The union was different -- boy, was it -- but not better, not morally superior. The South's "sins" were no worse than the union's "sins." And the South didn't fight for slavery. Southerners fought to defend families, homes and communities from a horde of savages wearing military uniforms that was swarming over their land killing people and destroying everything. It is hysterically laughable to imagine that the union army barbarians invaded the South and killed Southerners in order to free slaves.
"Remember, the south fought for slavery...that makes them different from the Union."
Remember, In 1859, The French Second Empire, The Kingdom Sardinia and the United Provinces of Central Italy, fought for Italian independence. That makes them different from the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy.
Connie, then explain to my why the secession documents all mention slavery as the cause of secession and the war? For example....Henry Benning Secession Commissioner from Georgia to Virginia:
"What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery."
The Union may not have started out fighting to free the slaves..but that is the ultimate end result. Southern soldiers fought for home as well as the Governments cause: Slavery.
Corey, why don't you explain to me why you lie about this -- why you've BEEN lying about it for years? The secession document identify causes of SECESSION. For the umpteenth time, since you seem to have trouble grasping it, SECESSION. IS. NOT. WAR.
Say it. Secession is not war. Say it over and over until it starts to sink in.
The documents don't mention WAR. Your quote by Benning doesn't mention war. He mentioned separation from the north. SEPARATION. From the north.
SEPARATION IS NOT WAR. SECESSION IS NOT WAR.
Slavery wasn't the CSA government's cause for war. THE SOUTH WAS INVADED. THE GOVERNMENT'S CAUSE WAS TO DEFEND AGAINST AN UNCIVILIZED INVADER THAT BURNED WHOLE TOWNS AND MURDERED CIVILIANS.
So what if ending slavery was the ultimate result? That doesn't give the union any high ground because that was not why the blue barbarians invaded the South and killed Southerners. It wasn't their flippin' CAUSE. They invaded because the Southern states left the union. They didn't care WHY the South left. All they wanted to do was kill Southerners and destroy the South because of it.
You can keep lying to yourself about why the two sides fought, so you can pretend your side was the good guys. They were not. You are delusional if you think they were.
Secession led to war...how can the south say it was invaded when it fired the first shot...you ancestors started it...Mine simple finished it.
It wasn't their flippin' cause? Mississippi claims it right out the door in it causes of secession...
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery --- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."
"then explain to my why the secession documents all mention slavery as the cause of secession"
They could of mentioned cigars and whiskey. Or wagon wheels.
So what?
New England wanted to secede over the War of 1812, The Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican American War, and the admission of Texas, California, Oregon and Washington State to the Union.
So What?
For the sake of argument, what if a state, or states, wanted to secede over abortion rights, or the legalisation of marijuana?
So what?
Your trying to append moral qualifications onto what are legal and political questions. Law and morality are not the same thing. There are SJWs who tried to use morality as a defense. That's why they're in prison. Morality is not an operational component of Law. Period.
Furthermore, what is a legitimate reason for secession, or nullification, or for dissolving the Federal Government, or even the Union,or not, is for the state or states involved to decide. Nobody else. Not even the other states.
The Hartford Convention in 1814 discussed secession over the War of 1812...but then decided to call for amendments to the Constitution instead of secession. When word got out that they talked of secession it was the end of the Federalist party.
There is not legit cause for nullification or secession when we have the rule of law and the right to vote in or out our representatives. Once we got to the ballot we cannot go back to the bullet.
The only thing that stopped New England secession was the ending of the War of 1812.
"The Hartford Convention in 1814 discussed secession over the War of 1812.."
There is no "but." You're trying to defend and justify something that doesn't need defending or justification. The New England States did nothing wrong, except call a convention during wartime. Which was a violation of propiety. Not a violation of any laws. That's what aggravated the other states. Not the secession bit, per se. It was simply bad form to call a secession convention in the middle of a war. Nothing else.
However,they also wanted to secede over the Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican-American war, and the additions of California, Oregon and Texas to the Union. Nonetheless, that was their right, as sovereign members of a confederation, to do so. Like it or not.
"Once we got to the ballot we cannot go back to the bullet."
Neither Nullification nor Secession necessarily require bullets. Unless you contemplate the extreme measure of having to physically remove Congress and the President by force.
"There is no legit cause for nullification or secession when we have the rule of law and the right to vote in or out our representatives"
Assuming the representatives prevent or rescind unconstitutional legislation and decausethe rights, liberties and interests of their constituents and states. Which involves a great amount of faith and trust on the part of the polity.
Remember, the south fought for slavery...that makes them different from the Union.
ReplyDeleteThe union was different -- boy, was it -- but not better, not morally superior. The South's "sins" were no worse than the union's "sins." And the South didn't fight for slavery. Southerners fought to defend families, homes and communities from a horde of savages wearing military uniforms that was swarming over their land killing people and destroying everything. It is hysterically laughable to imagine that the union army barbarians invaded the South and killed Southerners in order to free slaves.
Delete"Remember, the south fought for slavery...that makes them different from the Union."
DeleteRemember, In 1859, The French Second Empire, The Kingdom Sardinia and the United Provinces of Central Italy, fought for Italian independence. That makes them different from the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy.
Connie, then explain to my why the secession documents all mention slavery as the cause of secession and the war? For example....Henry Benning Secession Commissioner from Georgia to Virginia:
Delete"What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery."
The Union may not have started out fighting to free the slaves..but that is the ultimate end result. Southern soldiers fought for home as well as the Governments cause: Slavery.
Corey, why don't you explain to me why you lie about this -- why you've BEEN lying about it for years? The secession document identify causes of SECESSION. For the umpteenth time, since you seem to have trouble grasping it, SECESSION. IS. NOT. WAR.
ReplyDeleteSay it. Secession is not war. Say it over and over until it starts to sink in.
The documents don't mention WAR. Your quote by Benning doesn't mention war. He mentioned separation from the north. SEPARATION. From the north.
SEPARATION IS NOT WAR. SECESSION IS NOT WAR.
Slavery wasn't the CSA government's cause for war. THE SOUTH WAS INVADED. THE GOVERNMENT'S CAUSE WAS TO DEFEND AGAINST AN UNCIVILIZED INVADER THAT BURNED WHOLE TOWNS AND MURDERED CIVILIANS.
So what if ending slavery was the ultimate result? That doesn't give the union any high ground because that was not why the blue barbarians invaded the South and killed Southerners. It wasn't their flippin' CAUSE. They invaded because the Southern states left the union. They didn't care WHY the South left. All they wanted to do was kill Southerners and destroy the South because of it.
You can keep lying to yourself about why the two sides fought, so you can pretend your side was the good guys. They were not. You are delusional if you think they were.
Secession led to war...how can the south say it was invaded when it fired the first shot...you ancestors started it...Mine simple finished it.
DeleteIt wasn't their flippin' cause? Mississippi claims it right out the door in it causes of secession...
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery --- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."
"Secession led to war...how can the south say it was invaded when it fired the first shot..."
ReplyDeleteIf a foreign army is 70mi. inside your borders, but the army you sent to counter them fires first, does that mean you started the war?
"then explain to my why the secession documents all mention slavery as the cause of secession"
ReplyDeleteThey could of mentioned cigars and whiskey. Or wagon wheels.
So what?
New England wanted to secede over the War of 1812, The Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican American War, and the admission of Texas, California, Oregon and Washington State to the Union.
So What?
For the sake of argument, what if a state, or states, wanted to secede over abortion rights, or the legalisation of marijuana?
So what?
Your trying to append moral qualifications onto what are legal and political questions. Law and morality are not the same thing. There are SJWs who tried to use morality as a defense. That's why they're in prison. Morality is not an operational component of Law. Period.
Furthermore, what is a legitimate reason for secession, or nullification, or for dissolving the Federal Government, or even the Union,or not, is for the state or states involved to decide. Nobody else. Not even the other states.
The Hartford Convention in 1814 discussed secession over the War of 1812...but then decided to call for amendments to the Constitution instead of secession. When word got out that they talked of secession it was the end of the Federalist party.
DeleteThere is not legit cause for nullification or secession when we have the rule of law and the right to vote in or out our representatives. Once we got to the ballot we cannot go back to the bullet.
The only thing that stopped New England secession was the ending of the War of 1812.
Delete"The Hartford Convention in 1814 discussed secession over the War of 1812.."
There is no "but." You're trying to defend and justify something that doesn't need defending or justification. The New England States did nothing wrong, except call a convention during wartime. Which was a violation of propiety. Not a violation of any laws. That's what aggravated the other states. Not the secession bit, per se. It was simply bad form to call a secession convention in the middle of a war. Nothing else.
However,they also wanted to secede over the Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican-American war, and the additions of California, Oregon and Texas to the Union. Nonetheless, that was their right, as sovereign members of a confederation, to do so. Like it or not.
"Once we got to the ballot we cannot go back to the bullet."
Neither Nullification nor Secession necessarily require bullets. Unless you contemplate the extreme measure of having to physically remove Congress and the President by force.
"There is no legit cause for nullification or secession when we have the rule of law and the right to vote in or out our representatives"
Assuming the representatives prevent or rescind unconstitutional legislation and decausethe rights, liberties and interests of their constituents and states. Which involves a great amount of faith and trust on the part of the polity.