I love Ron Paul but...

[Promontorium]

We've got so many issues right now. I could really do without Ron Paul arguing, over and over, that we shouldn't have had the Civil War.

First of all, you can't change history. To use up your 2 minutes of air time to summarize the most controversial horrific event in U.S. history, that occurred 150 years earlier is not exactly the subject matter that wins anyone over to your current struggles in government.

Second; I totally disagree with him (so, see, there's the bias).

I've made what I considered to be a logical, and very detailed argument why I believe Ron Paul is wrong on this issue. To brevity; letting the south secede would not absolve the United States from its moral burden to free the humans it enslaved. America made the slaves slaves. That in itself was a crime. America needed to rectify this, letting the slave holding states secede is a cop out. Americans had a moral obligation to free those humans. Sure, let the states secede, but they should have allowed it under the condition of freeing the current slaves. They could inhumanely and disgustingly get new people to destroy, rape and torture, but that blood would be on their (Confederate States) hands.

I'm not against secession. I'm against government sanctioned rape, murder, forced imprisonment, forced labor, and destruction of soul to innocent humans.

So, there me and Paul disagree. Notice, the qualifier "government sanctioned" because sanctioning only requires that a good government stand by while the system it created runs free to continue the evil. But none of this is to in any way to mitigate the fact that the north had slaves too, had helped the south with their slave laws, and had done nothing to stop slavery before the war (which in circumstance actually supports my view that the war may have started because of secession, but the real passion was from the pro-slavery versus pro-abolition groups that co-opted the war).
So I've said all this before. But I want to propose a scenario here. A condition of unifying philosophy that is in an attempt to illustrate the illogical and heartless ideas being presented in this "history wishful thinking".

Let's say the north allowed the south to secede. States should have this right. And the north (and federal government) had allowed slavery to be a state issue before secession, so this is their fault in many ways.
Humans do not like to be slaves, and many tried to escape.
Ron Paul; being anti-illegal immigration, and anti-end slavery in the south by force is creating a historical view that if slaves had run from the south into the north after secession, should have been deported back into slavery.
They would be illegal aliens, because their evil government wouldn’t allow legal migration, so literally the only way they could get into the north would be by being illegal immigrants.
For this, they should be deported and sent back into slavery.
If you’re thinking at this point the caveat of “asylum” the modern conception of asylum is only about 60 years old. America would have to have adopted an unprecedented new system to allow runaway slaves into the U.S. Never mind that although freed slaves in the U.S. still had no rights, couldn’t vote, weren’t treated as fully human let alone citizens.

This brings me back to point 1, You Can’t Change History. It’s really easy to just say “Hey, if we didn’t do a, then b-z would be exactly this other way.” But if you have an actual discussion about it, you might find things aren’t so two dimensional. Just as one little example you shouldn’t dare question, if the north allowed the south to secede, the Fugitive Slave Act, which was a back breaking straw for many abolitionists would still be federal law. If it were repealed, if the north promised to give asylum to runaway humans the south might have gone to war anyway on principle (remind anyone of the previous major wars?). Of course, that’s just guessing, based on actual law and historical precedent, which is hardly valid, because You Can’t Change History. Even if the south didn’t go to war over it, the abolitionists wouldn’t disappear just because the south succeeded. There were several slave holding states still in the union. The issue would not have been resolved. Removing the CSA from the discussion, the issue of slavery in the US would continue. To what conclusion? If our imaginary Lincoln allowed secession, maybe he’d just ban slavery in the US. Maybe the slave holding states would then secede and join the CSA. Maybe not. Maybe Lincoln wouldn’t ban slavery, and the people would revolt and destroy the US government to stop slavery (there are “small” instances of this already, slave revolts, John Brown, etc.). Or perhaps the US would ban slavery, but the states that didn’t secede would start a war. I don’t know, were just making stuff up at this point. Entirely factually based arguments, from actual historical events, but still complete nonsense.

Ultimately I bring this up, because Ron Paul’s main reason for defending secession is the defense of individuals against an empirical federal government. This, at the cost of liberty for millions of individuals enslaved by a tyrannical Confederate government. I don’t like that catch. Human suffering and destruction protected, to ensure slave owner’s rights. That’s not justice. But regardless of everything, the Civil War did happen. Slavery ended. This shouldn’t be our modern debate.

Issues are what matter. Certainly, generically, issues such as slavery should be discussed, but this whole fantasy history debate is really clouding pertinent/relevant discussion, and I just wish Ron Paul would focus on that and drop this issue. He could write a book about it. That I’d read. I just don’t want him to use his precious minutes on international television to slip in a jab against the union in between discussions about the Fed or mandatory health insurance.

[BlackTerrel]

Well stated. I agree 100%.

[tremendoustie]

I'd say the north should have let the south secede, then organize commando groups to go rescue slaves.

The focus of the war was on refusing to allow the south to secede, where the focus of any conflict should have been 100% on freeing slaves.

Yeah, it's a bit of a moot point, although the slavery spectre does still hang over the issue of secession.

[lynnf]

We've got so many issues right now. I could really do without Ron Paul arguing, over and over, that we shouldn't have had the Civil War.

First of all, you can't change history. To use up your 2 minutes of air time to summarize the most controversial horrific event in U.S. history, that occurred 150 years earlier is not exactly the subject matter that wins anyone over to your current struggles in government.

Second; I totally disagree with him (so, see, there's the bias).

I've made what I considered to be a logical, and very detailed argument why I believe Ron Paul is wrong on this issue. To brevity; letting the south secede would not absolve the United States from its moral burden to free the humans it enslaved. America made the slaves slaves. That in itself was a crime. America needed to rectify this, letting the slave holding states secede is a cop out. Americans had a moral obligation to free those humans. Sure, let the states secede, but they should have allowed it under the condition of freeing the current slaves. They could inhumanely and disgustingly get new people to destroy, rape and torture, but that blood would be on their (Confederate States) hands.

I'm not against secession. I'm against government sanctioned rape, murder, forced imprisonment, forced labor, and destruction of soul to innocent humans.

So, there me and Paul disagree. Notice, the qualifier "government sanctioned" because sanctioning only requires that a good government stand by while the system it created runs free to continue the evil. But none of this is to in any way to mitigate the fact that the north had slaves too, had helped the south with their slave laws, and had done nothing to stop slavery before the war (which in circumstance actually supports my view that the war may have started because of secession, but the real passion was from the pro-slavery versus pro-abolition groups that co-opted the war).
So I've said all this before. But I want to propose a scenario here. A condition of unifying philosophy that is in an attempt to illustrate the illogical and heartless ideas being presented in this "history wishful thinking".

Let's say the north allowed the south to secede. States should have this right. And the north (and federal government) had allowed slavery to be a state issue before secession, so this is their fault in many ways.
Humans do not like to be slaves, and many tried to escape.
Ron Paul; being anti-illegal immigration, and anti-end slavery in the south by force is creating a historical view that if slaves had run from the south into the north after secession, should have been deported back into slavery.
They would be illegal aliens, because their evil government wouldn’t allow legal migration, so literally the only way they could get into the north would be by being illegal immigrants.
For this, they should be deported and sent back into slavery.
If you’re thinking at this point the caveat of “asylum” the modern conception of asylum is only about 60 years old. America would have to have adopted an unprecedented new system to allow runaway slaves into the U.S. Never mind that although freed slaves in the U.S. still had no rights, couldn’t vote, weren’t treated as fully human let alone citizens.

This brings me back to point 1, You Can’t Change History. It’s really easy to just say “Hey, if we didn’t do a, then b-z would be exactly this other way.” But if you have an actual discussion about it, you might find things aren’t so two dimensional. Just as one little example you shouldn’t dare question, if the north allowed the south to secede, the Fugitive Slave Act, which was a back breaking straw for many abolitionists would still be federal law. If it were repealed, if the north promised to give asylum to runaway humans the south might have gone to war anyway on principle (remind anyone of the previous major wars?). Of course, that’s just guessing, based on actual law and historical precedent, which is hardly valid, because You Can’t Change History. Even if the south didn’t go to war over it, the abolitionists wouldn’t disappear just because the south succeeded. There were several slave holding states still in the union. The issue would not have been resolved. Removing the CSA from the discussion, the issue of slavery in the US would continue. To what conclusion? If our imaginary Lincoln allowed secession, maybe he’d just ban slavery in the US. Maybe the slave holding states would then secede and join the CSA. Maybe not. Maybe Lincoln wouldn’t ban slavery, and the people would revolt and destroy the US government to stop slavery (there are “small” instances of this already, slave revolts, John Brown, etc.). Or perhaps the US would ban slavery, but the states that didn’t secede would start a war. I don’t know, were just making stuff up at this point. Entirely factually based arguments, from actual historical events, but still complete nonsense.

Ultimately I bring this up, because Ron Paul’s main reason for defending secession is the defense of individuals against an empirical federal government. This, at the cost of liberty for millions of individuals enslaved by a tyrannical Confederate government. I don’t like that catch. Human suffering and destruction protected, to ensure slave owner’s rights. That’s not justice. But regardless of everything, the Civil War did happen. Slavery ended. This shouldn’t be our modern debate.

Issues are what matter. Certainly, generically, issues such as slavery should be discussed, but this whole fantasy history debate is really clouding pertinent/relevant discussion, and I just wish Ron Paul would focus on that and drop this issue. He could write a book about it. That I’d read. I just don’t want him to use his precious minutes on international television to slip in a jab against the union in between discussions about the Fed or mandatory health insurance.

you say: "America made the slaves slaves."

you are so wrong. that particular streak of slavery started under Great Britain. it was an inherited problem. and Lincoln by his own admission was not out to free the slaves with the war, it was to preserve the Union. it only became politically expedient to take up slavery as a motivation later in the war. and if the South had eliminated slavery in the middle of the war, the North would not have ceased hostilities. this war was about control and money, just like what most other wars are really about.

those are the facts, jack. you may dispute this with rhetoric but the historical record does not support you. you most likely are the product of either Northern Yankee schools or Southern Carpetbagger schools so no wonder you take on their views.

[slothman]

If the South suceeded in seceding then it becomes foreign.
I thought we, America, shouldn't interfere in other countries's problems?
If we should have prevented slaverly in the new Confederacy then shouldn't we in other countries now as well?
I also think that slavery would be gone by now.
I also think that it would have been better for the Union and the Con. if they were separate than it is for them joined.

So you say that they shouldn't be able to leave because then slavery would be legal and we couldn't stop the badness, technical word, it brings?

[Bman]

While I agree there is little reason to bring up the civil war in modern debate, the Civil war was not fought to end slavery.

You're argument is just as good as saying well we should be in Iraq because Saddam was a dictator. You have much to learn about liberty principles.

[awake]

Past historical lessons are used in the present to justify future actions. If the lessons from the past are butchered and skewed by state worshiping historians, then it crucial to point out the erroneous mistakes to help make correct decisions from correct history.

Lincoln was a racist and a tyrant, but from state dressed up history he is a hero and every leader seeks to emulate at least some part of him - 'What would Lincoln do' becomes the guide for future tyrants acting upon mutilated historical representations.

As for freeing the slaves, his own words bear out that it was a strategic decision to cripple the efforts of the southern succession. He was quite comfortable with the idea of slavery.

"a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid their living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." Lincoln

[nobody's_hero]

How do you figure that Ron Paul would have supported returning escaped slaves to the south? That seems like a mix of assumption and opinion there, based on the very-stretched remarks about illegal immigration and being "anti-end slavery by force".

[cswake]

Quite simply, two wrongs don't make a right. Depriving the lives of 600,000 Americans for securing the liberty of millions is a trade-off that should not have been made - even if millions were deprived of their liberty. If Lincoln really wanted freedom for them, he would have had the north agree to not institute tariffs, which he ultimately did, and have the north pay the south for the purchase of the north's machinery to replace the slave labor.

[.Tom]

Fuck state's rights. It's an oxymoron. No wait - it's THE biggest oxymoron on the planet - a STATE having RIGHTS!? Individuals have rights. Violent monopolies don't.

What's even the point of being "one nation" if not everyone has the same rights? Why not just be a bunch of smaller states?

I wouldn't mind abolishing the US and having all states separate, but if the United States is going to exist, everyone should have the same rights.

[micahnelson]

Interesting debate. It would be really interesting to get primary sources and look at the motivations for the war at the time in different regions and sectors of society.

I tend to think the civil war was a failure of politicians to cede power. Instead of working together, they turned their populace against each other. This was only possible because the philosophical and regional boundaries were similar. Of course, this wouldn't happen again- as politicians are for the most part in agreement against the people, regardless of what state they find themselves.

People tend to ask Ron about this because they think they can make headlines like the meet the press interview. They still look at him as kooky for his beliefs, but that is OK with me. Just because something happened one way doesn't mean its the ONLY way it could have happened. I am glad the slaves were freed- but I don't think it took the civil war to accomplish that goal. I am glad the nazis were stopped- but I think we could have avoided WW2 using some common sense and diplomacy after the first world war. And in a more recent case, I am glad Russia wasn't able to conquer Afghanistan- but I don't know if it was worth arming and training the taliban to accomplish it.

We can be happy about goals, freed slaves and a united country, but still question the methods. I believe it has to do with the idea of learning from one's history so as to not repeat it.

[nandnor]

Man acts. Not America, government or any other abstract entity. Blaming a country for acting is absurd

[sofia]

OP......

tell the truth now.

If this were 1863, would you voluntarily leave your family to risk your life killing your own countrymen???

By the way, 3 of the northern states had slavery and kept them throughout the war and were exempt from Emancipation Proclamation.....

so much for "the war was fought over slavery" argument.

[The Deacon]

So Ron Paul should be politically correct instead of honest? I don't buy it. A lot of Ron Paul's appeal comes from not spouting off the same tired establishment pablum as the rest of DC. If he's asked about it, he's going to respond to it.

[catdd]

So Ron Paul should be politically correct instead of honest? I don't buy it. A lot of Ron Paul's appeal comes from not spouting off the same tired establishment pablum as the rest of DC. If he's asked about it, he's going to respond to it.

+1

[tjeffersonsghost]

At the end of the day Ron Paul is probably right in his assessment that slavery would of ended eventually. Most of the world had already done away with slavery and society was being pushed in that direction also. The time frame it would of taken would have been up for debate on when it would of ended. After the civil war the southern blacks were treated horribly. Andrew Johnson really screwed up on reconstruction which set the ball rolling for another 100 years of black lynchings and segregation. The civil war was about states rights, that is the states rights to have slaves. Without human rights how can you have states rights?

Let's be real on Abraham Lincoln though. His intentions when he took office was not to free the slaves. In his first innagual address he pushed the Corwin Amendment which would of made slavery permanent in existing slave states. That is correct Lincoln wanted to make slavery permanent. Not to many people realize this though. Even the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in confederate hands and not in border states or sections of the north. The EP was a military strategy and not a means of freeing the slaves.

I do feel in the end in Lincoln's mind this was a human rights issue but that wasnt till towards the end. So once again the civil war was probably inevitable but I do feel Ron is right when he says slavery would of ended on its own eventually. The question is how long would it of been?

[Imaginos]

Have you watched Ron Paul's interview regarding the subject?
His position was we should have had ended the slavery the way the Europeans did which was the government buying all the slaves and emancipate them.
He said that was a much cheaper option to do it without all the death from the war.
THAT is what I call 'the voice of reason'.

[pacelli]

We've got so many issues right now. I could really do without Ron Paul arguing, over and over, that we shouldn't have had the Civil War.

First of all, you can't change history. To use up your 2 minutes of air time to summarize the most controversial horrific event in U.S. history, that occurred 150 years earlier is not exactly the subject matter that wins anyone over to your current struggles in government.

Second; I totally disagree with him (so, see, there's the bias).


<snip>

This shouldn’t be our modern debate.

Issues are what matter. Certainly, generically, issues such as slavery should be discussed, but this whole fantasy history debate is really clouding pertinent/relevant discussion, and I just wish Ron Paul would focus on that and drop this issue. He could write a book about it. That I’d read. I just don’t want him to use his precious minutes on international television to slip in a jab against the union in between discussions about the Fed or mandatory health insurance.

I completely agree about RP maximizing his air time. I hope that in 2012 RP spins the distraction questions from the media into a discussion of more relevant/modern issues.

[erowe1]

I could really do without Ron Paul arguing, over and over, that we shouldn't have had the Civil War.

The only times I've ever heard him talk about it were when someone asked him.

Does he really argue about it over and over? Or did you just make that up? Because I've followed him pretty closely for the past 3 years, and that doesn't ring true to me.

[Bruno]

The only times I've ever heard him talk about it were when someone asked him.

Does he really argue about it over and over? Or did you just make that up? Because I've followed him pretty closely for the past 3 years, and that doesn't ring true to me.

+ 1

[Michael Landon]

I could really do without Ron Paul arguing, over and over, that we shouldn't have had the Civil War..

I tend to watch almost every interview and speech Ron Paul gives and I can only remember a couple of times where this was a topic, Meet the Press and DL Hughley's show. So I believe that your statement is somewhat incorrect. Like other posters have stated, if he's asked about it then he'll answer it but it's not like he's out travelling the country giving speech after speech regarding the Civil War.

- ML

[Epic]

To brevity; letting the south secede would not absolve the United States from its moral burden to free the humans it enslaved. America made the slaves slaves. That in itself was a crime. America needed to rectify this, letting the slave holding states secede is a cop out. Americans had a moral obligation to free those humans.

You are thinking in aggregates ("America") not individuals.

That is where you go wrong.

[Theocrat]

We've got so many issues right now. I could really do without Ron Paul arguing, over and over, that we shouldn't have had the Civil War.

First of all, you can't change history. To use up your 2 minutes of air time to summarize the most controversial horrific event in U.S. history, that occurred 150 years earlier is not exactly the subject matter that wins anyone over to your current struggles in government.

Second; I totally disagree with him (so, see, there's the bias).

I've made what I considered to be a logical, and very detailed argument why I believe Ron Paul is wrong on this issue. To brevity; letting the south secede would not absolve the United States from its moral burden to free the humans it enslaved. America made the slaves slaves. That in itself was a crime. America needed to rectify this, letting the slave holding states secede is a cop out. Americans had a moral obligation to free those humans. Sure, let the states secede, but they should have allowed it under the condition of freeing the current slaves. They could inhumanely and disgustingly get new people to destroy, rape and torture, but that blood would be on their (Confederate States) hands.

I'm not against secession. I'm against government sanctioned rape, murder, forced imprisonment, forced labor, and destruction of soul to innocent humans.

So, there me and Paul disagree. Notice, the qualifier "government sanctioned" because sanctioning only requires that a good government stand by while the system it created runs free to continue the evil. But none of this is to in any way to mitigate the fact that the north had slaves too, had helped the south with their slave laws, and had done nothing to stop slavery before the war (which in circumstance actually supports my view that the war may have started because of secession, but the real passion was from the pro-slavery versus pro-abolition groups that co-opted the war).
So I've said all this before. But I want to propose a scenario here. A condition of unifying philosophy that is in an attempt to illustrate the illogical and heartless ideas being presented in this "history wishful thinking".

Let's say the north allowed the south to secede. States should have this right. And the north (and federal government) had allowed slavery to be a state issue before secession, so this is their fault in many ways.
Humans do not like to be slaves, and many tried to escape.
Ron Paul; being anti-illegal immigration, and anti-end slavery in the south by force is creating a historical view that if slaves had run from the south into the north after secession, should have been deported back into slavery.
They would be illegal aliens, because their evil government wouldn’t allow legal migration, so literally the only way they could get into the north would be by being illegal immigrants.
For this, they should be deported and sent back into slavery.
If you’re thinking at this point the caveat of “asylum” the modern conception of asylum is only about 60 years old. America would have to have adopted an unprecedented new system to allow runaway slaves into the U.S. Never mind that although freed slaves in the U.S. still had no rights, couldn’t vote, weren’t treated as fully human let alone citizens.

This brings me back to point 1, You Can’t Change History. It’s really easy to just say “Hey, if we didn’t do a, then b-z would be exactly this other way.” But if you have an actual discussion about it, you might find things aren’t so two dimensional. Just as one little example you shouldn’t dare question, if the north allowed the south to secede, the Fugitive Slave Act, which was a back breaking straw for many abolitionists would still be federal law. If it were repealed, if the north promised to give asylum to runaway humans the south might have gone to war anyway on principle (remind anyone of the previous major wars?). Of course, that’s just guessing, based on actual law and historical precedent, which is hardly valid, because You Can’t Change History. Even if the south didn’t go to war over it, the abolitionists wouldn’t disappear just because the south succeeded. There were several slave holding states still in the union. The issue would not have been resolved. Removing the CSA from the discussion, the issue of slavery in the US would continue. To what conclusion? If our imaginary Lincoln allowed secession, maybe he’d just ban slavery in the US. Maybe the slave holding states would then secede and join the CSA. Maybe not. Maybe Lincoln wouldn’t ban slavery, and the people would revolt and destroy the US government to stop slavery (there are “small” instances of this already, slave revolts, John Brown, etc.). Or perhaps the US would ban slavery, but the states that didn’t secede would start a war. I don’t know, were just making stuff up at this point. Entirely factually based arguments, from actual historical events, but still complete nonsense.

Ultimately I bring this up, because Ron Paul’s main reason for defending secession is the defense of individuals against an empirical federal government. This, at the cost of liberty for millions of individuals enslaved by a tyrannical Confederate government. I don’t like that catch. Human suffering and destruction protected, to ensure slave owner’s rights. That’s not justice. But regardless of everything, the Civil War did happen. Slavery ended. This shouldn’t be our modern debate.

Issues are what matter. Certainly, generically, issues such as slavery should be discussed, but this whole fantasy history debate is really clouding pertinent/relevant discussion, and I just wish Ron Paul would focus on that and drop this issue. He could write a book about it. That I’d read. I just don’t want him to use his precious minutes on international television to slip in a jab against the union in between discussions about the Fed or mandatory health insurance.

Promontorium, have you considered reading these two books:

http://www.regnery.com/imgnew/book134_pigsouth.jpg (http://www.regnery.com/books/pigsouth.html) http://www.regnery.com/imgnew/book134_pigcivilwar.jpg (http://www.regnery.com/books/pigcivilwar.html)

They might give you some better insights as to where Congressman Paul is coming from. I find them to be good primers for a deeper study into the truth about the Civil War and its relation to States' rights and slavery.

[fisharmor]

...letting the south secede...

There was no "letting" them do it. They did it. They had the power and they used it. The war was not about not "letting" them secede. It was about invading and conquering a foreign nation.


...would not absolve the United States from its moral burden to free the humans it enslaved.

Yes, but the war did absolve America quite nicely of the moral burden of upholding the rule of law and natural rights within its borders.
Progressivism, socialism, New Dealism - none of the early 20th century happened in a vaccuum, and it was all made possible by Lincoln's decision to make America a place where the individual plays second fiddle to the state.
Your statement is the reason why college students, preachers, and septuagenarian women can be tackled, shackled, and tazed by the police.
They are only trying to shoulder the moral burden we have put on them, to clean up our society.


Sure, let the states secede, but they should have allowed it under the condition of freeing the current slaves.
As opposed to what Lincoln actually did, which was to offer to let the south keep their slaves if they returned to the Union.


I'm not against secession.
Actually, yeah, you are, because you keep referring to the government "letting" the states secede when there was nothing codified anywhere that would allow the fedgov to prevent it. That pretty much pits you against the concept.


I'm against government sanctioned rape, murder, forced imprisonment, forced labor, and destruction of soul to innocent humans.
...so, do you know who Sherman was?
Or that after he was done in the south, he was calling for the extermination of the plains Indians?
How about Lee, who freed slaves he had inherited during the war?
Dude, you don't even really need to scratch the surface to figure out that none of it was about slavery.


Let's say the north allowed the south to secede. States should have this right.
Again, there was no "allowing" them to do it. They had the power and the states still have the power to secede.
All of your other illegal immigration comments are immaterial, because by assuming this was a federal decision, you ignore the US Constitution and the rule of law.
If there is no operative rule of law, then who is and is not an illegal immigrant is moot.


This brings me back to point 1, You Can’t Change History. It’s really easy to just say “Hey, if we didn’t do a, then b-z would be exactly this other way.” But if you have an actual discussion about it, you might find things aren’t so two dimensional.
Your whole soliloquy here assumes that Ron's point is to make people doubt the outcome of the war.
That's not what I get out of it.
You can have the state-programmed reaction, or you can stop and wonder "gee, if slavery wasn't the point, then what was the point?" And then you get started thinking about all sorts of things you wouldn't be dealing with, about how maybe if there wasn't such a successful federal power grab back then, you'd still be able to flush the shit out of your house, or people wouldn't be forced to live in a rape dungeon for smoking a joint.
The point isn't to wave the confederate flag: it's to point out that federal power grabs were always a bad idea.


Ultimately I bring this up, because Ron Paul’s main reason for defending secession is the defense of individuals against an empirical federal government. This, at the cost of liberty for millions of individuals enslaved by a tyrannical Confederate government. I don’t like that catch. Human suffering and destruction protected, to ensure slave owner’s rights. That’s not justice. But regardless of everything, the Civil War did happen. Slavery ended. This shouldn’t be our modern debate.

If you mean imperial, then I agree. Regarding the suffering... perhaps if they were being slaughtered outright I'd agree with you. But we're talking about the war that took more American lives than all others. That number is never going to be topped. And with our new found nationalism in place, how many more American lives did it cost in the 20th century?

I take great exception to the notion that our debate must somehow be modern. Indeed, if you are not willing to look at old debates in search of the truth, there is nothing to say to you. Truth is truth no matter what time it is from. Facts do not cease to be facts simply because you ignore them.
The 1861-65 war was not a war about slavery; it was a war about federal dominance, a war about empire, and a war against freedom. Throwing the slavery mud marks the thrower as someone who is for federal dominance, for empire, and against freedom.


I just don’t want him to use his precious minutes on international television to slip in a jab against the union in between discussions about the Fed or mandatory health insurance.

He's not a soundbite politician.
This sort of talk is what makes him different.
It makes him a man with a package philosophy.
If you don't want him to talk about certain subjects, you're taking items out of the package.
I say, the more different subjects where he can apply a philosophy of liberty, the better.

[tremendoustie]

If the South suceeded in seceding then it becomes foreign.
I thought we, America, shouldn't interfere in other countries's problems?
If we should have prevented slaverly in the new Confederacy then shouldn't we in other countries now as well?
I also think that slavery would be gone by now.
I also think that it would have been better for the Union and the Con. if they were separate than it is for them joined.

So you say that they shouldn't be able to leave because then slavery would be legal and we couldn't stop the badness, technical word, it brings?

Let me clarify. Independent groups in the north should have financed and formed commando groups to rescue slaves. I wasn't suggesting it be paid for by tax (extortion) money.

[tjeffersonsghost]

The 1861-65 war was not a war about slavery; it was a war about federal dominance, a war about empire, and a war against freedom. Throwing the slavery mud marks the thrower as someone who is for federal dominance, for empire, and against freedom.



I agree the war was about states rights. It was about the states right to own slaves. Sorry guy it was about slavery although the south did indeed have other beefs but the major issue was about slavery and there is no denying this.

The issue came down to a human rights issue or a states issue although the human rights factor didn't come into play till late in the war. He was all for making slavery permanent in the south for existing states but in return he wanted slavery to be halted to the existing states and not to be spread into new states. The south knew what would of inevitably happened and that is as the free states started to outnumber the slave states they will kill slavery legislatively. That is why they just opted for secession instead of the Corwin Amendment.

The big issue was slavery and there is no denying this although the Federal Government was glad to exploit the issue to further consolidate power just like they do on every other issue.

[fisharmor]

I agree the war was about states rights. It was about the states right to own slaves. Sorry guy it was about slavery although the south did indeed have other beefs but the major issue was about slavery and there is no denying this.

Missouri, Kentucky, Deleware, West Virginia, Maryland, Oklahoma, and the New Mexico territory.
Those are seven denials of the "it was about slavery" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_%28American_Civil_War%29

I will grant that slavery was a proximate cause of the war.
It was not the ultimate cause and there's plenty denying this.

[tjeffersonsghost]

I will grant that slavery was a proximate cause of the war.
It was not the ultimate cause and there's plenty denying this.

Ok if you won't believe me (A guy who has probably forgotten more history then most know) then will you believe the words of the people actually seceding? Below is a link of the Declaration of Causes of Secession for Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia. If you read each one you will see that slavery is the reason for secession.

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

Literally only a few sentences talk about other grievances like the north favoring shipping interests and what not. 95% of the articles are about slavery.

I promise you one thing about the border states. If Lincoln would of included them in the EP you would of seen them secede immediately.

[Vessol]

I mean it's totally not possible that Europe peacefully got rid of slavery and didn't need a war.

It's sad that so many even here are deluded into thinking that the Union was the good guys and the Confederacy was the bad guys, both were morally gray for the most part.

However considering the cost outweighing the production benefits, slavery in the South would have ended without the help of legislation by the late 1800's at the max. I also imagine they wouldn't consider blacks as second class citizens as they did during Jim Crow times, which were mainly created by resentment and trying to lash out at someone for the South's harsh treatment by the North during the Reconstruction times.

They probably would have gained the same rights and equallity under the law the same time Northern Blacks got them(mid 1900's).

[silus]

We've got so many issues right now. I could really do without you guys arguing, over and over, that we shouldn't have had the Civil War.

[TCE]

History is not history, it means everything. Think about if modern politicians would idolize Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (before their presidencies) instead of FDR, TR, and Lincoln. Can you imagine how different this country would be? We wouldn't even recognize it.

[Vessol]

People who say 'history is history' are the ones whom are prone to forget history and its many lessons.

There is a reason why in American classrooms, history is not a stressed subject or one that is really cared about.

[SamuraisWisdom]

I agree with the OP. The Civil War happened 150 years ago, get over it, whatever your view is. The whole argument is moot.

And Theocrat, I could point you to 1000 books that support the North in the Civil War, do you really think that a book written by H. W. Crocker III (a guy that lives on an old Confederate Military encampment, wrote a book about the glory and triumph of the Catholic Church for 2000 years and another one about "Terrorist Hunting") could possibly convince someone otherwise? Thanks to the internet, anybody with any crackpot ideas can link someone to "credible evidence" to support their ideas.

[Vessol]

Except for the fact that clowns like Obama, thanks to our brainwashing classrooms, spread the idea that somehow Lincoln was some kind of great American hero.

The echos of the past live on to this day and always will, you do them and yourself a great disservice for simply trying to shrug them off and say it doesn't matter. They want you to say that.

I'll take your quote and change it around a bit
"The Federal Reserve was formed 90 years ago, get over it, whatever your view is. The whole argument is moot."

History is not something set in stone. It is something that is always living. Whether it be in the lessons it teaches or the distortion of facts within the future. You'll find very little broad history is factual as those who altered it to their own benefit did it without anyone caring, because after all 'history is history'

[SamuraisWisdom]

People who say 'history is history' are the ones whom are prone to forget history and its many lessons.

There is a reason why in American classrooms, history is not a stressed subject or one that is really cared about.

And that reason is because in our society, the demand for education is in more practical fields like business, computer science, engineering, etc. All things that can give you jobs. People who pursue history have a tough time making it financially even if they go with a masters in education (trust me, I have a History degree). So there's no cynical reason for American schools to have a lesser emphasis on history, it's just gearing students to what can help make them more successful.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Except for the fact that clowns like Obama, thanks to our brainwashing classrooms, spread the idea that somehow Lincoln was some kind of great American hero.

The echos of the past live on to this day and always will, you do them and yourself a great disservice for simply trying to shrug them off and say it doesn't matter. They want you to say that.

I'll take your quote and change it around a bit
"The Federal Reserve was formed 90 years ago, get over it, whatever your view is. The whole argument is moot."

History is not something set in stone. It is something that is always living. Whether it be in the lessons it teaches or the distortion of facts within the future. You'll find very little broad history is factual as those who altered it to their own benefit did it without anyone caring, because after all 'history is history'

Oh but history is most certainly set in stone, it's the perception of it that keeps changing no matter how flawed that perception can be. And that bolded part of your quote goes right back at you. Ever think that your view of history is flawed because someone you learned it from changed it? Just because there's an "official story" to history doesn't mean that it's not true. After studying history for a nearly a decade, I can tell you that most things aren't as cynical as they seem.

And about the Fed Reserve, not to shift the focus of the argument, but that's a really bad attempt to turn my own words against me. The Civil War is something that happened 150 years ago and is done and over with, the Fed Reserve is still with us in a big way today. Apples and Oranges.

[TCE]

And that reason is because in our society, the demand for education is in more practical fields like business, computer science, engineering, etc. All things that can give you jobs. People who pursue history have a tough time making it financially even if they go with a masters in education (trust me, I have a History degree). So there's no cynical reason for American schools to have a lesser emphasis on history, it's just gearing students to what can help make them more successful.

I don't know where you went to school, but for 13 years, I studied math, which I'm never going to use, art, which I'm never going to use, penmanship, science/biology, poetry/Shakespeare/books, all which I am never going to use.

The Civil War setup everything in the north and south, everything. Take North Carolina for instance, they have specific laws on the books because of Reconstruction. Look how the books are written, the South is seen as evil and is shown to be completely in the wrong.

Look at the Presidency and how they use FDR, TR, and Lincoln to justify their actions. History is all around you. Look at the bailout, Hoover had a $1.3 billion (don't quote me on that number) bailout. Everything happening now has happened before. Since no one knows history, we ignore it.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Keep preaching it Dr. Paul.

Your critics would have us believe they actually support secession while simultaneously condemning it.

Your critics would have us believe they actually support nullification but in reality only support nullification if it is used for a moral purpose they agree with such as abolition.

Your critics would have us believe the natural right to the pursuit of happiness does not include the right to change government of the people, by the people, for the people at any time for any reason.

Your critics would have us believe aggression is moral because the north was somehow justified.

Your critics would have us believe the Constitution usurping the Articles of Confederation was moral but the Constitution of the Confederate States was not:



The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.



Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Your critics would have us believe the civil war is not a pivotal point in history that destroyed American traditions of freedom including an unratified 14th Amendment imposing federalized citizenship on already naturalized native born people in which excise taxes can be randomly levied for privileges of Congress despite the rule of naturalization only delegates a power applicable to un-naturalized people.

Your critics would like you to shut up because the more you talk about it the more opportunity your supporters have to wake people up to truth.

[SamuraisWisdom]

I don't know where you went to school, but for 13 years, I studied math, which I'm never going to use, art, which I'm never going to use, penmanship, science/biology, poetry/Shakespeare/books, all which I am never going to use.

The Civil War setup everything in the north and south, everything. Take North Carolina for instance, they have specific laws on the books because of Reconstruction. Look how the books are written, the South is seen as evil and is shown to be completely in the wrong.

Look at the Presidency and how they use FDR, TR, and Lincoln to justify their actions. History is all around you. Look at the bailout, Hoover had a $1.3 billion (don't quote me on that number) bailout. Everything happening now has happened before. Since no one knows history, we ignore it.

Of course you won't use most of the stuff you learn in school, the point of a rounded education is to give you an idea of what there is out there and hopefully you find something you like and pursue it. Or if you'd rather skip that whole process, you can do what my highschool physics teacher did...she grew up in Soviet Romania and in 5th grade had to choose between english/history or math/science for the rest of her life. The point of a broad education is to make you a more rounded individual, which hopefully worked for you.

And you do realize that most school books have to be approved by the Texas Board of Education right? You think they have "liberal" views of the Civil War? You should have heard some of the things they were talking about at their latest hearing. There was a huge flap about that not too long ago actually.

I agree with you about the bailout, but that's not my point. I'm not trying to say history isn't important, in fact quite the opposite (again, I have a degree in History). What I'm saying is there's a difference between understanding and having a critical eye toward history, and being outright cynical about it and twisting it to fit your own view of what history should be.

Take this Civil War debate as an example. There are a million books that support the common view of the North being in the right and the South being in the wrong. But there's only a handful of books that support the South (I don't know the actual numbers but I'm sure they're pretty lopsided). What people here seem to be doing is ignoring the millions of books that support the North and religiously following the books that support the south just because it's convenient for their world view. See what I mean? Ignoring history works both ways.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Keep preaching it Dr. Paul.

1. Your critics would have us believe they actually support secession while simultaneously condemning it.

2. Your critics would have us believe they actually support nullification but in reality only support nullification if it is used for a moral purpose they agree with such as abolition.

3. Your critics would have us believe the natural right to the pursuit of happiness does not include the right to change government of the people, by the people, for the people at any time for any reason.

4. Your critics would have us believe aggression is moral because the north was somehow justified.

5. Your critics would have us believe the Constitution usurping the Articles of Confederation was moral but the Constitution of the Confederate States was not:





6. Your critics would have us believe the civil war is not a pivotal point in history that destroyed American traditions of freedom including an unratified 14th Amendment imposing federalized citizenship on already naturalized native born people in which excise taxes can be randomly levied for privileges of Congress despite the rule of naturalization only delegates a power applicable to un-naturalized people.

7. Your critics would like you to shut up because the more you talk about it the more opportunity your supporters have to wake people up to truth.

1. Who are you talking about?

2. The issue wasn't nullification, it was secession.

3. Because the Slaves in the South sure had a huge say it what happened down there.

4. Many people viewed the South's secession as Treason and therefore punishable and justified. Also, let's not forget who fired the first shot.

5. The Constitution was ratified by all of the States in the Union, the South just decided they would do their own thing.

6. Yes, the age-old American tradition of Slavery was destroyed forever. What a blow to my freedom :rolleyes:

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

1. Who are you talking about?

The Ron Paul critics.



2. The issue wasn't nullification, it was secession.

The two are inseparable.



3. Because the Slaves in the South sure had a huge say it what happened down there.

I guess when you wrap in a flag, market it as freedom, and modernize it, it is no longer coercion or slavery.



Also, let's not forget who fired the first shot.

Yes let's not forget who initiated aggression as a foreign occupier and rebuffed all attempts of good faith negotiation to leave.



4. Many people viewed the South's secession as Treason and therefore punishable and justified.

5. The Constitution was ratified by all of the States in the Union, the South just decided they would do their own thing.

Like I pointed out, natural rights and the pursuit of happiness is ok so long as it doesn't include the people changing or rewriting their constitutions for any reason at any time.



6. Yes, the age-old American tradition of Slavery was destroyed forever. What a blow to my freedom :rolleyes:

How about we just drop one on Iran and save ourselves the trouble.

[SamuraisWisdom]

The Ron Paul critics.



The two are inseparable.



I guess when you wrap in a flag, market it as freedom, and modernize it, it is no longer coercion or slavery.



Yes let's not forget who initiated aggression as a foreign occupier and rebuffed all attempts of good faith negotiation to leave.



Like I pointed out, natural rights and the pursuit of happiness is ok so long as it doesn't include the people changing or rewriting their constitutions for any reason at any time.



How about we just drop one on Iran and save ourselves the trouble.

2. If the two are inseparable then I guess Montana seceded by nullifying federal gun control laws right?

3. I think you're agreeing with me there? Not sure.

4. If you want to get down to gritty facts, Federal Troops already occupied and controlled Ft Sumter long before South seceded so it was the property of the Federal Government of the United States. Also, President Lincoln (President-elect at the time) did not believe states had the right to secede from the Union so the South's government was not considered a legitimate government and therefore the ambassadors that the South sent were rebuffed despite the fact the North (Lincoln in particular) didn't want military conflict. When the North sent unarmed supply ships to the starving troops at Ft Sumter they were fired on without response from the North. Eventually, Southern leaders advised the South Carolina army (I believe it was the SC army and not the Southern Federal Army) to use whatever means necessary to remove the Northern Troops despite calls for restraint for fear of losing the neutral states' alliance. In the end Southern military leaders opened fire on Sumter and started the Civil War.

5. Again, you're ignoring the fact that Slaves had no say whether the South seceded, or that Slavery existed at all.

6. What does that have to do with anything?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

2. If the two are inseparable then I guess Montana seceded by nullifying federal gun control laws right?

The two are inseparable because they are both components of the same states right doctrine of American tradition.



3. I think you're agreeing with me there? Not sure.

Not unless you are acknowledging the only thing that happened is one system of coercion was exchanged for another.



4. If you want to get down to gritty facts, Federal Troops already occupied and controlled Ft Sumter long before South seceded so it was the property of the Federal Government of the United States.

If you want to get down to gritty facts we can get into the terms of the 1805 agreement.



Also, President Lincoln (President-elect at the time) did not believe states had the right to secede from the Union so the South's government was not considered a legitimate government and therefore the ambassadors that the South sent were rebuffed despite the fact the North (Lincoln in particular) didn't want military conflict.

Someone better remind Arizona Obama does not like their their legislation and therefore it is not legitimate and they better axe it before the president invades.



When the North sent unarmed supply ships to the starving troops at Ft Sumter they were fired on without response from the North. Why would they send supply ships to supply something they agreed not to supply
Eventually, Southern leaders advised the South Carolina army (I believe it was the SC army and not the Southern Federal Army) to use whatever means necessary to remove the Northern Troops despite calls for restraint for fear of losing the neutral states' alliance. In the end Southern military leaders opened fire on Sumter and started the Civil War.

If you are going to be an occupier with no intention of leaving don't get upset if natives defend what is rightfully theirs.

[AggieforPaul]

You're presenting us with a false dilemma, i.e: a bloody war or continued slavery. What Lincoln should have done was freed the slaves through compensated emancipation (buying all the slaves and setting them all free) like every other civilized country in the world.

The Civil War was an exercise in power and in control to settle once and for all the debate about a state's right to secede, a debate Jefferson and Hamilton were having 100 years earlier. Lincoln ended the debate with an emphatic "fuck you" to state's rights advocates, setting the stage for an all powerful federal government that has persevered for another 145 years and counting.

The story of Lincoln the great emancipator is the biggest fairy tale of all time next to the Russians' celebration of Stalin. It is essential that any liberty candidate address this murderous megalomanical dictator, because without Lincoln, the beast we face today in Washington would not and could not exist.

[SamuraisWisdom]

The two are inseparable because they are both components of the same states right doctrine of American tradition.

No they aren't. Where in the Constitution does it say a state has the right to secede.




Not unless you are acknowledging the only thing that happened is one system of coercion was exchanged for another.

Um sorry, we're not on the same page with that one. I don't think the government is out to get me.


If you want to get down to gritty facts we can get into the terms of the 1805 agreement.

I don't know what that is. A quick google search didn't bring up anything other than european treaties and native american treaties.



Someone better remind Arizona Obama does not like their their legislation and therefore it is not legitimate and they better axe it before the president invades.

See, now you're just reaching and trying to draw false parallels. And besides, the war started when the South opened fire on Ft Sumter, not when they seceded to begin with. So let's make this very clear, the South declared war on the North.



If you are going to be an occupier with no intention of leaving don't get upset if natives defend what is rightfully theirs.

The North was "occupying" their own fort. It was United States government property, paid for and owned by the US federal government. Hell the material used to build it came from New England. So when the South seceded they lost their right to that land plain and simple.

[SamuraisWisdom]

You're presenting us with a false dilemma, i.e: a bloody war or continued slavery. What Lincoln should have done was freed the slaves through compensated emancipation (buying all the slaves and setting them all free) like every other civilized country in the world.

The Civil War was an exercise in power and in control to settle once and for all the debate about a state's right to secede, a debate Jefferson and Hamilton were having 100 years earlier. Lincoln ended the debate with an emphatic "fuck you" to state's rights advocates, setting the stage for an all powerful federal government that has persevered for another 145 years and counting.

The story of Lincoln the great emancipator is the biggest fairy tale of all time next to the Russians' celebration of Stalin. It is essential that any liberty candidate address this murderous megalomanical dictator, because without Lincoln, the beast we face today in Washington would not and could not exist.

You're missing the fact that Lincoln didn't start the war. Both sides wanted peace, but the South decided against it in the end and fired the first shots. Lincoln wanted to find a peaceful way to hold the Union together (ie bring the Southern states back in), but that unfortunately didn't happen.

[Carole]

Power, money, and control.

I have always believed the North could not compete with the South in production because of slavery, i.e. cheap --real cheap-- labor. Along with many other things stated in this thread, I believe this also was part of the problem.

[BW2112]

Keep telling it like it is Ron. And yeah, its an important issue. Most other countries freed their slaves without bloodshed, so why couldn't we? Instead we had a war which cost many lives on both sides.

About states rights. I wish some of you would shut the fuck up about "states dont have rights, people do". States rights is simply a phrase to summarize the 10th amendment. It is easier to say. Its very important that most laws be handled at the state level. Why? Because its better that a bad law be passed at the state level where it only affects the people living in that state, rather than at the federal level, where it affects everyone.

There, I've said my piece, flame away.

[fisharmor]

Of course you won't use most of the stuff you learn in school, the point of a rounded education is to give you an idea of what there is out there and hopefully you find something you like and pursue it.

Yes, this is the point of education - as taught by educators.
Those of us who have broken our conditioning think differently.
I do not believe any of what you say about education.
Also, you haven't addressed our concern that what is taught regarding the 1861-65 war by public schools is, on many counts, statist crap.
That Texas has also agreed to teach statist crap does not make it any less statist crap.



No they aren't. Where in the Constitution does it say a state has the right to secede.


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.

The burden of proof is not on us to show that states have a power to secede: the burden is on you to show that the federal government has the power to stop secession.

Congress (not the executive) is given the power to suppress insurrection. An insurrection is by definition limited to a minority in the population - so the term doesn't apply. Putting down rebellion is mentioned in terms of public debt and also who can serve as a representative, but nowhere is the federal government given the power to stop a state peacefully leaving the union.

And another thing: please stop referring to state's rights.
Governments have powers. Individuals have rights.




You're missing the fact that Lincoln didn't start the war. Both sides wanted peace, but the South decided against it in the end and fired the first shots. Lincoln wanted to find a peaceful way to hold the Union together (ie bring the Southern states back in), but that unfortunately didn't happen.

Sure, the confederacy fired first....
After 106 days of attempting to get federal troops to leave their sovereign territory, during which time they had to watch Lincoln send ship after ship to the area to build up a large military presence.

Your whole opinion on the matter is colored by your state-conditioned presupposition that the North was unequivocally right.
If you take half a second to doubt that claim, evidence piles up against the Union pretty quickly.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Yes, this is the point of education - as taught by educators.
Those of us who have broken our conditioning think differently.
I do not believe any of what you say about education.
Also, you haven't addressed our concern that what is taught regarding the 1861-65 war by public schools is, on many counts, statist crap.
That Texas has also agreed to teach statist crap does not make it any less statist crap.






The burden of proof is not on us to show that states have a power to secede: the burden is on you to show that the federal government has the power to stop secession.

Congress (not the executive) is given the power to suppress insurrection. An insurrection is by definition limited to a minority in the population - so the term doesn't apply. Putting down rebellion is mentioned in terms of public debt and also who can serve as a representative, but nowhere is the federal government given the power to stop a state peacefully leaving the union.

And another thing: please stop referring to state's rights.
Governments have powers. Individuals have rights.





Sure, the confederacy fired first....
After 106 days of attempting to get federal troops to leave their sovereign territory, during which time they had to watch Lincoln send ship after ship to the area to build up a large military presence.

Your whole opinion on the matter is colored by your state-conditioned presupposition that the North was unequivocally right.
If you take half a second to doubt that claim, evidence piles up against the Union pretty quickly.

hahaha, look, if you want to be taken seriously (especially by me) then stop trying to say that I'm buying into "conditioned" education. All I'm doing is looking at facts by doing RESEARCH. I've studied history for almost 10 years, I know how to research topics. It doesn't take much to realize what really happened and the reasons for it. But like I've said before, if you have a predisposition as to what history is and should be and you have extremely hardlined political beliefs then it's not hard to view history with a certain (more than likely unintentional) bias. That means that your view of history may be different than what actually happened because it fits your belief system. I suggest you take a long hard look at the events leading up to the civil war from CREDIBLE sources. I find that the best way to research history is to look at many different points of view of the same event and come up with your own conclusion. After doing just that for the Civil War I stand by my stance made in this thread.

[Trimbeaux]

Maybe you need to start researching these supposed CREDIBLE sources and their associations and who really benefits from their version of history before you dismiss everyone who has a difference of opinion or source on the War between the States. I personally feel that both sides were forced into a war that should of never been fought. Like most wars in history they are wasteful, needless exercises in futility.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No they aren't. Where in the Constitution does it say a state has the right to secede.

Are you serious? The very existence of the Constitution IS the evidence.

Articles of Confederation:


Article XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Constitution:


Article VII - Ratification Documents

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

This has already been articulated. As a matter of law people inherited sovereignty following the Declaration of Independence. States inherited it when the Articles of Confederation were recognized by the Treaty of Paris.

The Constitution was not a lawful amendment to the Articles of Confederation it was a fundamental new system of government based on the very concept of changing government at any time for any reason contained in the DoI that you are trying to call bullshit.

If the DoI is bullshit... so is the Constitution.



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union


Um sorry, we're not on the same page with that one. I don't think the government is out to get me.

You must be a good little slave citizen who only keeps whatever fruits of your labor coercive government deems proper. I am also going to speculate you are a good little slave citizen who only exercises freedoms privileges government deems proper.

We must not be on the same page because you apparently think you are actually free to exercise natural rights absent coercion from government.



I don't know what that is. A quick google search didn't bring up anything other than european treaties and native american treaties.

And that is an example of why you are talking sideways out of your tailpipe on this whole issue of who actually started the Civil war and who acted in good faith and who did not:



An act to provide for the defense of certain ports and harbors in the United States

Sec. 1 Be in enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the following ports and harbors be fortified under the direction of the President of the United States, and at such time or times as he may judge necessary, to wit: Portland, in the district of Maine, Portsmouth, in the state of New Hampshire; Gloucester, Salem, Marblehead, and Boston, in the state of Massachusetts; Newport, in the state of Rhode Island; New-London, in the state of Conneticut; New York; Philadelphia; Wilmington, in the State of Delaware; Baltimore, in the state of Maryland; Norfolk and Alexandria, in the state of Virginia; Cape Fear river, and Ocracock Inlet, in the state of North Carolina; Charleston and Georgetown, in the state of South Carolina; and Savannah, and Saint Mary's, in the state of Geogria.

Note Mine: how come only one State is capitalized?

Sec. 2 And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to employ, as garrisons, in the said fortifications, or any of them, such of the troops on the military establishment of the United States as he may judge necessary; and to cause to be provided one hundred cannon, of a calibre, each, to carry a ball of thirty-two pounds weight, and one hundred other cannon, of a calibre, each, to carry a ball of twenty-four pounds weight, together with the carriages and implements necessary for the same, and carriages with the necessary implements for one hundred and fifty other cannon, with two hundred and fifty tons of cannon shot.

Sec. 3 And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to receive from any state (in behalf of the United States) a cession of the lands on which any of the fortifications aforesaid, with the necessary buildings, may be erected, or intended to be erected; or, where such cessions shall not be made, to purchase such lands, on behalf of the United States: Provided, That no purchase shall be made where such lands are the property of a state.

Approved, March 20, 1794



See, now you're just reaching and trying to draw false parallels. And besides, the war started when the South opened fire on Ft Sumter, not when they seceded to begin with. So let's make this very clear, the South declared war on the North.

I did not reach for anything. I applied the EXACT same standard to Arizona you are applying to to the South which was your assertion because the President thought it invalid it is null and void. If you don't like consistent application of your own damn argument change your line of thought.



The North was "occupying" their own fort. It was United States government property, paid for and owned by the US federal government. Hell the material used to build it came from New England. So when the South seceded they lost their right to that land plain and simple.

Hardly, it was null and void by terms and conditions imposed by South Carolina that were not met by the United States. No one contends the U.S. met the obligations of repair. People, such as you have, wrongfully assert it was purchased land all the time but that is probably because they got indoctrinated in a public school and are unaware of the text of the actual acts of Congress prohibiting the purchase of state land as a method of acquisition.



That, if the United States shall not, within three years of the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the Governor of this state, to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon or build other such forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein; in such case this grant shall be void and of no effect.

Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. 5, p. 501

[SamuraisWisdom]

Are you serious? The very existence of the Constitution IS the evidence.

Articles of Confederation:


Constitution:


This has already been articulated. As a matter of law people inherited sovereignty following the Declaration of Independence. States inherited it when the Articles of Confederation were recognized by the Treaty of Paris.

The Constitution was not a lawful amendment to the Articles of Confederation it was a fundamental new system of government based on the very concept of changing government at any time for any reason contained in the DoI that you are trying to call bullshit.

If the DoI is bullshit... so is the Constitution.





You must be a good little slave citizen who only keeps whatever fruits of your labor coercive government deems proper. I am also going to speculate you are a good little slave citizen who only exercises freedoms privileges government deems proper.

We must not be on the same page because you apparently think you are actually free to exercise natural rights absent coercion from government.



And that is an example of why you are talking sideways out of your tailpipe on this whole issue of who actually started the Civil war and who acted in good faith and who did not:





I did not reach for anything. I applied the EXACT same standard to Arizona you are applying to to the South which was your assertion because the President thought it invalid it is null and void. If you don't like consistent application of your own damn argument change your line of thought.



Hardly, it was null and void by terms and conditions imposed by the South Carolina that were not met by the United States. No one contends the U.S. met the obligations of repair. People, such as you have, wrongfully assert it was purchased land all the time but that is probably because they got indoctrinated in a public school and are unaware of the text of the actual acts of Congress prohibiting the purchase of state land as a method of acquisition.

Look, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore and here's why. You keep saying I've been "indoctrinated" through public schooling so clearly anything that I say you are automatically not going to believe. Just out of curiosity, where did you get your education?

Oh and btw, almost all of your arguments so far have been complete bs, I just don't have the time or feel like putting in the effort to wake you up to reality. Even the evidence that you presented argues in my favor :rolleyes:

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

here we go again

[SamuraisWisdom]

here we go again

It's ridiculous isn't it? Even when people are shown the facts alongside reasoned arguments they still can't accept the truth. And the second you start making too much sense they just resort to saying you've been "indoctrinated" by the "government education system" and "conditioned" to believe whatever it is they don't like. But I guess I've been brainwashed by the evil government elites so I can be a good little slave and live out my days in ignorance of the "truth". :rolleyes: I swear sometimes this forum's insanity is too much to bear.

[fisharmor]

hahaha, look, if you want to be taken seriously (especially by me) then stop trying to say that I'm buying into "conditioned" education. All I'm doing is looking at facts by doing RESEARCH. I've studied history for almost 10 years, I know how to research topics.

And if you want to be taken seriously, you need to learn a little logic.
Here's a starting point:
Any gratuitous assertion can be gratuitously denied.

Your assertion that the South started the war is a gratuitous assertion, unsupported by fact.
We didn't just gratuitously deny it, we went further and provided evidence that suggests that it is untrue.
Furnish some facts that support that claim, or contradict the facts we supplied which refute that claim.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Look, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore and here's why. You keep saying I've been "indoctrinated" through public schooling so clearly anything that I say you are automatically not going to believe. Just out of curiosity, where did you get your education?

Oh and btw, almost all of your arguments so far have been complete bs, I just don't have the time or feel like putting in the effort to wake you up to reality. Even the evidence that you presented argues in my favor :rolleyes:

I stated a common reason for people making an invalid historical point:

People, such as you have, wrongfully assert ..... because they are indoctrinated.

I have not repeatedly stated you are indoctrinated and as such you are incompetent. Don't stretch it. Why should I or anyone believe anything you merely say if you can not back it up with historical citations for accuracy?

Your lack of rebuttal to 1) the existence of the Constitution is evidence people can change government at any time for any reason for the pursuit of happiness, or 2) legislative citations of congress or states does not make my arguments complete bs. It makes your arguments complete bs.

[Danke]

Look, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore and here's why. You keep saying I've been "indoctrinated" through public schooling so clearly anything that I say you are automatically not going to believe. Just out of curiosity, where did you get your education?

Oh and btw, almost all of your arguments so far have been complete bs, I just don't have the time or feel like putting in the effort to wake you up to reality. Even the evidence that you presented argues in my favor :rolleyes:

LOL.

Lost the argument and we get "I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore and here's why...[you won't believe me, and I don't have the time]"

wtf kind of rebuttal is that?

What in the Constituion prevents people from breaking away from a contract/compact that some people generations ago signed (some of them anyway)? Aren't we Sovereign? Or are we still subjects?

[pacelli]

It's ridiculous isn't it? Even when people are shown the facts alongside reasoned arguments they still can't accept the truth. And the second you start making too much sense they just resort to saying you've been "indoctrinated" by the "government education system" and "conditioned" to believe whatever it is they don't like. But I guess I've been brainwashed by the evil government elites so I can be a good little slave and live out my days in ignorance of the "truth". :rolleyes: I swear sometimes this forum's insanity is too much to bear.

Don't worry, a huge RESET button will be pressed if Ron declares a 2012 campaign. Don't sweat the small stuff.

All of these little arguments, "who said what, when?" will be a thing of the past as soon as RP declares.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Ok, this should end this pointless argument. The key argument here seems to be whether the South owned Ft Sumter after they seceded and that they had the rights to the fort but the North wouldn't leave anyway. So I did a little research using the Historical Hartford Currant (an online publication of every Hartford Currant article ever written) from around 1860 when all of this stuff was happening. I'll post a link to the article but I'm not sure if anyone will be able to see it unless they have a CT Library Card, so I'll type out what's important.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=4&did=826938332&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1273006961&clientId=61635


Washington, Feb 8 1861

The President, in his message transmitted to both Houses to-day, the correspondence between himself and Colonel Hayne. Much of it has already been published. The following is the sustance of the conclusion:--"Col. Hayne's letter of Jan. 31st, after stating the refusal to surrender Fort Sumter would be the occasion of war, and stating the question to be one of more property, says--If the evils of war are to be encountered, especially the calamity of war, elevated statesmanship would seem to require that it should be accepted as an unavoidable alternative of something still more disastrous, such as national dishonor, or measures materially affecting the safety or permanent interests of this people, that it should be choice and deliberation made and entered upon of set purpose; but that war should be an incident or an accident attendant on a policy professedly peaceful, and not required to effect the object which is avowed as the only end intended, can only be excused where no warning has been given. As to the consequences, Carolina cannot, by her silence, appear to acquicse (My input: that word is a little smudged) in the imputation that she is guilty of an act of unprovoked aggression in firing-on the Star of the West. Though an unarmed vessel, she was filled with armed men, entering her territories against her.

To Gov. Picken's instructions, which accompany Haynes's letter, Secretary Holt replied on the 6th acknowledging the President's receipt of Haynes's letter. He first gives the summary of Haynes's instructions which are to this effect. I do not come as a military man to demand the surrender of the fortress, but as a legal officer of the State, its Attorney General, to claim for the State the exercise of the claim. The proposition therefore is to buy Fort Sumter, sustained by the declaration in effect, if South Carolina is not permitted to make the purchase, she with seize the Fort by force of arms. An invitation for a negotiation transfers the property as between friendly governments. This is proposal impresses the President as having assumed a most unusual form. The House however investigated the claim on which is professes to be based, apart from the declaration that accompanies it. The thtle of the United States to the forst is complete. Were its interest in the property, in the ordinary acceptance of the term, it might probably be subjected to the exercise of the right of eminent domain. But it also has political relations of a much higher and more imposing character than those of mere proprietorship. It has absolute jurisdiction over the fort and soil on which it stands, which is clearly incompatible with the claims of eminent domain. This authority is derived from the peaceful cession of Carolina herself under a provision of the Constitution of the United States. Carolina can no more assert a right of eminent domain over Fort Sumter, than Maryland can over the District of Columbia. The President however is relieved from the further necessity of pursuing the enquiry by the fact that he has not the constitutional power to cede or surrender it.

There's more to the article but it strays to another topic. Guys this is straight from the source, a primary document from 1861. I don't know what else could possibly convince you because this is as straight forward as it gets.

[Anti Federalist]

This thread is Fail.

A) Ron can talk about what ever he pleases. It's a sure thing that, even if he's just rambling or musing over a subject, he'll be making more sense that 99% of the rest of the political talking heads out there.

B) History is critical. Lack of knowledge in matters historical is a good part of why we are in the mess we are in now.

C) Regardless of what may be enumerated in the Constitution, there exists a natural right to rebellion. This is a fundamental human right predating the Constitution.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ok, this should end this pointless argument. The key argument here seems to be whether the South owned Ft Sumter after they seceded and that they had the rights to the fort but the North wouldn't leave anyway. So I did a little research using the Historical Hartford Currant (an online publication of every Hartford Currant article ever written) from around 1860 when all of this stuff was happening. I'll post a link to the article but I'm not sure if anyone will be able to see it unless they have a CT Library Card, so I'll type out what's important.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=4&did=826938332&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1273006961&clientId=61635



There's more to the article but it strays to another topic. Guys this is straight from the source, a primary document from 1861. I don't know what else could possibly convince you because this is as straight forward as it gets.

Yes let's end your silly assertions slavery could not be ended without war starting with the prevailing attitude of those who would assert the South started the war:



Seward cries perpetually that we must not do this, and that, for fear war should result. Seward is shortsighted. War is precisely the thing we should desire. Our party interests have everything to lose by a peaceable settlement of this trouble, and everything to gain by collision. For a generation we have been "the outs"; now at last we are "the ins". while in opposition, it was very well to prate of the Constitution, and of rights; but now we are the government, and mean to continue so; and our interest is to have a strong and centralized government. It is high time now that the government were revolutionized and consolidated, and these irksome "States rights" wiped out. We need a strong government to dispense much wealth and power to its adherents; we want permanently high tariffs, to make the South tributary to the North; and now these Southern fellows are giving us precisely the opportunity we want to do all this, and shall Seward sing his silly song of the necessity of avoiding war? War is the very thing we should hail! The Southern men are rash, and now profoundly irritated. Our plan should be, by some artifice, to provoke them to seem to strike the first blow. Then we shall have a pretext with which to unite the now divided North, and make them fly to arms. The Southerners are a braggart, but a cowardly and effimate set of bullies; we shall easily whip them in three months. But this short war will be, if we are wise, our sifficient occasion. We will use it to destroy slavery, and thus permanently cripple the South. And that is the stronghold of all these ideas of "limited government" and "rights of the people." Crush the South, by abolishing slavery, and we shall have all we want--a consolidated government, and indefinite party ascendancy, and ability to lay on such tariffs and taxes as we please, and aggrandize ourselves and our section!




Letter dated March 27, 1861 from J.H. Jordon to Secretary of Treasury Chase

In the name of God! why not hold the Fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can...to bring about. Let them attack the Fort, if they will--it will then be them that commence the war.

Even northern newspapers were not as naive as what you profess to believe evidenced by their articles following the Confederate Constitution:



Boston Transcript March 18, 1861

It does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive that trade is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prefent the return of the seceding states to the Union which they have abandoned. Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for separation of teh cotton states; but the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby.

The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederate States that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interests of the country will suffer from the increased importation resulting from low duties....The [government] would be false to its obligations if this state of things were not provided against.



New York Evening Post March 12, 1861

There are some difficulties attending the collection of the revenue in the seceding states which it will be well to look at attentively.

That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad, it is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe....Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from the southern ports.

What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for these ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors, as contraband, and stop it, when offereng to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled? Or will the president call a special session of Congress to do what the last unwisely failed to do--toabolish all ports of entry in the seceding states?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I know many people around here who acknowledge the North had a moral cause right up to the point of invasion. The north wanted all of the economic benefits from a south without slavery but chose to obtain those economic benefits with aggression and force.

You did not even address the natural right of the people to alter or abolish government. As previously stated the Constitution IS the evidence.



We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled do declare and ordain, and it is herby declared and ordained, That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention, on the twenty-third day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and eight eight, whereby the Constitution of the United State of America was ratified, and also all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying amendment of the said Constitution, are here by repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of “The United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.

Done at Charleston, the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty



The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing 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 further 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 to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have 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."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that 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."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that 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. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties 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 public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of 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 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.

Adopted December 24, 1860




A. The following is from The National Archives Web site:

Q. When did the United States government go into operation under the Constitution?

A. The Constitution became binding upon nine States by the ratification of the ninth State, New Hampshire, June 21, 1788. Notice of this ratification was received by Congress on July 2, 1788. On September 13, 1788, Congress adopted a resolution declaring that electors should be appointed in the ratifying States on the first Wednesday in January, 1789; that the electors vote for President on the first Wednesday in February, 1789; and that "the first Wednesday in March next [March 4, 1789] be the time and the present seat of Congress the place for commencing proceedings under the said constitution." The Convention had also suggested "that after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected." The Constitution left with the States the control over the election of congressmen, and Congress said nothing about this in its resolution; but the States proceeded to provide for it as well as for the appointment of electors. On March 3, 1789, the old Confederation went out of existence and on March 4 the new government of the United States began legally to function, according to a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (Owings v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420); however, it had no practical existence until April 6, when first the presence of quorums in both Houses permitted organization of Congress. On April 30, 1789, George Washington was inaugurated as President of the United States, so on that date the executive branch of the government under the Constitution became operative. But it was not until February 2, 1790, that the Supreme Court, as head of the third branch of the government, organized and, held its first session; so that is the date when our government under the Constitution became fully operative.

So, these dates are important: The Constitution was accepted by the Convention on September 17, 1787. It was officially ratified when New Hampshire ratified it on June 21, 1788. The first Congress under the Constitution popped into being on the 4th of March, 1789, and had its first quorum on April 6, 1789. The Executive was active on April 30, 1789. The Judiciary was active on February 2, 1790. Perhaps the years between June 21, 1788 and February 2, 1790 is what they mean by two years? If they said that the Constitution was "ratified" in 1790, that is definitely incorrect.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Furthermore if you are going to claim letters from Buchanan to support your claim then I want to know under what capacity is Buchanan acting? Who acted on good faith and who did not is pretty clear.

So... lets look at full texts instead of excerpts:



To His Excellency, James Buchanan, President:

SIR: I had the honor to hold a short interview with you on the 14th inst., informal and unofficial Having previously been informed that you desired that whatever was official should be, on both sides, conducted by written communications, I did not at that time present my credentials but verbally informed you that I bore a letter from the Governor of South Carolina, in regard to the occupation of Fort Sumter, which I would deliver the next day, under cover of a written communication from myself. The next day, before such communication could be made, I was waited on by a Senator from Alabama, who stated that he came on the part of all the Senators then in Washington from the States which had already seceded from the United States, or would certainly have done so before the 1st day of February following.

The Senator from Alabama urged that he and they were interested in the subject of my mission in an almost equal degree with the authorities of South Carolina. He said that hostilities commenced between South Carolina and your Government would necessarily involve the States represented by themselves in civil strife, and fearing that the action of South Carolina might complicate the relations of your Government to the seceded and seceding States, and thereby interfere with a peaceful solution of existing difficulties, these Senators requested that I would withhold my message to yourself until a consultation among themselves could be had. To this I agreed, and the result of the consultation was the letter of these Senators addressed to me, dated 15th January, a copy of which is in your possession. To this letter I replied on the 17th, and a copy of that reply is also in your possession. This correspondence, I am informed, was made the subject of a communication from Senators FITZPATRICK, MALLORY and SLIDELL, addressed to you, and your attention called to the contents. These gentlemen received on the -- day of January a reply to their application, conveyed in a letter addressed to them, dated ____, and signed by Hon. J. HOLT, Secretary of War, ad interim. Of this letter you, of course, have a copy.

This letter from Mr. HOLT was communicated to me under cover of a letter from all the Senators of the seceded and seceding States, who still remained in Washington, and of this too I am informed you have been furnished with a copy. This reply of yours through the Secretary of War ad interim, to the application made by the Senators, was entirely unsatisfactory to me. It appeared to me to be not only a rejection, in advance, of the main propositions made by these Senators, to wit: that "an arrangement should be agreed on between the authorities of South Carolina and your Government," at least until the 15th Feb., by which time South Carolina and the States represented by the Senators "might in a Convention devise a wise, just and peaceable solution of the existing difficulties." "In the meantime," they say, "we, (that is these Senators) think that your State (South Carolina) should suffer Major ANDERSON to obtain necessary supplies of food, fuel and water, and enjoy free communication by post or special messengers, with the President, upon the understanding that the President will not send him reinforcements during the same period," but, besides this rejection of the main proposition (in Mr. HOLT'S letter) there was a distinct refusal to make any stipulation on the subject of reinforcements, even for the short time that might be required to communicate with my Government. This reply to the Senators was, as I have stated, altogether unsatisfactory to me, and I felt sure would be so to the authorities whom I represented. It was not, however, addressed to me, or to the authorities of South Carolina, and as South Carolina had addressed nothing to your Government, and had asked nothing at your hands, I looked, not to Mr. HOLT'S letter, but to the note addressed to me by the Senators of the seceded and seceding States. I had consented to withhold my message at their instance, provided they could get assurances satisfactory to them that no reinforcements would be sent to Fort Sumter in the interval, and that the peace should not be disturbed by any act of hostility. The Senators expressed in their note to me of the 23d instant, their "entire confidence that no reinforcement will be sent to Fort Sumter, nor will the public peace be disturbed within the period requisite for full communication between you (myself) and your (my) Government," and renewed their request that I would withhold the communication with which I stood charged, and await further instructions. This I have done. The further instructions arrived on the 30th instant, and bear date the 26th. I now have the honor to make to you my first communication as special Envoy from the Government of South Carolina. You will find inclosed the original communication to the President of the United States from the Governor of South Carolina, with which I was charged in Charleston on the 12th day of January instant, the day on which it bears date.

I am now instructed by the Governor of South Carolina to say that his opinion as to the propriety of the demand which is contained in this letter "has not only been confirmed by the circumstances which your (my) mission has developed, but is now increased to a conviction of its necessity. The safety of the State requires that the position of the President should be distinctly understood. The safety of all seceding States requires it as much as the safety of South Carolina. If it be so that Fort Sumter is held as property, then as property the rights, whatever they may be, of the United States, can be ascertained, and for the satisfaction of these rights the pledge of the State of South Carolina you are (I am) authorized to give." "If Fort Sumter is not held as property, it is held," say my instructions, "as a military post, and such a post within the limits of South Carolina will not be tolerated."

You will perceive that it is upon the presumption that it is solely as property that you continue to hold Fort Sumter, that I have been selected for the performance of the duty upon which I have entered. I do not come as a military man to demand the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of a State -- its Attorney-General, to claim for the State the exercise of its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the State to make good all injury to the rights of property which arise from the exercise of the claim. South Carolina, as a separate, independent sovereign, assumes the right to take into her own possession everything within her limits essential to maintain her honor or her safety, irrespective of the questions of property, subject only to the moral duty requiring that compensation should be made to the owner.

This right she cannot permit to be drawn into discussion. As to compensation for any property, whether of an individual or a Government which she may deem it necessary for her honor or safety to take into her possession, her past history gives ample guarantee that it will be made upon a fair accounting to the last dollar. The proposition now is, that her law officers should, under authority of the Governor and his council, distinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such compensation in regard to Fort Sumter and its appurtenances and contents, to the full extent of the money-value of the property of the United States, delivered over to the authorities of South Carolina by your command.

I will not suppose that a pledge like this can be considered insufficient security. Is not the money value of the property of the United States in this fort, situated where it cannot be made available to the United States for any one purpose for which it was originally constructed, worth more to the United States than the property itself? Why then, as property, insist upon holding it by an armed garrison? Yet such has been the ground upon which you have invariably placed your occupancy of this fort, by troops beginning prospectively with your annual message of the 4th December; again, in your special message of the 9th January, and still more emphatically in your message of the 28th January, the same position is set forth in your reply to the Secretary of War ad interim.

It is there virtually conceded that Fort Sumter "is held merely as property of the United States," which you deem it your duty to protect and preserve. Again it is submitted that the continuance of an armed possession actually jeopards the property you desire to protect. It is impossible but that such a possession, if continued long enough, must lead to collision. No people, not completely abject and pusilanimous, could submit indefinitely to the armed occupation of a fortress in the midst of the harbor of its principal city, and commanding the ingress and egress of every ship that enters the fort; the daily ferry-boats that ply upon its waters moving but at the sufferance of aliens. An attack upon this fort would scarcely improve it as property, whatever the result, and if captured it would no longer be the subject of account. To protect Fort Sumter, merely as property, it is submitted, that an armed occupancy is not only unnecessary, but that it is manifestly the worst possible means which can be resorted to for such an object.

Your reply to the Senators, through Mr. HOLT, declares it to be your sole object "to act strictly on the defensive, and to authorize no movement against South Carolina unless justified by a hostile movement on their part," yet in reply to the proposition of the Senators that no reinforcements should be sent to Fort Sumter, provided South Carolina agrees that during the same period no attack should be made, you say: "It is impossible for me (your Secretary) to give you (the Senators) any such assurance; that it would be a manifest violation of his (your) duty to place himself (yourself) under engagements that he (you) would not perform the duty either for an indefinite or a limited period."

In your message of the 28th inst., in expressing yourself in regard to a similar proposition, you say: "However strong may be my desire to enter into such an agreement, I am convinced that I do not possess the power Congress, and Congress alone, under the war-making power, can exercise the discretion of agreeing to abstain 'from any and all acts calculated to produce a collision of arms' between this and any other Government. It would, therefore, be a usurpation for the Executive to attempt to restrain their hands by an agreement in regard to matters over which he has no constitutional control. If he were thus to act they might pass laws which he should be bound to obey, though in conflict with his agreement."

The proposition, it is suggested, was addressed to you, under the laws as they now are, and was not intended to refer to a new condition of things arising under new legislation. It was addressed to the Executive discretion, acting under existing laws. If Congress should, under the war-making power, or in any other way, legislate in a manner to affect the peace of South Carolina, her interests or her rights, it could not be accomplished in secret.

South Carolina would have timely notice, and she would, I trust, endeavor to meet the emergency.

It is added, in the letter of Mr. HOLT, that, "at the present moment, it is not deemed necessary to reinforce Major ANDERSON, because he makes no such request, and feels quite secure in his position. But should his safety require it, every effort will be made to supply reinforcements." This would seem to ignore the other branch of the proposition made by the Senators, viz.: that no attack was to be made on Fort Sumter during the period suggested, and that Major ANDERSON should enjoy the facilities of communication, &c., &c. I advert to this point, however, for the purpose of saying that to send reinforcements to Fort Sumter could not serve as a means of protecting and preserving property, for, as must be known to your Government, it would inevitably lead to immediate hostilities, in which property on all sides would necessarily suffer.

South Carolina has every disposition to preserve the public peace, and feels, I am sure, in full force those high "Christian and moral duties" referred to by your Secretary, and it is submitted that on her part there is scarcely any consideration of mere property, apart from honor and safety, which would induce her to do aught to jeopard that peace, still less to inaugurate a protracted and bloody civil war. She rests her position on something higher than mere property. It is a consideration of her own dignity as a sovereign, and the safety of her people, which prompts her to demand that this property should not longer be used as a military post by a Government she no longer acknowledges. She feels this to be an imperative duty. It has, in fact, become an absolute necessity of her condition.

Repudiating as you do, the idea of coercion, avowing peaceful intentions and expressing all a patriot's horror for civil war and bloody strife among those who once were brethren, it is hoped that on further consideration you will not, on a mere question of property, refuse the reasonable demand of South Carolina, which honor and necessity alike compel her to vindicate. Should you disappoint this hope, the responsibility for the result surely does not rest with her.

If the evils of war are to be encountered, especially the calamities of civil war, an elevated, statesmanship would seem to require that it should be accepted as the unavoidable alternative of something still more disastrous, such as national dishonor or measures materially affecting the safety or permanent interests of a people -- that it should be a choice deliberately made and entered upon as war and of set purpose. But that war should be incident or accident on a policy professedly peaceful and not required to effect the object which is avowed as the only end intended, can only be excused where there has been no warning given as to the consequences.

I am further instructed to say that South Carolina cannot, by her silence, appear to acquiesce in the imputation that she was guilty of an act of unprovoked aggression in firing into the Star of the West. Though an unarmed vessel, she was filled with armed men, entering her territory against her will, for the purpose of reinforcing a garrison held within her limits against her protest. She forbears to recriminate by discussing the question of the propriety of attempting such a reinforcement at all, as well as of the disguised and secret manner in which it was intended to be effected. And on this occasion she will say nothing as to the manner, in which Fort Sumter was taken into the possession of its present occupants.

This interposition of the Senators who have addressed you, was a circumstance unexpected by my Government and unsolicited certainly by me.

The Governor, while he appreciates the high and generous motives by which they were prompted, and while he fully approves the delay which, in deference to them, has taken place in the presentation of this demand, feels that it cannot longer be withheld.

I conclude with an extract from the instructions just received by me from the Government of South Carolina:

"The letter of the President through Mr. HOLT, may be received as the reply to the question you were instructed to ask as to his assertion of his right to send reinforcements to Fort Sumter. You were instructed to say to him, if he asserted that right, that the State of South Carolina regarded such a right when asserted, or with an attempt at its exercise, as a declaration of war. If the President intends that it shall not be so understood, it is proper, to avoid any misconception hereafter, that he should be informed of the manner in which the Governor will feel bound to regard it. If the President, when you have stated the reasons which prompt the Governor in making the demand for the delivery of Fort Sumter shall refuse to deliver the fort upon the pledge you have been authorized to make, you will communicate that refusal without delay to the Governor. If the President shall not be prepared to give you an immediate answer, you may communicate to him that his answer may be transmitted within a reasonable time to the Governor at this place. (Charleston, S.C.)

The Governor does not consider it necessary you should remain longer in Washington than is necessary to execute this, the closing duty of your (my) mission, in the manner now indicated to you (me.)

As soon as the Governor shall receive from you information that you have closed your mission, and the reply, whatever it may be, of the President, he will consider the conduct which will be necessary on his part."

Allow me to request that you would, as soon as possible, inform me whether, under these instructions, I need await your answer in Washington. And if not, I would be pleased to convey from your to my Government information as to the time when an answer may be expected in Charleston.

With high consideration,

Your obedient servant,

(Signed,) I.W. HAYNE.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Feb. 6, 1861.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

duplicate.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

And the reply:



SIR: The President of the United States has received your letter of the 31st ult., and has charged me with the duty of replying thereto.

In the communication addressed to the President by Gov. PICKENS, under date of 12th of January, and which accompanies yours now before me, his Excellency says: "I have determined to send to you Hon. I.W. HAYNE, the Attorney-General of the State of South Carolina, and have instructed him to demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, to the constituted authorities of South Carolina. The demand I have made of Major ANDERSON, and which I now make of you, is suggested because of my earnest desire to avoid the bloodshed which a persistence in your attempt to retain the possession of that fort will cause, and which will be unavailing to secure to you that possession, but induce a calamity most deeply to be deplored."

The character of the demand thus authorized to be made appears under the influence, I presume, of the correspondence with the Secretary to which you refer, to have been modified by subsequent instructions of His Excellency, dated the 26th, and received by yourself on the 30th January, in which he says: "If it be so that Fort Sumter is held as property, then as property, the rights, whatever they may be, of the United States can be ascertained, and for the satisfaction of these rights the pledge of the State of South Carolina you are authorized to give." The full scope and precise purport of your instructions, as thus modified, you have expressed in the following words: "I do not come as a military man to demand the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of the State -- its Attorney-General -- to claim for the State the exercise of its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the State to make good all injury to the rights of property which arise from the exercise of the claim." And lest this explicit language should not sufficiently define your position, you add: "the proposition now is, that her (South Carolina's) law officer should, under the authority of the Governor and his Council distinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such compensation in regard to Fort Sumter and its appurtenances and contents to the full extent of the money value of the property of the United States, delivered over to the authorities of South Carolina by your command." You then adopt his Excellency's train of thought upon the subject, so far as to suggest that the possession of Fort Sumter by the United States "if continued long enough must lead to collision," and that "an attack upon it would scarcely improve it as property, whatever the result, and if captured, it would no longer be the subject of account."

The proposal then, now presented, is simply an offer on the part of South Carolina to buy Fort Sumter and contents as property of the United States, sustained by a declaration, in effect, that if she is not permitted to purchase she will seize the fort by force of arms. As the initiation of a negotiation for the transfer of property between friendly Governments, this proposal impresses the President as having assumed a most unusual form. He has, however, investigated the claim on which it professes to be based, apart from the declaration which accompanies it. And it may be hero remarked that much stress has been laid upon the employment of the words "property" and "public property," by the President in his several Messages. These are the most comprehensive terms which can be used in such a connection, and surely when referring to a fort, or any other public establishment, they embrace the entire and undivided interest of the Government therein. The title of the United States to Fort Sumter is complete and incontestible. Were its interests in this property purely proprietary, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, it might probably be subjected to the exercise of the right of eminent domain; but it has also political relations to it of a much higher and more imposing character than those of mere proprietorship. It has absolute jurisdiction over the fort and the soil on which it stands. This jurisdiction consists in the authority to "exercise exclusive legislation" over the property referred to; and is, therefore, clearly incompatible with the claim of eminent domain now insisted upon by South Carolina. This authority was not derived from any questionable revolutionary source, but from the peaceful cession of South Carolina herself, acting through her Legislature under a provision of the Constitution of the United States. South Carolina can no more assert the right of eminent domain over Fort Sumter than Maryland can assert it over the District of Columbia. The political and proprietary rights of the United States in either case rest upon precisely the same ground.

The President, however, is relieved from the necessity of further pursuing this inquiry by the fact that whatever may be the claim of South Carolina to this fort, he has no constitutional power to cede or surrender it. The property of the United States has been acquired by force of public law, and can only be disposed of under the same solemn sanction. The President, as the head of the Executive branch of the Government only, can no more sell and transfer Fort Sumter to South Carolina, than he can sell and convey the Capitol of the United States to Maryland or to any other State or individual seeking to possess it. His Excellency, the Governor, is too familiar with the Constitution of the United States, and with the limitation upon the powers of the Chief Magistrate of the Government it has established, not to appreciate, at once, the soundness of this legal proposition.

The question of reinforcing Fort Sumter is so fully disposed of, in my letter to Senator SLIDELL and others, under date of the 22d January -- a copy of which accompanies this -- that its discussion will not now be renewed. I then said: "At the present moment it is not deemed necessary to reinforce Major ANDERSON, because he makes no such request. Should his safety, however, require reinforcements, every effort will be made to supply them." I can add nothing to the explicitness of this language, which still applies to the existing States.

The right to send forward reinforcements, when, in the judgment of the President, the safety of the garrison requires them, rests on the same unquestionable foundation as the right to occupy the fortress itself.

In the letter of Senator DAVIS and others to yourself, under date of the 15th ultimo, they say: "We, therefore think it especially due from South Carolina to our States -- to say nothing of other Slaveholding States -- that she should, as far as she can consistently with her honor, avoid initiating hostilities between her and the United States or any Power," and you now yourself give to the President the gratifying assurance that "South Carolina has every disposition to preserve the public peace;" and since he is himself sincerely animated by the same desire, it would seem that this common and patriotic object must be of certain attainment.

It is difficult, however, to reconcile with this assurance the declaration on your part that "it is a consideration of her (South Carolina's) own dignity as a sovereign, and the safety of her people, which prompts her to demand that this property should not longer be used as a military post by the Government she no longer acknowledges," and the thought you so constantly present that this occupation must dead to a collision of arms and the prevalence of civil war. Fort Sumter is in itself a military post, and nothing else; and it would seem that not se much the fact as the purpose of its use should give to it a hostile or friendly character. This fortress is now held by the Government of the United States for the same objects for which it has been held from the completion of its construction. These are national and defensive, and were a public enemy now to attempt the capture of Charleston or the destruction of the commerce of its harbor, the whole force of the batteries of this fortress would be at once exerted for their protection. How the presence of a small garrison, actuated by such a spirit as this, can compromise the dignity or honor of South Carolina, or become a source of irritation to her people, the President is at a loss to understand.

The attitude of that garrison, as has been often declared, is neither menacing, ner defiant, nor unfriendly. It is acting under orders to stand strictly on the defensive, and the Government and people of South Carolina must well know that they can never receive aught but shelter from its guns, unless in the absence of all provocation, they should assault it and seek its destruction. The intent with which this fortress is held by the President is truthfully stated by Senator DAVIS and others, in their letter to yourself of the 15th January, in which they say "it is not held with any hostile or unfriendly purpose toward your State, but merely as property of the United States, which the President deems it his duty to protect and preserve."

If the announcement, so repeatedly made, of the President's pacific purposes on continuing the occupation of Fort Sumter until the question shall have been settled by competent authority, has failed to impress the Government of South Carolina, the forbearing conduct of his Administration for the last few months should be received as conclusive evidence of his sincerity. And if this forbearance, in view of the circumstances which have so severely tried it, be not accepted as a satisfactory pledge of the peaceful policy of this Administration towards South Carolina, then it may be safely affirmed that neither language nor conduct can possibly furnish one.

If, with all the multiplied proofs which exist of the President's anxiety for peace and of the earnestness with which he has pursued it, the authorities of that State shall assault Fort Sumter and peril the lives of the handful of brave and loyal men shut up within its walls, and thus plunge our common country into the horrors of civil war, then upon them and those they represent must rest the responsibility.

Very respectfully, your ob't servant,

(Signed) J. HOLT, Secretary of War.

To Hon. J.W. HAYNE, Attorney-General of the

State of South Carolina.

P.S. -- The President has not, as you have been informed, received a copy of the letter to yourself from the Senators, communicating that of Mr. HOLT of the 22d of January. J.H.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Don't even think you can be so arrogant to post excerpts from one letter and proclaim the matter settled when it doesn't even address the matters of law. The historical record of the Civil War is very clear. Slavery was a populist wedge issue for a larger economical picture and the natural right of people to self govern.

The law posted earlier regarding the acts of Congress and legislation passed by the state is clear. South Carolina acted in good faith reclaiming that which was rightfully hers and void by offering to enter into negotiations to compensate the U.S.

The country hasn't even begun to debate the Civil War era at any great length and be exposed to the historical record. But that debate IS coming and the American traditions of freedom ARE going to make a comeback.

[mikem317]

One convenient fact the public school systems leave out is how the Europeans rid themselves of slavery. I don't think every European country fought a bloody civil war in the late 19th century, right?

[SamuraisWisdom]

Yes let's end your silly assertions slavery could not be ended without war starting with the prevailing attitude of those who would assert the South started the war:

I never tried to make the claim that slavery could only be abolished through war. I have been arguing this entire time that the North's invasion of the South was justified. I've explained this in my previous posts, go back and look at them for yourself. And the article I posted made the extremely important point that once the South seceded from the United States they gave up any right to Federal land that they once had as well as any prior agreements between the states. That's why the South Carolina government was trying to buy Fort Sumter from the United States government, but once they realized that wasn't going to happen they took it by force.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I never tried to make the claim that slavery could only be abolished through war. I have been arguing this entire time that the North's invasion of the South was justified. I've explained this in my previous posts, go back and look at them for yourself. And the article I posted made the extremely important point that once the South seceded from the United States they gave up any right to Federal land that they once had as well as any prior agreements between the states. That's why the South Carolina government was trying to buy Fort Sumter from the United States government, but once they realized that wasn't going to happen they took it by force.

There are only two ways to argue the matter:

1) If the South had seceded then as you say any agreements with the United States government become null and void the same way they became null and void with the crown after the DoI. That means the United States is occupying foreign soil and refusing to negotiate in good faith for something South Carolina does not have to negotiate. But you did not recognize that argument earlier because you said the secession was illegitimate so I introduced....

2) If the U.S. executive branch was going to take the position that it was not going to recognize the Confederacy, as was the policy set forth by Congress at the time, that means South Carolina had just cause for eminent domain under the terms of their 1805 legislated conditions.

In any case the United States rebuffed the good faith efforts of the South, was deceptive in their dealings with the South, engaged in deception occupying and attempting to reinforce forts on foreign soil, and was very active in a populist fear mongering campaign which included the suspension of Habeas Corpus to shut down dissenting newspapers.

There is no way to justify northern aggression when the historical record clearly articulates the conspiracy to put the South in a controversial position where she must defend herself thereby giving Lincoln good cause to solidify the north and wrap the flag around the Civil War. Nothing breeds patriotism and loyalty among the common folk like war.

Do you think the Colonies should have sent gold coin along with the DoI to the King?

At least South Carolina acted in good faith and offered it.

[libertarian4321]

So Ron Paul should be politically correct instead of honest?

I don't think the OP was talking about "political correctness"- he was probably referring to the fact that when you get a chance to get free exposure in the national media, quibbling over the Civil War probably isn't the best use of your time.

Even if Dr. Paul is right, it doesn't matter because 1) most Americans don't give a rat's ass- the Civil War just isn't real high on list of concerns for the average American at this time and 2) it makes him look like a crank- most people won't bother to listen or do any research (because, as I stated above, it's not a topic most people care about at all)- they will simply dismiss him or tune him out.

Remember, politics isn't about scoring debate points, it's about changing people's minds- and getting bogged down in Civil War quibbling isn't going to do that.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There are two periods in U.S. history that devastated the U.S. The Civil War era and the New Deal era.

The historical record has not been restored to the extent is has thus far because people who have been marginalized over the past several decades shut up and went along with popular opinion.

I do not consider this a bad statistic:


Results 1 - 10 of about 1,050,000 for ron paul civil war.

People can claim all day long history is not important but things are presently the way they are because of history.

Dr. Paul does get people talking and even if they are only critics writing a blog article bashing Dr. Paul it still opens up the door for rebutting comments on those same sites.

[fisharmor]

I have been arguing this entire time that the North's invasion of the South was justified. I've explained this in my previous posts, go back and look at them for yourself.
Ok, here's what I can find.


Take this Civil War debate as an example. There are a million books that support the common view of the North being in the right and the South being in the wrong. But there's only a handful of books that support the South (I don't know the actual numbers but I'm sure they're pretty lopsided). What people here seem to be doing is ignoring the millions of books that support the North and religiously following the books that support the south just because it's convenient for their world view. See what I mean? Ignoring history works both ways.

Millions? Millions of copies, perhaps. Hyperbole won't win arguments in a million years.
The substance of your argument is that most people today believe the state programming, so the state programming must be correct.
Apparently you believe in democracy. You're not really in good company here.
You're also accusing us of ignoring history. At this point I think it's clear who is ignoring whom.
Truth isn't constrained to what the majority says, and in many cases is quite the opposite.
The Fed comment was absolutely germane. It is a topic about which the majority of the population chooses to shut its ears and simply buys into the programming.


Many people viewed the South's secession as Treason and therefore punishable and justified.
More democracy in action.
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. We live in a republic that was once a republic of laws. We live in a republic of inoperative laws, because the rule of law was smashed to pieces in the 1860's.
That's why we keep talking about it.


Also, let's not forget who fired the first shot.
Again, nobody denies that the south fired the first shot.
The point we're trying to make is that it's not possible to remember any of the other facts leading up to that first shot, because nobody knows them.


4. If you want to get down to gritty facts, Federal Troops already occupied and controlled Ft Sumter long before South seceded so it was the property of the Federal Government of the United States.
Possession is 9/10 of the law, I suppose?
I assume then that you're also OK with drug related property seizures. And property taxes. And the draft.
After all, the government owns all that stuff, so what's the problem?


Also, President Lincoln (President-elect at the time) did not believe states had the right to secede from the Union so the South's government was not considered a legitimate government and therefore the ambassadors that the South sent were rebuffed despite the fact the North (Lincoln in particular) didn't want military conflict.

So, he didn't want military conflict, yet he pushed for it by not acknowledging the secession? What he believed about it was false. There was a perfectly acceptable method of avoiding war, and that was to acknowledge the secession and open diplomatic channels. He might even have brought them back into the union that way. He chose not to.


When the North sent unarmed supply ships to the starving troops at Ft Sumter they were fired on without response from the North. Eventually, Southern leaders advised the South Carolina army (I believe it was the SC army and not the Southern Federal Army) to use whatever means necessary to remove the Northern Troops despite calls for restraint for fear of losing the neutral states' alliance. In the end Southern military leaders opened fire on Sumter and started the Civil War.

Uh-huh. The first ship to arrive was unarmed: armed ships were not far behind. Lincoln forced them into a military decision: take the fort, or basically lose control of Charleston.
And again this statement ignores the fact that Lincoln had an option for his starving troops: there was plenty for them to eat, outside of Charleston. I have trouble believing that after offering to pay Washington for the fort when they were under no obligation to do so, they would turn around and continue to starve soldiers after they handed over the fort.