'm immedately labled an ignorant inbred and nothing I say or know is credible.

[nate895]

You said that because the men supported secession, their opinion is invalid, that is intellectually dishonest. That would be like saying that since I support the Constitution, that my statements in favor of it are invalid. You can't do that, because everyone has opinion one way or the other, you can't just say that because someone supports that right of secession, his facts are invalid.

[Agent Chameleon]

You said that because the men supported secession, their opinion is invalid, that is intellectually dishonest. That would be like saying that since I support the Constitution, that my statements in favor of it are invalid. You can't do that, because everyone has opinion one way or the other, you can't just say that because someone supports that right of secession, his facts are invalid.

The point I was trying to make was that the opinions of Calhoun and Buchanan didn't weight as much because we're arguing on the basis of the legality of secession, which would involve those who wrote the Constitution. As I've said before, many of them had pro-national sentiments. Yes the more strong-government proposals were shot down, but that doesn't mean that they favored a voluntary union. That was the whole point behind the Constitution; the Articles of Confederation was a document viewed as too weak, since it was just a Confederacy rather than a Union.

[Agent Chameleon]

Well the new englanders were trying to thump on the south 100 years before the War, but they had to put it aside. I disagree with slavery..I don't think anyone in 2008 agrees with it, but I certainly believe there was a better, gentler way to end it. I really don't believe that the north gave a doodly squat about the slaves. I watched a documentary about blacks migrating to Chicago from the south and they weren't treated any better. I,m just so tired of northern hypocracy..to this day, the minute I open my mouth, with what little southern accent I have, in voice chats I'm immedately labled an ignorant inbred and nothing I say or know is credible.

I do my part to fight those bigoted assumptions amongst my New England compatriots. Not all of us hold that view anyway. ;)

[nate895]

Those distinctions can be made on levels beyond statehood. For example, there's different stereotypes and assumptions made about people from my town of Wilton, which is that they are snotty, and there's stereotypes of people from my Mom's town of Bethel which is 45 minutes north of Wilton, which is that they are low-class and crude.

As I said before, a country doesn't have to be monolithic, there can be flavors of the same culture that exists throughout the country. I'm sure there's cultural differences between Texans and Virginians, even though they were both apart of the CSA.

Well I'm tired and I'm going to bed soon. I'm grateful for this discussion as I've wanted to debate the merits of secession for a long time. I've learned a lot from this, and I thank you nate for being much more civil than some of the other people on this thread.

I hope the South never leaves, and that a great division between the two regions will never happen again. But I also hope that Southern culture preserves and I wish you luck in that endeavor.

Well, I'd support the local governments right of secession as well, considering I believe that secession is a natural right, no matter what the intention of the framers. However, to say one town is from a different culture because it is from a different class is different. I'm saying that the rich live differently from your rich, and the poor different from your poor. Every town should have a local flavor, it's just there is massive differences between Wilton, CT and Broken Arrow, OK and between Bethel, CT and Monticello, KY.

[Agent Chameleon]

Anyway I'm getting exhausted. I yield! I surrender the Army of the Potomac ;)

Good night.

[nate895]

Anyway I'm getting exhausted. I yield! I surrender the Army of the Potomac ;)

Good night.

Finally, my dream has come true :D

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Good job.

Anyone else want to join the CSA? ;)

[Agent Chameleon]

Any room for New England carpetbaggers, Joe? ;p

[nate895]

Any room for New England carpetbaggers, Joe? ;p

I think all are welcome.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

bump

[nate895]

bump

[JosephTheLibertarian]

bumpity bump bump bump

[UnReconstructed]

I can't find the CSA in the directory. How do I join?

[nate895]

I can't find the CSA in the directory. How do I join?

PM me or Joseph your email and we will put it on a list. If we get enough interest, we will put up a website.