The Confederacy: America's worst idea

There was no actual secession.

The Confederacy never legally existed. No one ever recognized it as a nation.

Traitors to who? THEY followed the law. The south did not.

Even in Confederate documents the north is recognized as "the union". Their flag was the US flag. The north WAS the US. They didnt betray themselves.

The courts disagreed, and they get the final say under the US system.

I bet burglars use similar logic after they rob people's houses.

 

LOL, no, Quantrill forgot to mention that. I am sure it was just an accident.

 

What James Madison has to say on the subject of secession from the Union:

Jefferson's views on the matter:

And, the most august of founding fathers, the Father of the United States, George Washington's thoughts on secession.

 

Constitution of the Confederate States, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

 

Sorry pal. There are no surrender papers. If so, present them. Oh, wiki papers is your proof. What a joke. Again, there was no surrender. Get over it.

Yes, we were beaten. But no surrender. The North was the stronger. But no surrender. The North was the victor, but we still write our history. We still voice our views. So, you don't get the last say. Unless you want to shut down all prinitng presses and internet access. I mean, thats what Lincoln did. Good Master Lincoln.

Sorry again. The Confederacy did exist. It doesn't take any acknowldegement by the North to prove its existance. What good is such acknowlegement anyway. They will just lie to you?

The South could have and would have come into legal discussions of freedom and compensation for slaves. The South was not morally corrupt. They were much more Christian than the North was. We are called the 'Bible Belt' for good reason.

See, your views of the emancipation are exactly those of the North in that day. You don't care that the black man remains enslaved. You just want the Southern white man murdered. You just want to use slavery for the destruction of the Southern whtie man, yet all the while you hate the slave. What a hypocrtical attitude. See what the South was dealing with?

Of course Im free to write about it. And you are wrong. Once people look into it, they see, the South was right.

Quantrill

 

Big deal. The point was that the upper Southern States seceeded only because of Lincoln wanting them to supply men to attack their sister states in the lower South. Which means slavery was not even an issue with them for secession.

Quantrill

 

LOL!

Werent you JUST TELLING ME how the South would have eventually emancipated slaves gradually?

So were you lying or just ignorant of the Confederate Constitution?

 

Haha, you don't even care about legal issues, the thoughts of the Founding Fathers, or anything about the Union at all. You're simply a Neo-Confederate, Slave Power cheerleader who would excuse anything and everything about their horrible, illegal insurrection.

Also: if you hate Sherman, do you also hate the US Allied Command in WWII for bombing Dresden and other Nazi factories?

 

There were no surrender papers from Timothy McVeigh either. And for the same reason. You cannot officially surrender if you are not a recognized nation. No one recognized the Confederacy.

So does NAMBLA. BFD.

Legally, yes, we get the last say.

Yeah, as is evidenced by them explicitly writing into their own Constitution that slaves would always remain property.

Not by your standards obviously. You dont seem to have a huge problem with slavery.

As is evidenced by my universal opposition to slavery in every post I have made in this forum since I joined, right? LOL

I would not shed any tears over the murder of slave owners. Southern or otherwise. I would crack a smile at hearing about the murder of a northern slave owner as well.

I really do take pleasure in the suffering of evil people. And I dont discriminate based on race, religion, or nationality. My alias was not an accident.

If I actually held those views I would be a hypocrite. But since I dont...

Yes, lets cry a million tears for the poor oppressed southern slave owners.

(and you said earlier that you were not trying to elicit sympathy...so much for that idea eh? LOL)

 

Yeah, I know but tell me where and by who. John Brown murdered people at Pottawattomie Kansas.

The fugitive slave act was law. Constitutional. Of course yankees are free to break the law whenever they feel its not right. Correct? I mean, thats what your saying. And that is what the North was saying. See, its not over slavery. Its over the South not recieveing the protections under the law.

Nathan Bedford Forrest was a great man. He ate the yankees alive. He was leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and the fight for survival during the reconstruction years. And, yes, he was great in that also. If you know anything about reconstruction you would see. But of course, to a people who don't feel the law applies to them, and they can do what they want if they feel like it, then I doubt it would mean anything to you.

You will have to come up with some documentation on your comments on the founding fathers view of secession.

Slaves were property. That is the way it was. And that property was protected by law. If you want to change the law, ok. But till then, who are you, or who is the yankee to be free to break that law?

Your not listening. Yes slavery is an issue. In none of the secession documents is it the only issue. The overriding cause is the attitude and efforts of the North in not treating the South as equals in the Union. Just as you and others speak now like its ok for yall to break laws you don't feel are moral.

As I said, in 1861 slavery was prtoected by the Constitution and the Suprerem Court, and a promise from Lincoln. The South had no reason to secede as they were protected by law.

So, was the South protected or not?

Quantrill

 

Sure there was a secession. How could there be no secession when the states were not allowed back into the union unless they agreed to certain things. Uh?

The Confederacy existed and never surrendered. We didn't need your or others recognition.

The North betrayed the Constitution. But thats ok, because we all know they can do that because they are yankees. The fugitive slave law. Allowing John Brown to roam free as a murderer while he planned his attack against the South.

Of course, the Union is the North. Not the South. You can keep it.

No, because burglers don't own it already. The Union didn't own the States. But they certainly thought and think they did.

Quantrill

 

I see nothing saying secession is illegal. I see many concerned over the break up of the Union. I see no law saying secession is illegal.

But in many of the states, you will find written in their constitution when they entered the union, the provision stateing they came into this union freely and they can leave just as freely once the union endangers their independence or freedoms, or does not offer them the protections they should.

Quantrill

 

Slaves were property and had to be protected by law.

Quantrill

 

The 'big deal' quote was to another concerning something else. So, are you lying or just ignorant?

Quantrill

 

Charles Dow was shot by a pro-slavery settler, as was Thomas Barber. Then, Border Ruffians sacked and burned the free town of Lawrence, Kansas. It was in retaliation of that act that John Brown acted.

So much for states' rights as an argument, eh? Only when it is states' rights in support of slavery, I suppose is what you and your ilk mean, eh?

Except when they threaten constantly to destroy the Union whenever the law doesn't go there way legally, oddly enough.

You're a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing riot, you know that? You absolutely adore a virulent, racist terrorist.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18330312_rives.htm
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/zvesper/jefferson-alexander.html
http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.601/pub_detail.asp
http://www.juntosociety.com/i_documents/gw_cts.htm

The Slave Power seceded to prevent that change and fired the first shots on the Union. Have you not seen their constitution or documents of secession? It was all preemptive to prevent legal abolition of slavery.

No, the overriding issue is "KEEP THE SLAVES! KEEP THE SLAVES!" Every single thing they seceded over returns to slavery. Economics? Goes back to slavery. States' rights? Slavery. Different culture? Slavery. The Slave Power was rooted in the eternal maintenance of slavery.

Deal with it.

They still seceded to prevent the abolition of slavery through legal means because they were a bunch of crybabies and whiny (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es. They deserved everything they got when they opted to go to war for slavery.

 

No it wasnt, it was concerning the same thing. You knew full well that the confederate constitution had this language yet deliberately ignored it.

Because a US court has ruled that they never left the Union. Because no one ever recognized the Confederacy as a nation. Including the US itself.

I thought that was obvious.

Of course you needed it. Thats what separates legitimate states from everyone else.

The courts disagreed, and they get the final say. Not you. And certainly not the confederate traitors.

Well, if he killed his "owner" it was not really murder anyway. It was self defense.

We kept the South as well. You're a US citizen now, not a confederate citizen.

 

Which means I am right on the legal issues.

I see we are trying to make the 'Nazi connection'. Poor Hitler. If we can just tie our enemy to Hitler then we win. Please.

But, yes, I detest the bombing of Dresden. Nothing but women and children and old people were killed.

Quantrill

 

Supreme Court Justice Chase said secession was illegal in a majority rule. I think Supreme Court Justices may know a bit more about the US Constitution than you do.

And, yet, it was necessary to eliminate the ability of Nazi Germany to make war on other, sovereign nations.

If you can't stand the consequences of war, then do not engage in war. Modern warfare is more than just soldiers on the field, but the entire industrial apparatus of a nation, as that apparatus produces the guns, the artillery, the railroads, and every other mechanism used in a war. By that virtue, it becomes a legitimate target of warfare.

So, if the Slave Power wanted to, Jefferson Davis could have engaged in a campaign of passive resistance to the North, could he not? It worked for Gandhi and MLK, after all.

But, no, they were just as much after blood as the Union, and I have little doubt they would have exercised the same restraint as Sherman if they were able. They, however, were weak and unable to do so. They were, after all, merely the Taliban of the South.

 

That was Hitler's fault for refusing to surrender. There are consequences to threatening us.

 

I don't care if you recognize the Confederacy or not. But one thing you must recognize is that there was surrender.

No, you don't get the last say. Because the South still speaks and writes and produces its history. I suggest you read it sometime.

Once the secession took place it is a different situation. Laws had to be in place to protect property. Had the north been willing to come into discussin and compensation for slaves, then the South would have listened and they could have come to agreement.

Your views of the emancipation and the Southern slave holder and white man are the same as the Norths in that day. You can call yourself moral, and right, but the law protected the Southern slave owner. Making you the lawbreaker. No other way around it. Change the law if you like. Until then, you are bound like everyone else to it.

Quantrill

 

Also: a comparison of the Slave Power to Nazi Germany is perfectly apt. Both were racist states that utilized slave labor and ran death camps. The only difference is that the Slave Power wasn't shoving people into ovens.

 

No one does. its not just me.

Hey, why stop there?

Legally, we do. Because we are the majority, and because the judicial branch agrees with us. You can "write your own history" all you want, but it will not change this.

What would be the point? No one else recognizes it as true anyway. it would be like reading fiction.

The US was correct to deny compensation. Slave owners were not entitled to compensation for their attrocities.

The only way you can make that true is by putting words in my mouth.

Look at how quick you are to change history just in this very thread...and you want me to believe that other people like you are not doing the same thing? LOL

Most people would call me moral and right in this context. It isnt just me.

The law changed. The South refused to obey it.

 

Additional irony: Quantrill there is all aghast at John Brown for killing men in front of their families, yet he took his screenname from a guy who did the exact same thing.

 

It just amazes me that anyone could be angry with a slave for killing the person who enslaved them...who here in this forum would not do that?

It makes him a bit hypocritical. If he were legally enslaved would he just accept it...is that what he's saying?

 

The Charles Dow incident began over a cutting of timber dispute. It was later labed as a free state murder. The others are part of the movement of militias moving in the area. These are not an attack upon a family where the men and boys were hacked up in front of their mothers and wives as with Brown.

States rights is not the issue with the fugitive slave law. It is a Constitutional matter. Here again, your willing to be the lawbreaker as the yankees were.

The South had no plans to destroy the union. We just left it. You can keep it. Peacefully. Legally.

Read about the Reconstruction period. They don't like to teach it. You know why? Two reasons. It showed the North for what they were. And, it was a continuation of the War between the States, and after 12 long years, we won.

I have no problem dealing with it. The South broke no laws. The self righteouss yankee feels he doesn't have to obey the laws if he doesn't want to. Making you the lawbreaker and traitor.

We didn't have to prevent the abolitin of slavery by legal means. We already had it. What we didn't have was a North that would abide by the Constitution.

We didn't go to war over slavery. We went to war to resist being brought back into the Union.

Quantrill