Hillary endears herself to South Carolinians

[Tiger Al 0]

And for the record, one person's "rebel" is another person's "patriot." About a 1/3 of the American population at the time of our revolution were Tories and they believed what the King of England was saying about our founding fathers -- that they were all rebels/traitors and deserved to hang. Similarly, the secession which began with South Carolina was led by men who believed they were being true to the spirit of the American Revolution. They believed they were defending the freedoms for which American blood was spilled during that war. Again, the definition of "patriot" & "rebel" depends upon your particular point of view.

One might also argue that the rebels in South Carolina were spitting on the spirit of the American Revolution. Our founding fathers had no means to address their grievances and fought to create a country where they did. The men in South Carolina, and the rest of the South, chose to ignore the sacrifices made before them and circumvent the system of representative government that was made available to them by the blood spilled during the American Revolution.

[Captain Liger 0]

Obviously a few people in here are not students of history. If they were they would understand that history is context, history is context, history is context. Only a retard views history in a revisionist light. And why do some insist on viewing it in that fashion? Because it serves whatever idiotic and politically slanted agenda they possess.

And another thing, if you seriously believe that the South fought the war over slavery then you deserve to be whacked in the head with a tack hammer. Go to the library, grab a book and start reading. If you think for one second that the male populace of the South in 1861 was willing to risk their lives to protect some plantation owner's right to own slaves then you really are as stupid as you look. Slavery was doomed from the beginning. The best thing the South could have done, and should have done, was to free the slaves first and then fired on Ft. Sumter.

And finally, a word from one of our founding fathers:

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

[saniflush 0]

The best thing the South could have done, and should have done, was to free the slaves first and then fired on Ft. Sumter.

post of the day!

[CCTAU 3,349]

The best thing the South could have done, and should have done, was to free the slaves first and then fired on Ft. Sumter.

post of the day!

Probably. The slavery issue is one that the victors get to rewrite. Slavery was a dead issue within 10 -15 years anyway. (cheaper to keep up a machine than a person) Most slave owners had already freed their slaves. Hell, many freed slaves fought for the south. Not because they were forced, but because they were now sharecroppers getting abused by the tax system. Any true student of history KNOWS the facts. Unfortunately our children are being taught by the very books that libruls have rewritten. Go to a class today and the first thing any teacher says about the "war of northern aggression" is that it was over slavery. My fourth grade son questioned his teacher and said, "I thought it was over taxes." She asked to speak to him after class. She then proceeded to tell him that he was correct but she is forced to teach it the way the book says. So those of you who were taught by librul gubment schools in the last 10 years, need to go find some "old" history books with the truth in them.

But in the spirit of the post, the south did not try to conquer the north. We only tried to keep what was ours. And slavery was only a part of that because we were being TOLD what to do. Patience on the US govt's part would have been prudent. But once again, we were just the stupid south that needed telling what to do. Kinda sounds like the way dims treat people today, huh?

[saniflush 0]

There is an active movement afoot here in GA to only teach from reconstruction forward. Yea there is no motive going on here.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

And for the record, one person's "rebel" is another person's "patriot." ... Again, the definition of "patriot" & "rebel" depends upon your particular point of view.

So you favored the insurgents against the United States of America.

No! My post was about the definition of "patriot" & "rebel." One more time for all the slow learners out there: it's dependent upon your point of view. I gave two historical examples to help anyone reading my post to understand. There are many more such examples in the annals of history. I just thought providing more than two would be redundant. Reading comprehension & stuff.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

And for the record, one person's "rebel" is another person's "patriot." About a 1/3 of the American population at the time of our revolution were Tories and they believed what the King of England was saying about our founding fathers -- that they were all rebels/traitors and deserved to hang. Similarly, the secession which began with South Carolina was led by men who believed they were being true to the spirit of the American Revolution. They believed they were defending the freedoms for which American blood was spilled during that war. Again, the definition of "patriot" & "rebel" depends upon your particular point of view.

One might also argue that the rebels in South Carolina were spitting on the spirit of the American Revolution. Our founding fathers had no means to address their grievances and fought to create a country where they did. The men in South Carolina, and the rest of the South, chose to ignore the sacrifices made before them and circumvent the system of representative government that was made available to them by the blood spilled during the American Revolution.

You can make that argument. However, that's no different than labeling them all as "rebels." Again, your point of view and 20/20 hindsight from the safety of 146 years of subsequent history allow you to make that argument. South Carolinian John Calhoun wrote of the tariff law of 1828 that levied a federal tax on all imported goods that it was "unconstitutional, oppressive & unjust." This law was passed on the urging on northern merchants to protect their products by making European products more expensive. Calhoun was an advocate of nullification -- the right of individual states to nullify federal laws. The principle of nullification

was supported by many founders including Jefferson & Madison, principal authors of the Declaration & Constitution. Also, the Constitution as written did not prohibit slavery. It had language in it that specified slaves to be counted in the census towards determining subsequent representation in the House of Representatives.

So, yeah ... you could say the South Carolinians were spitting on the spirit of the American Revolution. Then again, you could also say they were fighting to preserve the spirit of that revolution and the original writing in the Constitution. An excellent book on the subject is Kenneth C. Davis's, Don't Know Much About the Civil War.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

The best thing the South could have done, and should have done, was to free the slaves first and then fired on Ft. Sumter.

post of the day!

I would add that the best thing the North could have done to free the slaves was to amend the Constitution first, rather than: start a war, kill +600k Americans, devastate roughly half of the nation's area and then amend the Constitution. Geez, ... think what could have been avoided with a little thoughtful planning and goal setting? Same outcome, different processes.

[Tiger Al 0]

You can make that argument. However, that's no different than labeling them all as "rebels." Again, your point of view and 20/20 hindsight from the safety of 146 years of subsequent history allow you to make that argument. South Carolinian John Calhoun wrote of the tariff law of 1828 that levied a federal tax on all imported goods that it was "unconstitutional, oppressive & unjust." This law was passed on the urging on northern merchants to protect their products by making European products more expensive. Calhoun was an advocate of nullification -- the right of individual states to nullify federal laws. The principle of nullification

was supported by many founders including Jefferson & Madison, principal authors of the Declaration & Constitution.

Then, perhaps, Mr. Calhoun should've sought to amend the Constitution recognizing nullification as a right of an individual state.

So, yeah ... you could say the South Carolinians were spitting on the spirit of the American Revolution. Then again, you could also say they were fighting to preserve the spirit of that revolution and the original writing in the Constitution. An excellent book on the subject is Kenneth C. Davis's, Don't Know Much About the Civil War.

My point is that one of the fruits of the Revolution was to give Americans, including South Carolinians, a voice and a venue in which to be heard, as well as the rule of law. The founding fathers didn't have that available to them. Secession was not preserving the spirit on which this country was founded.

[saniflush 0]

In American history, there have been numerous serious discussions of secession. The northeastern states threatened secession in protest of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 (Timothy Pickering) and again when Louisiana applied for statehood. Massachusetts Senator Josiah Quincy voiced the threat publicly numerous times in the U.S. Senate beginning in 1811. In 1814, near the end of the War of 1812, the New England states’ economies were devastated by Great Britain’s ability to obstruct their maritime shipping and trade with naval power. The New England states held a meeting in Hartford, CT, to make plans for cutting a deal with Great Britain and seceding to form their own country. In 1845, when Texas was considered for statehood, the New England states again threatened secession. Noted abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison advocated northern secession to avoid contact and association with slave states.

None of these New Englanders were ever accused of being traitors. None were ever tried for sedition or treason. None were even publicly criticized and secession was never seriously questioned until 1860. Even President Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason because the Federal Government knew they would lose the case in open court---undoing their whole justification for the invasion and conquest of the South.

They nevertheless dumped heaps of propaganda on Americans for decades and continued to refer to the War to prevent Southern Independence as the “War of the Rebellion” and the most popular oxymoron, “the Civil War.” They continue to praise Lincoln for “saving the Union” when in fact he destroyed the voluntary union and Constitutional Republic as the Framers designed it. They continue to pretend the war was only about slavery and to ignore or downplay the other essential issues (tariffs and tax policy).

Shall I continue?

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

You can make that argument. However, that's no different than labeling them all as "rebels." Again, your point of view and 20/20 hindsight from the safety of 146 years of subsequent history allow you to make that argument. South Carolinian John Calhoun wrote of the tariff law of 1828 that levied a federal tax on all imported goods that it was "unconstitutional, oppressive & unjust." This law was passed on the urging on northern merchants to protect their products by making European products more expensive. Calhoun was an advocate of nullification -- the right of individual states to nullify federal laws. The principle of nullification

was supported by many founders including Jefferson & Madison, principal authors of the Declaration & Constitution.

Then, perhaps, Mr. Calhoun should've sought to amend the Constitution recognizing nullification as a right of an individual state.

So, yeah ... you could say the South Carolinians were spitting on the spirit of the American Revolution. Then again, you could also say they were fighting to preserve the spirit of that revolution and the original writing in the Constitution. An excellent book on the subject is Kenneth C. Davis's, Don't Know Much About the Civil War.

My point is that one of the fruits of the Revolution was to give Americans, including South Carolinians, a voice and a venue in which to be heard, as well as the rule of law. The founding fathers didn't have that available to them. Secession was not preserving the spirit on which this country was founded.

Please understand that I am not arguing Calhoun's or any other South Carolinian's side on the matter of the the cause/start of the Civil War or the rightness/wrongness of their position. All I'm pointing out is what they said. They thought of themselves as "patriots" and of defending the Constitution/spirit of the revolution. They distrusted the motives of the North and felt they were being betrayed. The situation had been brewing for many decades before Ft Sumpter.

Also, how can you say "Secession was not preserving the spirit on which this country was founded." That is exactly the "spirit" on which the country was founded! The colonies succeeded in breaking away (i.e. secession) from a mother country. Revolution 101 and stuff ...

[Tiger Al 0]

Also, how can you say "Secession was not preserving the spirit on which this country was founded." That is exactly the "spirit" on which the country was founded! The colonies succeeded in breaking away (i.e. secession) from a mother country. Revolution 101 and stuff ...

The colonists in America had no voice in the British government, yet, they were expected to do their part to subsidize it. The Southern states had full representation in the US government and, therefore, were not voiceless or voteless in determining their future as the colonists were. The fact that the Southerners used the same means as the colonists isn't the same as possessing the same "spirit," in my opinion. Had the Southerners been, say, the US Virgin Islands, then the comparison might be more accurate.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I don't know. I'm a proud Southerner, but I really don't share this nostalgia for the Civil War. It was a stupid, destructive conflict that the South, while defending the legitimate principle of states' rights versus the encroaching power of the Federal government, chose to fight over the immoral, indefensible issue of slavery. It slaughtered the cream of Southern leadership, utterly destroyed our economy, and was the key reason our region suffered through 125 years of grueling poverty. While there were other components to states' rights, do you really think the South would have willingly gone to war over the issue of tarriffs? Do you think landowners would have whipped up war fever over a 2% tax on sheet music and imported fabrics? I didn't think so, either.

The other thing I would offer is that the Confederate battle flag was only hoisted over Southern capitals in the 1950s and 1960s as we defended the other great shameful stupidity of our region: Segregation and the outright oppression of blacks. So the context of how and why the Confederate Battle flag waves over Columbia is important as well.

Sure we Southerners were valiant in battle, and generals such as Stonewall Jackson and Lee were tactical geniuses. But the consequences of the Civil War continue to reverberate almost 150 years later. Let's be done with it already.

What he said.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Also, how can you say "Secession was not preserving the spirit on which this country was founded." That is exactly the "spirit" on which the country was founded! The colonies succeeded in breaking away (i.e. secession) from a mother country. Revolution 101 and stuff ...

The colonists in America had no voice in the British government, yet, they were expected to do their part to subsidize it. The Southern states had full representation in the US government and, therefore, were not voiceless or voteless in determining their future as the colonists were. The fact that the Southerners used the same means as the colonists isn't the same as possessing the same "spirit," in my opinion. Had the Southerners been, say, the US Virgin Islands, then the comparison might be more accurate.

What he said, too.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

In American history, there have been numerous serious discussions of secession. The northeastern states threatened secession in protest of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 (Timothy Pickering) and again when Louisiana applied for statehood. Massachusetts Senator Josiah Quincy voiced the threat publicly numerous times in the U.S. Senate beginning in 1811. In 1814, near the end of the War of 1812, the New England states’ economies were devastated by Great Britain’s ability to obstruct their maritime shipping and trade with naval power. The New England states held a meeting in Hartford, CT, to make plans for cutting a deal with Great Britain and seceding to form their own country. In 1845, when Texas was considered for statehood, the New England states again threatened secession. Noted abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison advocated northern secession to avoid contact and association with slave states.

None of these New Englanders were ever accused of being traitors. None were ever tried for sedition or treason. None were even publicly criticized and secession was never seriously questioned until 1860. Even President Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason because the Federal Government knew they would lose the case in open court---undoing their whole justification for the invasion and conquest of the South.

They nevertheless dumped heaps of propaganda on Americans for decades and continued to refer to the War to prevent Southern Independence as the “War of the Rebellion” and the most popular oxymoron, “the Civil War.” They continue to praise Lincoln for “saving the Union” when in fact he destroyed the voluntary union and Constitutional Republic as the Framers designed it. They continue to pretend the war was only about slavery and to ignore or downplay the other essential issues (tariffs and tax policy).

Shall I continue?

Only if you decide to make sense. "Discussion?" Which states seceded? New England states? Earth to Saniflush: Slavery was the major factor for secession. Quit fooling yourself.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

The best thing the South could have done, and should have done, was to free the slaves first and then fired on Ft. Sumter.

post of the day!

I would add that the best thing the North could have done to free the slaves was to amend the Constitution first, rather than: start a war, kill +600k Americans, devastate roughly half of the nation's area and then amend the Constitution. Geez, ... think what could have been avoided with a little thoughtful planning and goal setting? Same outcome, different processes.

Amend the Constitution? Before or after the Southern states seceded? After they seceded, they would say it didn't apply. The South seceded without the provocation of an amended Constitution. What makes you think they would not have seceded with even greater provocation?

The north wasn't, by and large, seeking to end slavery in the South as much as they were not in favor of expanding it or supporting it with their own laws, i.e. returning "property" that ran away as the South wanted.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

The best thing the South could have done, and should have done, was to free the slaves first and then fired on Ft. Sumter.

post of the day!

Probably. The slavery issue is one that the victors get to rewrite. Slavery was a dead issue within 10 -15 years anyway. (cheaper to keep up a machine than a person) Most slave owners had already freed their slaves. Hell, many freed slaves fought for the south. Not because they were forced, but because they were now sharecroppers getting abused by the tax system. Any true student of history KNOWS the facts. Unfortunately our children are being taught by the very books that libruls have rewritten. Go to a class today and the first thing any teacher says about the "war of northern aggression" is that it was over slavery. My fourth grade son questioned his teacher and said, "I thought it was over taxes." She asked to speak to him after class. She then proceeded to tell him that he was correct but she is forced to teach it the way the book says. So those of you who were taught by librul gubment schools in the last 10 years, need to go find some "old" history books with the truth in them.

But in the spirit of the post, the south did not try to conquer the north. We only tried to keep what was ours. And slavery was only a part of that because we were being TOLD what to do. Patience on the US govt's part would have been prudent. But once again, we were just the stupid south that needed telling what to do. Kinda sounds like the way dims treat people today, huh?

What you should be upset about is that you pay school taxes and your son's teacher still isn't any smarter than you are. "Tried to keep what was our's"... yeah, the slaves. If the US Gubment had only been patient the South would have voluntary abolished slavery and extended full and equal rights to all blacks within 10-15 years.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

Also, how can you say "Secession was not preserving the spirit on which this country was founded." That is exactly the "spirit" on which the country was founded! The colonies succeeded in breaking away (i.e. secession) from a mother country. Revolution 101 and stuff ...

The colonists in America had no voice in the British government, yet, they were expected to do their part to subsidize it. The Southern states had full representation in the US government and, therefore, were not voiceless or voteless in determining their future as the colonists were. The fact that the Southerners used the same means as the colonists isn't the same as possessing the same "spirit," in my opinion. Had the Southerners been, say, the US Virgin Islands, then the comparison might be more accurate.

Al,

You can speculate on the motives of why the Southerners decided to secede and whether or not it made any sense "in your opinion." The fact remains: they saw themselves as "patriots" defending the intent of the original Constitution. The founders were extremely wary of an over-reaching Federal government. Southerners must have felt the same wariness as the federal government kept eroding their state's sovereignity & freedom to act in their own best interests. The question of secession and whether it was illegal for a state or states to employ it wasn't stated explicitly in the Constitution. Saniflush is correct about the numerous times that secession had been threatened by various states. The legality of secession wasn't declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court until 1869, 8 years after the war started.

Fast forward to today. Is Hillary's posturing over the confederate battle flag over South Carolina's capitol a good thing to do for a presidential candidate supposedly intent on uniting the country? We know the history of segregation & Southern opposition to civil rights for blacks, including the inclusion of confederate battle flags into some of the official state flags. We're also keenly aware that the KKK adopted the confederate flag as one of their symbols. What are we to make of the fact that the KKK and other white supremicist groups have also been seen flying the American stars & stripes -- ban that flag, too?

On the other hand, I've met Southerners who display the stars & bars as a testament to their Southern heritage and have no interest in oppressing blacks or any other minority. So, the question is this: is the confederate battle flag strictly a symbol for bigotry/racial segregation, or can the display of such a flag also represent regional pride & heritage for some?

[saniflush 0]

Only if you decide to make sense. "Discussion?" Which states seceded? New England states? Earth to Saniflush: Slavery was the major factor for secession. Quit fooling yourself.

You need to let everone know when the space shuttle lands. Slavery was an issue but it was only ONE issue that was intertwined with many others.

Slavery was a TERRIABLE thing but to say it was the only thing that caused what amounted to be a horrific war is wrong. You need to go get yourself something......

[saniflush 0]

We're also keenly aware that the KKK adopted the confederate flag as one of their symbols. What are we to make of the fact that the KKK and other white supremicist groups have also been seen flying the American stars & stripes -- ban that flag, too?

We better get rid of the Christian flag as well. They use those on a regular basis.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Only if you decide to make sense. "Discussion?" Which states seceded? New England states? Earth to Saniflush: Slavery was the major factor for secession. Quit fooling yourself.

You need to let everone know when the space shuttle lands. Slavery was an issue but it was only ONE issue that was intertwined with many others.

Slavery was a TERRIABLE thing but to say it was the only thing that caused what amounted to be a horrific war is wrong. You need to go get yourself something......

Assertions without facts...and yet you're so confident. Arrogance coupled with ignorance...never pretty. You need to learn to read. I say "the major factor for secession" you hear "the only thing."

The first treasurer of the Confederacy drafted the declaration of the causes of South Carolina’s secession. Yeah, he cited the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, but all in the context of the slavery issue. It was front and center folks. Claiming otherwise is revisionist history. Read the actual original source for the initial seceding Southern state.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union ??C. G. Memminger

?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

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation...sion_causes.htm

[Tiger Al 0]

Only if you decide to make sense. "Discussion?" Which states seceded? New England states? Earth to Saniflush: Slavery was the major factor for secession. Quit fooling yourself.

You need to let everone know when the space shuttle lands. Slavery was an issue but it was only ONE issue that was intertwined with many others.

Slavery was a TERRIABLE thing but to say it was the only thing that caused what amounted to be a horrific war is wrong. You need to go get yourself something......

You're creating strawmen. TexasTiger didn't say it was the ONLY factor, but, that it was the MAIN factor.

[saniflush 0]

Maybe it is just a difference of opinion. I take offense very easily when somebody paints with a broad brush in relation to the Civil war. For that I apologize. I should keep my cool better.

I do not like my heritage being attacked and it is downright disrespectful of my ancestors to imply that was the main reason for the war.

The fireaters of the time on both sides got both side to a unnegotiable position.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Maybe it is just a difference of opinion. I take offense very easily when somebody paints with a broad brush in relation to the Civil war. For that I apologize. I should keep my cool better.

I do not like my heritage being attacked and it is downright disrespectful of my ancestors to imply that was the main reason for the war.

The fireaters of the time on both sides got both side to a unnegotiable position.

You have nothing at all to apologize for. Our resident southerner haters, Frick and Frack, both know what they were alluding to.

[Tiger Al 0]

Also, how can you say "Secession was not preserving the spirit on which this country was founded." That is exactly the "spirit" on which the country was founded! The colonies succeeded in breaking away (i.e. secession) from a mother country. Revolution 101 and stuff ...

The colonists in America had no voice in the British government, yet, they were expected to do their part to subsidize it. The Southern states had full representation in the US government and, therefore, were not voiceless or voteless in determining their future as the colonists were. The fact that the Southerners used the same means as the colonists isn't the same as possessing the same "spirit," in my opinion. Had the Southerners been, say, the US Virgin Islands, then the comparison might be more accurate.

Al,

You can speculate on the motives of why the Southerners decided to secede and whether or not it made any sense "in your opinion." The fact remains: they saw themselves as "patriots" defending the intent of the original Constitution. The founders were extremely wary of an over-reaching Federal government. Southerners must have felt the same wariness as the federal government kept eroding their state's sovereignity & freedom to act in their own best interests. The question of secession and whether it was illegal for a state or states to employ it wasn't stated explicitly in the Constitution. Saniflush is correct about the numerous times that secession had been threatened by various states. The legality of secession wasn't declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court until 1869, 8 years after the war started.

I don't have any doubt that the secessionists saw themselves as patriots. I'm sure despots around the world had that same self-image, too. But, it doesn't make it so.