150th Anniversary

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by RamoneWooddell

Ah, but you are viewing the United States of America from this side of the Northern Aggression. It should be remembered that it is the UNITED STATES which should have honored its constitutional limits and been submissive to the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation both allowed the "divorce" from the United States of America. It is the attitude of which you have which you seem to have which caused the war in the first place. Not the Confederate States of America.

Yes, if I were "on" or with the losing side, I would probably have your perspective too. My practical (rather than legal) implication was that once enough people pick up arms and organize to fight authority--at that point laws are not so meaningful. So-called "rights" are merely privileges that are enforced with adequate FORCE. This is not to claim that "might makes right" but to claim that "might describes the extant reality." Hopes such as <<Should have honored>> always take a back seat during an armed rebellion.

A southern sympathizer may even today, in a flight of fanciful imagination, claim that since Lee only surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia, he had no legal standing to speak for the other 10 rebel states, and therefore the Confederacy still exists. A representative republic sometimes fills the legal holes only after the problems arise. In Texas v. White, 1869, Chief Justice Chase considered the Constitutional argument about secession, and wrote for the majority ruling:

<< When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. >>

But if someone(s) think they can rebel, no one can stop them from trying. And as it happened--to lose.

[RamoneWooddell]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Yes, if I were "on" or with the losing side, I would probably have your perspective too. My practical (rather than legal) implication was that once enough people pick up arms and organize to fight authority--at that point laws are not so meaningful. So-called "rights" are merely privileges that are enforced with adequate FORCE. This is not to claim that "might makes right" but to claim that "might describes the extant reality." Hopes such as <<Should have honored>> always take a back seat during an armed rebellion.

A southern sympathizer may even today, in a flight of fanciful imagination, claim that since Lee only surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia, he had no legal standing to speak for the other 10 rebel states, and therefore the Confederacy still exists. A representative republic sometimes fills the legal holes only after the problems arise. In Texas v. White, 1869, Chief Justice Chase considered the Constitutional argument about secession, and wrote for the majority ruling:

<< When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. >>

But if someone(s) think they can rebel, no one can stop them from trying. And as it happened--to lose.

Again this was after the United States invaded, burned, exiled, and began forcing new government upon Confederate States who were already a part of another Union. This is invasion and occupation. There was no rebellion because any relation had been dissolved. Your argument is not logical or legal and therefore not practical. It is emotional and might I add arrogant and aggressive. I see things have changed little in 150 years. What was done against the Confederacy was illegal and therefore not practical. Your appeal to the practical is a lost cause.

Might I remind you that the United States took it upon themselves to kick several states back out of the Union after the War so your indissoluble idea doesn't hold water. Prove the States could not dissolve their union.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by RamoneWooddell

Prove the States could not dissolve their union.

11 states tried to, but ultimately could not, according to present day maps as published in all countries (except the CSA, I suppose.) Or is that arguing with unfair emotion, aggression, and not practical enough for you, etc? (which things often make some arguments interesting, IMO. )

When I quoted the 1869 SCOTUS, it was not to claim what ought to be, but what is--the results.

[RamoneWooddell]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

11 states tried to, but ultimately could not, according to present day maps as published in all countries (except the CSA, I suppose.) Or is that arguing with unfair emotion, aggression, and not practical enough for you, etc? (which things often make some arguments interesting, IMO. )

When I quoted the 1869 SCOTUS, it was not to claim what ought to be, but what is--the results.

My point was that your argument was mostly slurs and borderline insults flavored with arrogance. Remember that I was speaking to what really happened in regards to history and that the CSA is actually a separate occupied nation. The whole point is that the CSA didn't try to, they did separate. There invaded and occupied. And are still occupied today.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by RamoneWooddell

My point was that your argument was mostly slurs and borderline insults flavored with arrogance. Remember that I was speaking to what really happened in regards to history and that the CSA is actually a separate occupied nation. The whole point is that the CSA didn't try to, they did separate. There invaded and occupied. And are still occupied today.

Allow me to collate all your claims about how I am arguing. My reasoning--or to you, not even qualifying as reasoning--is, so far:

--not logical
--not practical.
-- emotional
--aggressive.
--arrogant
--a lost cause
--mostly slurs
--borderline insults

Please add a few more if you like. Let's throw in "uses sarcasm and ridicule." IMO, the one making the outlying and extraordinary claims is the one who should make the more formal, better arguments. The one not making the extraordinary claim has the convenience of other casual cover--such as to be able appeal to peoples' common experiences and common knowledge--for example, the knowledge that the Confederate States of America today as "actually a separate occupied nation" does not exist today upon anyone else's (except maybe your) published maps. Nor is CSA recognized by any other country. (Too simplistic, there?)

Fine, don't buy my earlier theory that "Laws may or may not mean much when it comes to all-out war." But if you only have legal documents to countervail what 600,000 lives already died to "settle," then maybe you ought to also argue that your CSA give back all their territories to the Native Americans, (and so on.) Or rather, that the Natives never were legally deposed by Spain, France, Britain, and therefore are still the legitimate government, merely "occupied" today.

might I add arrogant and aggressive. I see things have changed little in 150 years.

A few things have changed in 150 years. Here's what your first CSA Vice-President had to say in 1861, concerning the other Constitution which his (your?) side tried to replace, but ultimately could not.

<<...
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
>>
--CSA Vice President Alexander Stevens, 1861

[RamoneWooddell]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Allow me to collate all your claims about how I am arguing. My reasoning--or to you, not even qualifying as reasoning--is, so far:

--not logical
--not practical.
-- emotional
--aggressive.
--arrogant
--a lost cause
--mostly slurs
--borderline insults

Please add a few more if you like. Let's throw in "uses sarcasm and ridicule." IMO, the one making the outlying and extraordinary claims is the one who should make the more formal, better arguments. The one not making the extraordinary claim has the convenience of other casual cover--such as to be able appeal to peoples' common experiences and common knowledge--for example, the knowledge that the Confederate States of America today as "actually a separate occupied nation" does not exist today upon anyone else's (except maybe your) published maps. Nor is CSA recognized by any other country. (Too simplistic, there?)

Fine, don't buy my earlier theory that "Laws may or may not mean much when it comes to all-out war." But if you only have legal documents to countervail what 600,000 lives already died to "settle," then maybe you ought to also argue that your CSA give back all their territories to the Native Americans, (and so on.) Or rather, that the Natives never were legally deposed by Spain, France, Britain, and therefore are still the legitimate government, merely "occupied" today.



A few things have changed in 150 years. Here's what your first CSA Vice-President had to say in 1861, concerning the other Constitution which his (your?) side tried to replace, but ultimately could not.

<<...
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
>>
--CSA Vice President Alexander Stevens, 1861

Very well, I will present my argument.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

A few things have changed in 150 years. Here's what your first CSA Vice-President had to say in 1861, concerning the other Constitution which his (your?) side tried to replace, but ultimately could not.

<<...
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
>>
--CSA Vice President Alexander Stevens, 1861

And here is Lincoln on the same basic issue:

Now comes Joseph Fallon, cultural intelligence analyst and former U.S. Army Intelligence Center instructor, with his new e-book, “Lincoln Uncensored.” Fallon’s book examines 10 volumes of collected writings and speeches of Lincoln’s, which include passages on slavery, secession, equality of blacks and emancipation. We don’t have to rely upon anyone’s interpretation. Just read his words to see what you make of them.

In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Ill., speech, he explained, “My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of … making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

from http://frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-...ncoln-slavery/

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

[RamoneWooddell]

It is my argument that the Confederate States of America was correct in their claim that secession was a right of a State. Per the Founding Documents this was the right of the State or Nation.

The Declaration of Independence states: (Bold by me)

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

In the 1st Foundation Document of both the United States of America and the Confederate States of America we see that secession was not only allowed but warranted and emphatically acknowledged as a naturally entitled right under the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. Therefore it is a God given right to secede from the United States.

Again in the same document:

"--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This document removed them from the British Government. The same was done individually by each State which seceded from the United States of America and therefore from the Government which derived its limited powers from that Compact.

Next the same 13 Colonies became States or better put Sovereign States came into a Confederacy with each other. This was done in the Articles of Confederation.

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

Then in the Constitution of the United States which did not replace the Articles of Confederation due to the fact that written law unless repealed is still in force even if in contradiction to other written law. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Articles of Confederation were repealed and replaced by the Constitution of the United States; in fact this is what the

Constitution of the United States says:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The same words are used in the Articles of Confederation and the addition of the phrase “in order to form a more perfect Union is used further solidifying the fact that the previous document was not replaced or repealed but was and is in force. It is upon these very documents which the Confederate States found the foundation for seceding from the Union which did continue without them and in forming for themselves a new Government to secure their liberty. As free States they should have been left to their own destiny, but even in that time the Government of the United States was being used as a tool of the United States of America specifically those in the Northern section of the United States of America to limit the freedoms of the Southern section and in some cases to try to remove their sovereignty not only in the owning of slaves (as wrong in my opinion as any other thing could be that is wrong) but in other ways as well.

This is but a small amount of proof for which the CSA was right in their creation of a new Government. This Government did not need the approval of an old. Relations with other Governments of the time were already underway. It was a runaway democratic Government which knew no limits even though they were there within its founding documents who usurped authority upon a separate and complete confederacy of Nation States. After the war between the two countries, Military occupation known as the Reconstruction Acts exiled the Confederate States Government but did not end it because it was never surrendered and a Treaty never signed to the effect. No allegiance to the United States was ever made. What happened was that a new puppet government for each State was created in a de facto state but the de jure never being dissolved. This is the defining of occupation.

The original Confederate States of America are still a country unto them and is in a state of occupation.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by RamoneWooddell

It is my argument that the Confederate States of America was correct in their claim that secession was a right of a State. ....The original Confederate States of America are still a country unto them and is in a state of occupation.

I never doubted that the former CSA had a reasonable case. That is a far cry from claiming that said "country" still exists today 152 years and 620K dead souls later. The classic film "Sunset Boulevard" (1950) comes to mind (themes: the glory of delusion and delusion of glory.)

[RamoneWooddell]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

I never doubted that the former CSA had a reasonable case. That is a far cry from claiming that said "country" still exists today 152 years and 620K dead souls later. The classic film "Sunset Boulevard" (1950) comes to mind (themes: the glory of delusion and delusion of glory.)

No there is no far cry. Occupation of a Sovereign Nation by another Nation does not negate the classification of the occupied nation at all. It is clear the Military of the United States removed the officers of the Confederate States of America from office. Then instead of placing new officers into those positions, they forced a new government upon the People of the Confederate States and the several States respectively. If the "South" were not a separate country then this would not have been done. The same State Constitutions would have been sufficient and new officers would have been placed in those positions. The very acts that were done against the People of the Confederate States prove that the Country did exist separate from the United States or the United States of America. There was never a Treaty. There was never surrender neither by the Confederate States of America nor the Confederate States' Federal Government therefore the Country still exists in exile by forced vacation.

Most all of the films classic or modern are written and portrayed with the ideas of the Union and therefore are slanted to make the Confederacy look bad.