Happy Secession Day

[nate895]

I just noticed it is December 20th, the day South Carolina seceded from the United States. Happy Secession Day everyone, especially South Carolinians!!!

Today is the 148th anniversary of the event.

[heavenlyboy34]

How interesting that that important holiday falls on another important holiday, heavenlyboy34 day! Wonderful! :) Thanks for the post, sir!

[Mesogen]

Didn't they secede because they feared that slavery would be abolished under a Lincoln presidency? And then secession sparked off a terrible war? Why celebrate such an event?

[nate895]

Didn't they secede because they feared that slavery would be abolished under a Lincoln presidency? And then secession sparked off a terrible war? Why celebrate such an event?

No, they seceded because they feared that Lincoln would put into place a 50% tariff to protect Northern industries, and then use that money to put in "internal improvements" (read as pork) in the North. That was Lincoln's primary campaign plank. The South was offered a protection in the Constitution for slavery that couldn't be repealed (commonly known as the Crittenden Compromise), and the South rejected it.

Then Lincoln ordered the supply of Ft. Sumter when he became President, even though a commissioner to South Carolina had promised the Fort would be evacuated. When President Davis heard that a ship was on the way to resupply Ft. Sumter, with arms included, he ordered Beauregard to fire on it because the Confederates wouldn't have been able to prevent a resupply (which was important because they were enforcing the tariff) because they didn't have a real navy.

[Mesogen]

No, they seceded because they feared that Lincoln would put into place a 50% tariff to protect Northern industries,

Ok, tariffs were increased from about 17%, which was considered low, to about 26% in 1861. I couldn't find any info about a 50% tariff.

The whole Ft. Sumter affair happened AFTER secession.

[Anti Federalist]

As a celebration of the right to self determination and the right of secession, I'll join you.

Happy Secession Day!!

May we have another date to celebrate soon!!!

[Mesogen]

Wait, the Morill Tariff only made it through congress AFTER secession too.

[Mesogen]

As a celebration of the right to self determination and the right of secession, I'll join you.

Happy Secession Day!!

May we have another date to celebrate soon!!!

Speaking of self-determination, I suppose you support every slave uprising or rebellion, eh? So before the ruling aristocracy of South Carolina seceded from the US, there were at least a few uprisings. What if the slaves had won and decided to secede from South Carolina and set up their own state?

[nate895]

Ok, tariffs were increased from about 17%, which was considered low, to about 26% in 1861. I couldn't find any info about a 50% tariff.

The whole Ft. Sumter affair happened AFTER secession.

I don't care if the tariff was one percent, it hurt Southerners to the benefit of Northerners. Almost every single non-military Federal dime went to Northern pork.

Platform 12 of the RNC of 1860:


12. That while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.

Plank 4 of the RNC of 1860 (disproving the benevolent liberator status of Republicans):


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

[Mesogen]

I'm sure the tariff dispute was part of it, but it could not be the only reason to secede. Wanting to keep slavery was THE major reason to secede.

"They want to raise tariffs. Imports will cost a lot more. Damn. But if they abolish slavery, we'll be ruined."

Tariffs sucked for the general population of SC, but abolition would have wiped out the aristocratic land owners, and they ran the place. It couldn't even be hinted at.

[nate895]

I'm sure the tariff dispute was part of it, but it could not be the only reason to secede. Wanting to keep slavery was THE major reason to secede.

"They want to raise tariffs. Imports will cost a lot more. Damn. But if they abolish slavery, we'll be ruined."

Tariffs sucked for the general population of SC, but abolition would have wiped out the aristocratic land owners, and they ran the place. It couldn't even be hinted at.

The Republicans never even threatened the South with eliminating slavery, as is evidenced by the fourth plank of their platform, and even in one of the planks that makes a reference to slavery they state that they want to protect states' rights to it. Lincoln was a die hard racist like the rest of Yankeedom at the time (blacks left the North for the South in droves because Southerners would actually hire blacks, while Yankees would barely speak to them), he did not give a lick whether or not a single slave was freed, and everyone knew that.

BTW, Jefferson Davis was a gradualist abolitionist (he taught his slaves the law, how to be jury members, and even some to be prosecutors and defense attorneys), why would they elect him if they were looking to forever protect and expand slavery?

[Anti Federalist]

Speaking of self-determination, I suppose you support every slave uprising or rebellion, eh? So before the ruling aristocracy of South Carolina seceded from the US, there were at least a few uprisings. What if the slaves had won and decided to secede from South Carolina and set up their own state?

Had I been there, I would have been all for it, John Brown happens to be a hero of mine.

Liberia ring a bell?:rolleyes:

When a people, whether for reasons of race, ethnicity or politics, become so disparate and at odds with one another that there is no longer any common bond between them, I support the right of those peoples to separate themselves.

To force them to stay together results in bloodshed and dissolution.

Put another way:

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.

[Chosen]

The seeds of secession were planted as early as 1830 with the nullification controversy, or as John C Calhoun called it the tariff of abominations. A high tariff bill passed in 1828 which sparked this controversy, but the conflict eventually died down. This began a strong dialogue on states rights versus nationalism. All related to industry and imbalance of representation in the north. It wasn't really an issue of slavery because Andrew Jackson got the high tariff passed, which benefited northerners and he was a southern slave owner. Very much an issue over states rights.


Remember Northerners threatened to secede over economic issues at the Hartford Convention. There was a constant struggle over exports, tariffs, rights and power imbalances.

Here is the South Carolina Decleration in their own words:


The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 2d day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Federal Government, and it's encroachment upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in their withdrawal from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other Slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time these encroachments have continued to increase, and the forbearance ceases to be a virtue. And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes that lead to this act...


There were also mentions as to the issue of slavery to be sure, but it is best to point out that these were economic interventionist issues. Stemming from economic arguments, intervention and tariffs beginning early that century. It was clear to the south that slave ownership was becoming more and more an economic burden.


...It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the Judicial Tribunal shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against Slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guarantees of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The Slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation; and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that the public opinion of the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief. We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates in convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent state, with the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

[Mesogen]

If South Carolina had no fear of the Northern abolitionists or had fair and just views toward blacks, then can you explain the existence and disputes over the Negro Seaman Acts?

They would jail all black sailors that were docked at their ports until the ship left out again. If they didn't post bail, they could be sold into slavery. This was also a way to keep slaves from boarding these ships and escaping.

The first Nullification Crisis was over a Federal Court striking down these laws.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/5/6/9/p175697_index.html


South Carolina, facing slave insurrections from within and national interference with slavery from without, passed in 1822 a police law “for the better regulation of Free Negroes and persons of color” that targeted those engaged in the seafaring trade. Its sweeping racial dimensions, expanded in 1835 and 1844, subjected all free black mariners arriving into South Carolina ports to immediate imprisonment under penalty of enslavement if their confinement fees went unpaid. Southern lawmakers argued for public safety and the “law of self-preservation” against “foreign negroes” seeking “to disturb the peace and tranquility of the state.” They saw in the early internationalism of Black Atlantic seafaring life a menace to slaveholding localisms, and used this racial threat to further expand state power vis-à-vis the federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis#South_Carolina_Background_.28 1819-1828.29

South Carolina’s first effort at nullification occurred in 1822. It was believed that free black sailors had assisted Denmark Vesey in his planned slave rebellion. South Carolina passed a Negro Seamen Act, which required that all black foreign seamen be imprisoned while their ships were docked in Charleston. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, in his capacity as a circuit judge, declared this law as unconstitutional since it violated United States treaties with Great Britain. The South Carolina Senate announced that the judge’s ruling was invalid and that the Act would be enforced. The federal government did not attempt to carry out Johnson's decision.

And people recognized that there was a huge connection between tariffs and slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis#The_Road_to_Nullification_in_ South_Carolina_.281828-1832.29


Calhoun was not alone in finding a connection between the abolition movement and the sectional aspects of the tariff issue. It confirmed for Calhoun what he had written in a September 11, 1830 letter:

"I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick institution of the Southern States {slavery} and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union, against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness."

[Mesogen]

The seeds of secession were planted as early as 1830 with the nullification controversy, or as John C Calhoun called it the tariff of abominations. A high tariff bill passed in 1828 which sparked this controversy, but the conflict eventually died down. This began a strong dialogue on states rights versus nationalism. All related to industry and imbalance of representation in the north. It wasn't really an issue of slavery because Andrew Jackson got the high tariff passed, which benefited northerners and he was a southern slave owner. Very much an issue over states rights.

The Nullification Convention staved off war and the tariff was gradually reduced over the years. Right before the Civil War, US tariffs were the lowest in the industrial world.

[Chosen]

You are confusing a great many things.

Here is possibly an easier to digest summary for you about the nullification controversy:


The famous nullification confrontation of 1832-1833, pitting President Andrew Jackson against South Carolina senator John C. Calhoun over whether a state could nullify federal law, was an important step in a long series of attempts to define the proper powers of the states. Behind all these controversies lay the peculiar American version of republicanism: the assumption that no government or branch thereof was the ultimate sovereign. The final arbiter was the people, in their capacity to make constitutions and dissolve governments. The American people had always met to exercise this absolute power in state conventions. It was state conventions that had dissolved the connection with England, created state constitutions, and ratified the federal Constitution. These all-powerful state conventions, so states' righters conceived, would never render themselves powerless by giving what they saw as their mere agency, the federal government, limitless authority to pass anything in the "general welfare." Instead, unlimited state conventions gave limited federal agencies only powers strictly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution....http://www.answers.com/topic/nullification-controversy

The nullification crisis had NOTHING to do with slavery and EVERYTHING to do with rights:




The Tariff of 1832, despite pleas from Southern representatives, failed to moderate the protective barriers erected in earlier legislation. South Carolina called a state convention that nullified the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 within their borders and threatened to secede if the federal government attempted to collect those tariff duties. Robert Hayne (of Webster-Hayne Debate fame) had resigned from the Senate to run for governor of South Carolina; John C. Calhoun resigned the vice presidency and took Hayne’s seat in the Senate. These two men spearheaded the nullification drive. A real possibility of secession and war existed.

Jackson immediately offered his thought that nullification was tantamount to treason and quickly dispatched ships to Charleston harbor and began strengthening federal fortifications there. Congress supported the president and passed a Force Bill in early 1833 which authorized Jackson to use soldiers to enforce the tariff measures.

Meanwhile Henry Clay again took up his role as the Great Compromiser. On the same day the Force Bill passed, he secured passage of the Tariff of 1833. This latter measure provided for the gradual reduction of the tariff over 10 years down to the level which had existed in 1816. This compromise was acceptable to Calhoun who had not been successful with finding any other state to support him on nullification. Jackson signed both measures.

South Carolina repealed its nullification measure, but then spitefully nullified the Force Bill. Jackson wisely ignored that action.

Here is the wikipedia entry (I noticed you skipped it because it further nullifys your theory):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis


The Nullification Crisis was a sectional crisis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson created by the Ordinance of Nullification, an attempt by the state of South Carolina to nullify a federal law passed by the United States Congress. The highly protective Tariff of 1828 (also called the "Tariff of Abominations") was enacted into law in 1828 during the presidency of John Quincy Adams. Opposed in the South and parts of New England, the expectation of the tariff’s opponents was that with the election of Jackson the tariff would be significantly reduced.[1]

The nation had suffered an economic downturn throughout the 1820s, and South Carolina was particularly hard hit. Many South Carolina politicians blamed the change in fortunes to the national tariff policy that developed after the War of 1812 to promote American manufacturing over its British competition. [2] By 1828 South Carolina state politics increasingly organized around the tariff issue. When the Jackson administration failed to take any actions to address their concerns, the most radical faction in the state began to advocate that the state itself declare the tariff null and void within South Carolina. In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and his vice-president John C. Calhoun, the most effective proponent of the constitutional theory of state nullification.[3]

On July 14, 1832, after Calhoun had resigned his office, Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832 which made some reductions in tariff rates. The reductions were too little for South Carolina, and in November 1832 a state convention declared that the tariffs of both 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833. Military preparations to resist anticipated Federal enforcement were initiated by the state. In late February both a Force Bill, authorizing the President to use military force against South Carolina, and a new negotiated tariff satisfactory to South Carolina were passed by Congress. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 11, 1833.

The crisis was over, and both sides could find reasons to claim victory. The tariff rates were reduced, but the states’ rights doctrine of nullification had been rejected by the nation. While tariff policy would continue to be a national political issue between Democrats and the newly emerged Whig Party, by the 1850s the intertwined issues of slavery and territorial expansion would become the most significant and sectionally divisive issue in the nation.

I highlighted an important part for you as you skipped the nullification entry and simply referred to ancillary elements for the sake of avoiding derailment of your argument.

So as it stand the nullification crisis was one of the first issues to create an atmosphere of states rights versus national intervention. Nothing you posted counters my original thesis. You are arguing about whether or not nullification staved off conflict, you will now have to participate in that argument by yourself as it has nothing to do with the above mentioned.

[nate895]

If South Carolina had no fear of the Northern abolitionists or had fair and just views toward blacks, then can you explain the existence and disputes over the Negro Seaman Acts?

They would jail all black sailors that were docked at their ports until the ship left out again. If they didn't post bail, they could be sold into slavery. This was also a way to keep slaves from boarding these ships and escaping.

The first Nullification Crisis was over a Federal Court striking down these laws.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/5/6/9/p175697_index.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis#South_Carolina_Background_.28 1819-1828.29


And people recognized that there was a huge connection between tariffs and slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis#The_Road_to_Nullification_in_ South_Carolina_.281828-1832.29

I never said they were fair, just, unracist people, just that they weren't wicked slave abusing nuts who spent the day conspiring on how to enslave more blacks over a broader territory. In addition, I was asserting that Yankees were worse in their treatment of blacks, forbidding them even entry in many states, while maintaining the slave trade, not out of Charleston, South Carolina, but based out of New York, New York. The abolition of the slave trade was actually a primarily Southern movement at the Constitutional Convention.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I'm sure the tariff dispute was part of it, but it could not be the only reason to secede. Wanting to keep slavery was THE major reason to secede.

"They want to raise tariffs. Imports will cost a lot more. Damn. But if they abolish slavery, we'll be ruined."

Tariffs sucked for the general population of SC, but abolition would have wiped out the aristocratic land owners, and they ran the place. It couldn't even be hinted at.

In a way this is true but I agree with Nate. It wasn't a question of morality as many people think. It was more of a business issue for the North of gaining sole control over the rich Southern economy, and for the South, it was that of being free from big government and keeping their way of life. Some of the Southern states had slaves and others did not. Not everyone owned slaves in the South and many people owned slaves in the North and I even think I read somewhere before that the North sometimes sold slaves coming from the British, to the South as well.

Lincoln being the lunatic control freak that he was wanted absolute power and more of a totalitarian style government than what was in place and was being paid off by these Northern companies to fund the war on the south. People think Bush was bad, but Lincoln was the worst POTUS ever. Lincoln wanted competition between white labor only and wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa. Lincoln was the one who wanted to help out his wealthy businessmen in the North. Lincoln was not only a racist but a totalitarian fascist who favored the burning of the southern states that stood up to him.

In a twisted way the issues at hand are the same type of issues going on now with the election of Obama and the way our government is being directed and his views of "Change" that were at hand then(Socialist govt). The south was afraid that their economy and way of life would be destroyed, as well as their individual freedoms - and they were right. They were also right when they said "the south would rise again.". Its all just a matter of time.

Happy Secession Day!!

[The_Orlonater]

As a Northerner,

Happy Secession Day!

Also nate, can you give the link to those planks?

[nate895]

As a Northerner,

Happy Secession Day!

Also nate, can you give the link to those planks?

Happy (http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html) to do that for you.

[mediahasyou]

Secession is the essence of liberty.

[The_Orlonater]

Happy (http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html) to do that for you.

Can't wait to debate to so called pro Lincoln fools.
Oh, living in Chicago is funny.

[nate895]

Can't wait to debate to so called pro Lincoln fools.
Oh, living in Chicago is funny.

You have more guts than I do, I only resist through papers I write and close friends. I have been the smart guy on campus since I was young. I actually find it creepy how readily my friends will accept my word as truth.

[The_Orlonater]

You have more guts than I do, I only resist through papers I write and close friends. I have been the smart guy on campus since I was young. I actually find it creepy how readily my friends will accept my word as truth.

I have a few months of public school left before I'm quitting for good, I can't stand it there.

The system is weird.

The private Catholic School I went to for many years was also brainwashing. They had a "Lincoln Day" and had some guy dressed as Lincoln coming in and talking.

[asimplegirl]

Okay, Mesogen...no matter why or for what reason....secession happened because we wanted it to- for whatever reason, you will argue with each one given. The point is, the Constitution says we were well within our rights to. Lincoln, who was a Marxist, and did not like the Constitution, decided it would not happen, and in turn, said the constitution meant nothing. Also, Lincoln started this war by not allowing us to do what the founding fathers gave us a guarantee of. Also, if the war were to be about slavery, it would have never happened, seeing as the North owned slaves, too, and during the entire war, Lincoln and Grant themselves had them at their homes. YOU should look up some of the quotes form Lincoln- he was pretty racist, and feared that the war would bring equality to black people. And, if you read extensively about the emancipation proclamation, it was not until later that ALL states were included, at first it was only the South, so that we would have no money, considering most of our money came from crops that needed workers...and ports, which through the secession, would not allow the federal government to take a cut of.


The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named the specific states where it applied.

[Mesogen]

The nullification crisis had NOTHING to do with slavery and EVERYTHING to do with rights:



Here is the wikipedia entry (I noticed you skipped it because it further nullifys your theory):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis


The Nullification Crisis was a sectional crisis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson created by the Ordinance of Nullification, an attempt by the state of South Carolina to nullify a federal law passed by the United States Congress. The highly protective Tariff of 1828 (also called the "Tariff of Abominations") was enacted into law in 1828 during the presidency of John Quincy Adams. Opposed in the South and parts of New England, the expectation of the tariff’s opponents was that with the election of Jackson the tariff would be significantly reduced.[1]

The nation had suffered an economic downturn throughout the 1820s, and South Carolina was particularly hard hit. Many South Carolina politicians blamed the change in fortunes to the national tariff policy that developed after the War of 1812 to promote American manufacturing over its British competition. [2] By 1828 South Carolina state politics increasingly organized around the tariff issue. When the Jackson administration failed to take any actions to address their concerns, the most radical faction in the state began to advocate that the state itself declare the tariff null and void within South Carolina. In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and his vice-president John C. Calhoun, the most effective proponent of the constitutional theory of state nullification.[3]

On July 14, 1832, after Calhoun had resigned his office, Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832 which made some reductions in tariff rates. The reductions were too little for South Carolina, and in November 1832 a state convention declared that the tariffs of both 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833. Military preparations to resist anticipated Federal enforcement were initiated by the state. In late February both a Force Bill, authorizing the President to use military force against South Carolina, and a new negotiated tariff satisfactory to South Carolina were passed by Congress. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 11, 1833.

The crisis was over, and both sides could find reasons to claim victory. The tariff rates were reduced, but the states’ rights doctrine of nullification had been rejected by the nation. While tariff policy would continue to be a national political issue between Democrats and the newly emerged Whig Party, by the 1850s the intertwined issues of slavery and territorial expansion would become the most significant and sectionally divisive issue in the nation.



I highlighted an important part for you as you skipped the nullification entry and simply referred to ancillary elements for the sake of avoiding derailment of your argument.

Thanks for quoting that and ignoring all the parts that I highlighted.

[asimplegirl]

The proclamation did not free any slaves of the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state (or part of a state) already under Union control.


Several former slave states passed legislation prohibiting slavery; however, some slavery continued to exist until the institution was ended by the sufficient states' ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 18, 1865.

Now, Remember, The emancipation was issued September 22, 1862...


In January 1862, Thaddeus Stevens, the Republican leader in the House, called for total war against the rebellion to include emancipation of slaves, arguing that emancipation, by forcing the loss of enslaved labor, would ruin the rebel economy. In July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the "Second Confiscation Act."

The war started in 1861...why did it take so long to even INCLUDE slavery in the war if that was what it was about?

Also...up until the point, slaves taken in the south by union soldiers were seen as contraband of war.

[Mesogen]

Secession is the essence of liberty.

It depends on what is seceding from what. Is it an individual seceding as a sovereign power like Peter Griffin creating Petoria with borders around his 1/2 acre yard? What if Peter Griffin decided to secede the whole neighborhood, but some people in the neighborhood didn't want to secede? Also, those neighbors weren't allowed to leave Petoria? Then, what if Peter decides to set up a fairly totalitarian form of government in the neighborhood? Maybe an Islamic theocracy?

It still amazes me how many libertarians link secession with freedom. If you secede some small territory and claim it as your own, how much freedom do you really have? If the people in the surrounding territory choose not to allow you entry (because maybe you're a dick), then you don't have freedom to leave your little patch of land. Or if there is a strongman or dictator in this little territory and you cannot escape, how can you say that secession is the essence of liberty?

I could go on and there was a whole other thread about this, but it's just not the case that secession = freedom.

[nate895]

It depends on what is seceding from what. Is it an individual seceding as a sovereign power like Peter Griffin creating Petoria with borders around his 1/2 acre yard? What if Peter Griffin decided to secede the whole neighborhood, but some people in the neighborhood didn't want to secede? Also, those neighbors weren't allowed to leave Petoria? Then, what if Peter decides to set up a fairly totalitarian form of government in the neighborhood? Maybe an Islamic theocracy?

It still amazes me how many libertarians link secession with freedom. If you secede some small territory and claim it as your own, how much freedom do you really have? If the people in the surrounding territory choose not to allow you entry (because maybe you're a dick), then you don't have freedom to leave your little patch of land. Or if there is a strongman or dictator in this little territory and you cannot escape, how can you say that secession is the essence of liberty?

I could go on and there was a whole other thread about this, but it's just not the case that secession = freedom.

You have limited ability to defend your freedoms if you aren't allowed to separate from a government who doesn't protect them. It makes violence inevitable, while violence is NOT the inevitable result of secession. If you secede, it shows you believe that your rights have been seriously violated beyond repair, and only drastic changes will be able to see you come back into the fold.

If the beauty of the second amendment is that we won't need to use it until they try to take it away, it is the beauty of secession that denying the right to it alone is grounds for exercise of the right.

[asimplegirl]

Maybe not, but our founding fathers gave us a guarantee that we could secede, and that it would be well within our rights... Lincoln did not agree, and, in turn said that the constitution meant nothing. I can promise that when secession happens again, and it will, that the government will do the same thing...They will not allow any part of the union to leave, will cause a war, and will make laws that outlaw things in the area that has seceded as a way to bring more hatred to that area.

So, in a way, secession does kinda equal freedom... because it is a right, that when we are held by a rule that is unjust, we can leave and be free of it..right?

[Mesogen]

Okay, Mesogen...no matter why or for what reason....secession happened because we wanted it to-

We? You were not there.


for whatever reason, you will argue with each one given. The point is, the Constitution says we were well within our rights to.

The constitution doesn't even mention secession.


Also, Lincoln started this war by not allowing us to do what the founding fathers gave us a guarantee of.

Where in the constitution does it say (even in effect) "if you want to unilaterally secede, go for it"?


Also, if the war were to be about slavery, it would have never happened, seeing as the North owned slaves, too, and during the entire war, Lincoln and Grant themselves had them at their homes.

Maybe. But it wasn't legal after 1804 north of the Mason Dixon line. Sharecropping was pretty close to slavery and it lasted into the 20th century. But slavery was technically illegal.


YOU should look up some of the quotes form Lincoln- he was pretty racist, and feared that the war would bring equality to black people.
I know. It's irrelevant.


And, if you read extensively about the emancipation proclamation, it was not until later that ALL states were included, at first it was only the South, so that we would have no money, considering most of our money came from crops that needed workers...and ports, which through the secession, would not allow the federal government to take a cut of.
Right, at first it was only places like DC and a few hundred thousand slaves in a few places. So what?

It doesn't change the fact that slavery was the central issue that led to the civil war (or the war among the states, or whatever you want to call it.)

[Mesogen]

You have limited ability to defend your freedoms if you aren't allowed to separate from a government who doesn't protect them.

Exactly. Now lets say one government that you cannot separate yourself from secedes from the government that has control over it. How does that affect your freedom? What if it was the 'higher' government that was protecting your rights as an individual? What if the secessionist government was the one violating your rights? For that individual, secession has nothing to do with liberty.

[nate895]

Maybe. But it wasn't legal after 1804 north of the Mason Dixon line. Sharecropping was pretty close to slavery and it lasted into the 20th century. But slavery was technically illegal.

That is absolutely false. I know in New Jersey, there were slaves right up until the passage of the thirteenth amendment. The law was that slaves born in 1804 and beyond were to be freed at twenty-eight, if a slave was born at 11:59 December 31st, 1803, they were to be a slave for the duration of their life. Let's just say that one of these last minute slaves had a child late, at age 40, the year is 1843, in another twenty-eight years the year would be 1871.

[nate895]

The constitution doesn't even mention secession.

Where in the constitution does it say (even in effect) "if you want to unilaterally secede, go for it"?

Tenth amendment:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Also, sovereignty has to be given away explicitly, it cannot be taken away via implication. The states had sovereignty:


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.

[Mesogen]

Maybe not, but our founding fathers gave us a guarantee that we could secede,

No. They did not.


So, in a way, secession does kinda equal freedom... because it is a right, that when we are held by a rule that is unjust, we can leave and be free of it..right?

We? Who the hell is we? Is it the majority in one area? Is it the ones in power with the big guns?

Let's say a group of powerful warlords controls a territory. They oppress the people in that territory but a central government claims power over the warlord government and does many things in attempts to protect the rights of the oppressed people. The warlords hate this and want their freedom from the central government. They secede and get their freedom (power). Now the people in the territory, who have no power, are thoroughly oppressed by the warlords.

So, secession, doesn't kinda equal freedom in anyway, except maybe for the lucky few who have power to begin with.

[nate895]

Exactly. Now lets say one government that you cannot separate yourself from secedes from the government that has control over it. How does that affect your freedom? What if it was the 'higher' government that was protecting your rights as an individual? What if the secessionist government was the one violating your rights? For that individual, secession has nothing to do with liberty.

Your question is bogus because the United States government doesn't have control over the states, except through its usurpation of powers once held to be state powers.

[Mesogen]

That is absolutely false. I know in New Jersey, there were slaves right up until the passage of the thirteenth amendment. The law was that slaves born in 1804 and beyond were to be freed at twenty-eight, if a slave was born at 11:59 December 31st, 1803, they were to be a slave for the duration of their life. Let's just say that one of these last minute slaves had a child late, at age 40, the year is 1843, in another twenty-eight years the year would be 1871.

The point is that the laws severely limited and curtailed the practice of slavery.

It's like abolishing the slave trade in Britain. They abolished the "trade" and not slavery altogether. But this led to the gradual abolition of slavery altogether.

[nate895]

The point is that the laws severely limited and curtailed the practice of slavery.

It's like abolishing the slave trade in Britain. They abolished the "trade" and not slavery altogether. But this led to the gradual abolition of slavery altogether.

Northerners banned slavery because they didn't want it to compete with white labor, not free labor, white labor. Northerners also dominated the slave trade throughout much of the century, despite its ban. It was the North who didn't want the slave trade abolished at the Constitutional Convention, not the South.

[Mesogen]

Tenth amendment:



Also, sovereignty has to be given away explicitly, it cannot be taken away via implication. The states had sovereignty:

No the states were not and are not independent, sovereign nations.

If they were they could form treaties with other nations. They cannot. If they were sovereign, they could have a monarch. They cannot. There are all sorts of other things the states are not authorized to do as non-sovereign entities. As non-sovereign nations, they do not have the inherent power to secede from the federation. The union is a federation, not a confederation.

[nate895]

No the states were not and are not independent, sovereign nations.

If they were they could form treaties with other nations. They cannot. If they were sovereign, they could have a monarch. They cannot. There are all sorts of other things the states are not authorized to do as non-sovereign entities. As non-sovereign nations, they do not have the inherent power to secede from the federation. The union is a federation, not a confederation.

Can you not read? It is quite clear that the states had sovereignty, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says they gave it up. The framers promised the ratifiers that they hadn't done that. If that isn't the case, a fraud was perpetuated on the people of the several states, and the Constitution is null and void.

Saying you can give away sovereignty via implication is like saying an employment contract can make you a slave via implication.

[Mesogen]

Northerners banned slavery because they didn't want it to compete with white labor, not free labor, white labor. Northerners also dominated the slave trade throughout much of the century, despite its ban. It was the North who didn't want the slave trade abolished at the Constitutional Convention, not the South.

"The North" and "The South" were not monolithic entities. There were many factions in both areas arguing for many different positions.

[nate895]

"The North" and "The South" were not monolithic entities. There were many factions in both areas arguing for many different positions.

And the Northern factions agreed that blacks were inferior mongrels who they didn't want in their states.

[Mesogen]

Can you not read? It is quite clear that the states had sovereignty, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says they gave it up. The framers promised the ratifiers that they hadn't done that. If that isn't the case, a fraud was perpetuated on the people of the several states, and the Constitution is null and void.

Saying you can give away sovereignty via implication is like saying an employment contract can make you a slave via implication.

There are all sorts of things in the constitution that say that the states, who ratified the constitution, are not sovereign.

[Mesogen]

And the Northern factions agreed that blacks were inferior mongrels who they didn't want in their states.

And that is completely irrelevant as to the causes of the civil war.

[nate895]

There are all sorts of things in the constitution that say that the states, who ratified the constitution, are not sovereign.

No there isn't. You cannot give away sovereignty by agreeing not to do something. In order to give away sovereignty, you have to state in the treaty something to the effect of "the United States in Congress assembled shall have supreme sovereignty over the states." There is nothing to that effect in the Constitution anywhere. In fact, the opposite is true the tenth amendment uses the term "delegate," which means "to make lesser power," how can someone not recall a delegated authority? I suppose delegates to the United Nations have supreme power now. Also Article seven states:


The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

How can a government be instituted between two states if it is above those two states and has the right to force one of those states to comply with any and every law it passes? Also, the states who didn't ratify the Constitution in time (North Carolina and Rhode Island) were considered independent state separate from the Union, and the records of the Port of New York show ships docking from "The Republic of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."

[Mesogen]

No there isn't. You cannot give away sovereignty by agreeing not to do something. In order to give away sovereignty, you have to state in the treaty something to the effect of "the United States in Congress assembled shall have supreme sovereignty over the states." There is nothing to that effect in the Constitution anywhere.

Article IV takes away most of anything that anyone would recognize as sovereignty. The ability to make treaties, the ability to decide which form of government you want, etc.



How can a government be instituted between two states if it is above those two states and has the right to force one of those states to comply with any and every law it passes? Also, the states who didn't ratify the Constitution in time (North Carolina and Rhode Island) were considered independent state separate from the Union, and the records of the Port of New York show ships docking from "The Republic of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."

And they eventually ratified the constitution abdicating their sovereignty. You can call it delegating if you want, but they abdicated all sorts of powers that would have made them sovereign.

I think we are getting off track of the argument stemming from the OP, that secession is a wonderful thing that should be celebrated because it means freedom. This notion that secession = freedom in any and all cases is ludicrous.

[nate895]

Article IV takes away most of anything that anyone would recognize as sovereignty. The ability to make treaties, the ability to decide which form of government you want, etc.




And they eventually ratified the constitution abdicating their sovereignty. You can call it delegating if you want, but they abdicated all sorts of powers that would have made them sovereign.

I think we are getting off track of the argument stemming from the OP, that secession is a wonderful thing that should be celebrated because it means freedom. This notion that secession = freedom in any and all cases is ludicrous.

They also gave up those same powers in the Articles of Confederation, where they retained their sovereignty. Giving up power voluntarily and delegating it to someone else doesn't abdicate you forever from that delegated authority. Words are important, and we must used them as they were defined at the time. The states delegated their authorities to the central government, therefore they can recall that authority, especially given the fact they never meant to give up the right to not be able to take it back.

[nate895]

Also, given the legal rule delegatus non potest delegare (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/delegatus-non-potest-delegare.html), the Congress would be able to delegate the authority to declare war if they were the supreme legislative power in the land. Delegates can't delegate, but supreme powers can.

[asimplegirl]

hey, wait I have an idea...

Mesogen- you are right. I worship how you know all and see all, and there is no way that every single person arguing against you alone could be right....

Does that help, honey?

BTW, by we, I meant southerners in the first post I made that you asked about- I AM a southerner, and my family fought in that war, so I take pride in it, and fly y rebel flag freely. IN the second post, I meant we, as Americans. IF your head wasn't shoved so far up your ass trying to find SOMETHING SOMEONE said to argue with, you'd be able to guess that.

[Mesogen]

They also gave up those same powers in the Articles of Confederation, where they retained their sovereignty. Giving up power voluntarily and delegating it to someone else doesn't abdicate you forever from that delegated authority. Words are important, and we must used them as they were defined at the time. The states delegated their authorities to the central government, therefore they can recall that authority, especially given the fact they never meant to give up the right to not be able to take it back.
Kind of a contradiction, eh?

They dissolved the Articles even though one of the first lines is:

"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States..."

So under the Articles, one line says they retain their sovereignty, but other lines say they "delegate" certain parts of their sovereignty in perpetuity (forever).

Sounds like they were not sovereign to me.

But we could go around and around about whether states are sovereign, but it's pointless. It doesn't change the fact that separatism, or secession, is not always a good thing and does not always mean an increase in individual freedom for the people within the separated lands.

The specific case of the secession of South Carolina is not something to be celebrated because it did not mean increased freedom for the majority of people living in South Carolina at the time and the act sparked off a terrible war.



hey, wait I have an idea...

Mesogen- you are right. I worship how you know all and see all, and there is no way that every single person arguing against you alone could be right....

Does that help, honey?

BTW, by we, I meant southerners in the first post I made that you asked about- I AM a southerner, and my family fought in that war, so I take pride in it, and fly y rebel flag freely. IN the second post, I meant we, as Americans. IF your head wasn't shoved so far up your ass trying to find SOMETHING SOMEONE said to argue with, you'd be able to guess that.

I'm sorry that I offended you. It's just that you have pride in something you had nothing to do with.

[asimplegirl]

Something I didn't have to do with... all except for my family name that is mentioned about 900 times throughout the entire history of the civil war, right? Or the fact that 4 of my ancestors were lieutenants to RE Lee, or that 1 was a Colonel... or the fact that ALOT of my other acestors in the other branches of my family died in that war for the causes of the South, or that one of my ancestors was raped and murdered by union soldiers, whose father then hung him up from a tree...or the fact that I believe in the causes of the war, and would STILL fight proudly for them if we would lose AGAIN? Or the fact that I have plenty of pride in my family's heritage, and dislike it when those that do not understand that look down upon another's rights to be proud of what their name stands for?

Offended? Naw.

[Sandra]

Something I didn't have to do with... all except for my family name that is mentioned about 900 times throughout the entire history of the civil war, right? Or the fact that 4 of my ancestors were lieutenants to RE Lee, or that 1 was a Colonel... or the fact that ALOT of my other acestors in the other branches of my family died in that war for the causes of the South, or that one of my ancestors was raped and murdered by union soldiers, whose father then hung him up from a tree...or the fact that I believe in the causes of the war, and would STILL fight proudly for them if we would lose AGAIN? Or the fact that I have plenty of pride in my family's heritage, and dislike it when those that do not understand that look down upon another's rights to be proud of what their name stands for?

Offended? Naw.


Stormfront anyone?

Wrong forum, sweetheart. :rolleyes:

[nate895]

Kind of a contradiction, eh?

They dissolved the Articles even though one of the first lines is:

"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States..."

So under the Articles, one line says they retain their sovereignty, but other lines say they "delegate" certain parts of their sovereignty in perpetuity (forever).

Sounds like they were not sovereign to me.

But we could go around and around about whether states are sovereign, but it's pointless. It doesn't change the fact that separatism, or secession, is not always a good thing and does not always mean an increase in individual freedom for the people within the separated lands.

The specific case of the secession of South Carolina is not something to be celebrated because it did not mean increased freedom for the majority of people living in South Carolina at the time and the act sparked off a terrible war.




I'm sorry that I offended you. It's just that you have pride in something you had nothing to do with.

"Perpetuity" does not mean forever. A contract is automatically perpetual unless it states that it isn't. Perpetual simply meant that the Union didn't automatically end at a given point in the future.

Dictionary definition of "Perpetual":

per⋅pet⋅u⋅al
–adjective
1. continuing or enduring forever; everlasting.
2. lasting an indefinitely long time: perpetual snow.
3. continuing or continued without intermission or interruption; ceaseless: a perpetual stream of visitors all day.
4. blooming almost continuously throughout the season or the year.

Now, given the context of the Articles of Confederation (Article Two), the second definition is the best fit.

[nate895]

Stormfront anyone?

Wrong forum, sweetheart. :rolleyes:

How was any of that remotely racist? Sure, Yankee propagandists would have you believe that those evil Southerners spent (and to some degree, spend) all day thinking of ways of keeping the poor black people down, but it is just that, propaganda.

[The_Orlonater]

Stormfront anyone?

Wrong forum, sweetheart. :rolleyes:

How the hell was that racist?
And to asimplegirl, both sides have tremendous sorrow on them.

[asimplegirl]

Stormfront anyone?

Wrong forum, sweetheart. :rolleyes:

WTF is storm front??!!


How the hell was that racist?
And to asimplegirl, both sides have tremendous sorrow on them.

I know, and that is why I do not have any hard feelings for anyone who feels pride in what their family fought for...I just have no compassion for those that don't HAVE that pride.

And, and am I accused of being racist?

That is just ludicrous! Firstly, my grandfather is Redbone, secondly, my god sister is black, and my uncle and aunt have adopted 2 young black children... black people are just human like us...just like gay people, jewish people, catholic people, children, muslim people... I do don't give a crap about skin color, or anything like that...how stupid..

BTW, Orlonater, I know that is wasn't you accusing me. So, don't think that.

[nate895]

WTF is storm front??!!

The second most racist place on the net. After vnnforums.com. I believe both are neo-Nazi centers.

[Sandra]

asimplegirl, what was the south fighting for?

[asimplegirl]

States Rights.

Anything else that went along with that, whatever- the main point is states' rights.

[Sandra]

States Rights.

Your being suspiciously vague, dear. Which rights?

[nate895]

asimplegirl, what was the south fighting for?

If they were fighting for slavery, an institution which was to the direct detriment to almost everyone in the South, how were they able to raise 1,000,000 men (including 90,000-200,000 blacks) to fight for a war for it?

[asimplegirl]

The rights to do as we wish without the federal government's assistance... Sounds like maybe you should do your own research on the Civil War. I can be as vague, as suspicious, as anything as I want.. I don't answer to you.

[asimplegirl]

If they were fighting for slavery, an institution which was to the direct detriment to almost everyone in the South, how were they able to raise 1,000,000 men (including 90,000-200,000 blacks) to fight for a war for it?

Also, how did we pay the blacks the same as the whites, and held them as equals in the fight, where Union soldiers didn't?

[Sandra]

Blacks were mostly Union.

[Sandra]

Also, how did we pay the blacks the same as the whites, and held them as equals in the fight, where Union soldiers didn't?

Oh my! You MUST give us your source for that gem.

[asimplegirl]

Do your own damned research. I am not your mother.

[nate895]

Also, how did we pay the blacks the same as the whites, and held them as equals in the fight, where Union soldiers didn't?

Good point I forgot about. The South did pay black soldiers the same as their white counterparts, unless they were accompanying their masters.

[Sandra]

Do your own damned research. I am not your mother.


On a forum, it's good manners to not spout crap or back it up.

Source, or you're lying.

[Sandra]

Good point I forgot about. The South did pay black soldiers the same as their white counterparts, unless they were accompanying their masters.


They wewre referred to as slave soldiers for a reason.

[asimplegirl]

Ask someone else I am tired of dealing with you.

It's also "good manners" to not follow people around and start something overeverything they say, isn't it?

[asimplegirl]

They wewre referred to as slave soldiers for a reason.

Only if they accompanied their masters.... drop the public school education and stop being a sheep- do your own research. Isn't this what libertarianism is all about?

[nate895]

Blacks were mostly Union.

Most doesn't matter. Most people today vote for statists, that doesn't make them any less of a fool.


http://www.blackconfederates.com/ (http://www.blackconfederates.com/)
http://www.rebelgray.com/BLACKREBS.htm
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/bunker/1163/black.html
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams012600.asp

I am not sure if this story is on any of those websites/articles, but an irony of the move "Glory" is that the regiment depicted was holding prisoners in front of the fort to prevent artillery fire on Union positions (in violation of international law I might add), two of whom were black, and they were offered continuously to join the regiment, and they refused. Eventually they were put into the front where a Confederate artillery shell eventually killed them.

[nate895]

They wewre referred to as slave soldiers for a reason.

There were free blacks, you know. In fact, a free black who owned a plantation in South Carolina was a large war bond contributor.

[The_Orlonater]

Thanks for quoting that and ignoring all the parts that I highlighted.

The Republicans didn't even threaten the South with abolition.

[Mesogen]

"Perpetuity" does not mean forever. A contract is automatically perpetual unless it states that it isn't. Perpetual simply meant that the Union didn't automatically end at a given point in the future.

Dictionary definition of "Perpetual":

per⋅pet⋅u⋅al
–adjective
1. continuing or enduring forever; everlasting.
2. lasting an indefinitely long time: perpetual snow.
3. continuing or continued without intermission or interruption; ceaseless: a perpetual stream of visitors all day.
4. blooming almost continuously throughout the season or the year.

Now, given the context of the Articles of Confederation (Article Two), the second definition is the best fit.

If you and I draw up a contract and it says that you must wax my floors once a month and that you cannot draw up any contracts with anyone else, especially to wax floors, and this contract is perpetual, can you be considered to be an independent contractor? No. You are not a sovereign floor waxer. You work for one person and under the contract you can't do what a sovereign floor waxer would be able to do, forever.

The only way out of this is to nullify the contract. There is nothing in the contract that says you can nullify it or gives provisions to nullify it. The contract must be broken.

Under the US constitution, this is what secession is.

Perpetual in contractese does mean "forever" as long as the contract exists.

In the case of the Articles of Confederation, all the parties decided to nullify the contract. In the case of the latter US constitution, they did not.


Only if they accompanied their masters.... drop the public school education and stop being a sheep- do your own research. Isn't this what libertarianism is all about?

I've got to see some numbers on this.

How many slaves did fight "along with their masters" compared to how many did not compared to how many did not fight at all.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say of the 90,000+ blacks (out of 400,000+ slaves, the majority of the state's population), a very small percentage were ever paid anything.


How many slaves did your family own and how many of them were paid to fight in the war?

[nate895]

If you and I draw up a contract and it says that you must wax my floors once a month and that you cannot draw up any contracts with anyone else, especially to wax floors, and this contract is perpetual, can you be considered to be an independent contractor? No. You are not a sovereign floor waxer. You work for one person and under the contract you can't do what a sovereign floor waxer would be able to do, forever.

The only way out of this is to nullify the contract. There is nothing in the contract that says you can nullify it or gives provisions to nullify it. The contract must be broken.

Under the US constitution, this is what secession is.

Perpetual in contractese does mean "forever" as long as the contract exists.

In the case of the Articles of Confederation, all the parties decided to nullify the contract. In the case of the latter US constitution, they did not.

One, I would never sign such a contract, and neither would the ratifiers of the Constitution:


Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will


That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.

The United States Federal Government was violating the Constitution, and had been for several years. They had violated the understanding of the ratifiers that they were not to take more powers, and the people of the states would take them back if they didn't follow the Constitution.

Also, the word Congress meant in that period (the closest dictionary I could find was 1755):


CO'NGRESS. n. f. [congre/as, Latin.]
1. A meeting ; a mock ; a confiift.
Here Pal'as urges on, and Laufus there j
Their congreft in the ftVld great Jove withftands,
Both doora'd to fall, but fall by grca:.T hands.
Drjden'i JEnc'id.
From tliefe laws may be deduced the rules of
the ang'tffes and reflections of two bodies.
Cbeyae'i Pbibfetticjl Princiflcs.
2. An appointed meeting for fcttlement
of affairs between different nations : as,
the congrefs of Cambray.

It is about two-thirds of the way down on page 454, here (http://ia351431.us.archive.org/1/items/dictionaryofengl01johnuoft/dictionaryofengl01johnuoft.pdf). Congress means the meeting of sovereign nations.

Even the words used to describe the government mean that they were separate entities entirely. We even used the word "These United States" until Lincoln went in and changed everything.