Did the South have a right to secede?

[Great Agram]

Nope. The Articles of Confederation were a "perpetual union," and the first state to ratify them was South Carolina, in 1777. Here's the preamble to that document:

Why did every colony had its own cureny if they planned to built a unique state?

And none of the Thirteen Colonies had a majority of non-English speakers. Where do you live that they teach you these ... the only word I can think of is lies.

I am not saying that there were in majority, but as non-english speakers they could not indetife themselves with tha anglopfone colonies. The Cajuns are an example.

[Dusk_Kittens]

The original thirteen colonies after gaining freedom from Britain had their own policies and did not planned to make a state, Their planned was to make 13 independent states, their had their own interest, their own currency, some of the their own non-english languages. The US was at he beginning something what is today the EU, with the time the federation became koherent.

If the Southerenese have seen them self as Americans, why do they start the rebellion? there is something called patriotism, the Southernese obviously had not it.

The South willingly entered into both Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, thus they were perfectly willing to join together as a nation-state with the North. They left as because for the previous decades they were given free reign to fuck over the North, but in 1860 the North had enough and elected their own president. Which led the South to leave in a hissy fit much like Kid leaving after their friend scores a point in a game.

What you seem to be overlooking is the fact that, far from the South still being dominant in the Federal Government after the election of 1860 as is so often claimed by pro-Federalists, the President has the power of Veto over legislative acts, so although the South may have had a majority in one of the two Houses of Congress, the Presidency was no longer one which they could count on to support their legislative acts, nor to enforce the Constitution on matters with which the President disagreed.

[Farnhamia]

Nope. The Articles of Confederation were a "perpetual union," and the first state to ratify them was South Carolina, in 1777. Here's the preamble to that document:

Why did every colony had its own cureny if they planned to built a unique state?

And none of the Thirteen Colonies had a majority of non-English speakers. Where do you live that they teach you these ... the only word I can think of is lies.

I am not saying that there were in majority, but as non-english speakers they could not indetife themselves with tha anglopfone colonies. The Cajuns are an example.

Separate currencies were one of the problems that the Constitution fixed. The Cajuns did not live in the original United States, they lived in Louisiana, which until 1803 was part of France. Or Spain. Or France. It's confusing. And they came from Nova Scotia, in Canada, which had been called New Acadia when it was a French colony.

[The UK in Exile]

not technically true, a number of free blacks fought for their states(and a number where barred from doing so), the CSA didn't authorise black soldiers late in war. it also treated all captured black soldiers as slaves, one of the reasons prisoner exchanges broke down.

"One of the reasons." Another reason? Northern refusal to recognize the Confederate authorities as anything other than "rebels."

As for the claim that blacks were not authorized to fight for the CSA until "late in [the] war," I recommend you peruse this: Black CSA POWs in which you will find this statement:

" Negroes in the Confederate Army,"Journal of Negro History, Charles Wesley, Vol. 4, #3, (1919), 244: "The Governor of Tennessee was given permission in June 1861 to accept into the state militia black males between the ages if fifteen and fifty. The men were to receive eight dollars a month, plus clothing and rations."

so it does infact confirm that they fought for their state and not the CSA. the point holds that the CSA did not allow black men to serve as soldiers, though some states did. those that did and there were some, served against confederate policy. they were cooks and servants that picked up rifles. the irony being of course the blacks were allowed to join the navy. just not the army.

[Revolutopia]

The South willingly entered into both Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, thus they were perfectly willing to join together as a nation-state with the North. They left as because for the previous decades they were given free reign to fuck over the North, but in 1860 the North had enough and elected their own president. Which led the South to leave in a hissy fit much like Kid leaving after their friend scores a point in a game.

What you seem to be overlooking is the fact that, far from the South still being dominant in the Federal Government after the election of 1860 as is so often claimed by pro-Federalists, the President has the power of Veto over legislative acts, so although the South may have had a majority in one of the two Houses of Congress, the Presidency was no longer one which they could count on to support their legislative acts, nor to enforce the Constitution on matters with which the President disagreed.

So I lost so I am taking my ball and going home is really the arguement you are going to support, so did the North have the right to secede every time a Southern won office? Hell Obama is from Illinois, so there is no guarantee he will serve Indiana's needs thus they should have the right to leave at will.

[Great Agram]

Were there more blacks in the South in total than in the North? Yes. Were there more in the Confederate Army? No. Were there significant numbers as soldiers in the Confederate Army? No.

Were there more blacks in the South in total than in the North? Yes.
Were there more in the Confederate Army? No
Were there significant numbers as soldiers in the Confederate Army? Yes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF-QIJyL ... re=related

[Dusk_Kittens]

The original thirten colonies after dgainig freedom from britain had teir own policies and did not planned to make a state, Their planned was to make 13 independent states, their had their own interest, their own cureny, some of the their own non-english languages. The US was at he begginng something what is today the EU, with the time the federation became koherent.

If the Southerenese have seen themself as Americans, why do they start the rebelion? there is something called patriotism, the Southernese obviously had not it.

Nope. The Articles of Confederation were a "perpetual union," and the first state to ratify them was South Carolina, in 1777. Here's the preamble to that document:

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

And none of the Thirteen Colonies had a majority of non-English speakers. Where do you live that they teach you these ... the only word I can think of is lies.

Nope. The Articles of Confederation expressly state, in Article 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.

As for non-English speakers, they may or may not have been a majority, but there was indeed a sizable population of North Carolina who spoke Gaelic, and this was true until the beginning of the 20th century.

[Aquophia]

The south had the right to secede in the same way I have the right to stab someone. I can do it, but there will be consequences.

[Great Agram]

Separate currencies were one of the problems that the Constitution fixed. The Cajuns did not live in the original United States, they lived in Louisiana, which until 1803 was part of France. Or Spain. Or France. It's confusing. And they came from Nova Scotia, in Canada, which had been called New Acadia when it was a French colony.

What was such a problem to have a unique curency?

New France became 1763 part of Great Britain (the future colonies) except Louisiana.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_France

it doesnt chance the fact that the cajuns dont considered themselves as Americans.

off-topic I was trying to find this information on wikipedia but maybe you could try to answer me. is there any other white etnich group (except the cajuns) who have a little different past than the others?

[-St George]

It's the 'i have black friends I can't be racist' argument.

No, it's the "'the Confederacy massacred all these black Union soldiers, so that proves the war was racially motivated' claim countered by 'okay, so why did the CSA have black soldiers, too?'" argument.

You defenders of the Union position really need to bulk up on Northern attitudes toward blacks at the time (the ante bellum period, the period of the war itself, and the post-war era) before you attempt playing the race card.

>implying I am either Union or Confederate
>is actually British Monarchist
>lolz

[Dusk_Kittens]

No, it's the "'the Confederacy massacred all these black Union soldiers, so that proves the war was racially motivated' claim countered by 'okay, so why did the CSA have black soldiers, too?'" argument.

You defenders of the Union position really need to bulk up on Northern attitudes toward blacks at the time (the ante bellum period, the period of the war itself, and the post-war era) before you attempt playing the race card.

Oh, we admit that. We were just mocking the anti-Unionists who insist that because a few blacks served the Confederacy, the CSA wasn't that bad. Because, you know, if the North had just let them go - wayward sisters, depart in peace - everything would have been just peachy and the slaves would have sung hallelujahs in the gloaming after coming back from the fields aglow with the satisfaction of having once more fulfilled God's plan.

Yeah.

Now that would be a Neo-Confederate claim, not an "anti-Unionist" (I prefer "Anti-Federalist") claim. And that distinction is one that I think needs to be made clear. While there are certainly "Neo-Confederates" who will sing the praises of the Confederacy no matter what, and who are very likely racists (openly or covertly), there are also those like myself, who do not laud the Confederacy, but do support the right of the Confederacy to secede, who do recognize that the cause of the war was not slavery as is so often claimed, and who oppose centralized government such as that of the Federal Union.

Edit: And this has been bugging me: what are "bonobos"?

[Free Soviets]

there are also those like myself...who do recognize that the cause of the war was not slavery as is so often claimed

you can't recognize a false thing.

the war was about slavery. they said so themselves, loudly and often.

[Dusk_Kittens]

What you seem to be overlooking is the fact that, far from the South still being dominant in the Federal Government after the election of 1860 as is so often claimed by pro-Federalists, the President has the power of Veto over legislative acts, so although the South may have had a majority in one of the two Houses of Congress, the Presidency was no longer one which they could count on to support their legislative acts, nor to enforce the Constitution on matters with which the President disagreed.

So I lost so I am taking my ball and going home is really the arguement you are going to support, so did the North have the right to secede every time a Southern won office? Hell Obama is from Illinois, so there is no guarantee he will serve Indiana's needs thus they should have the right to leave at will.

I don't believe that the differences between Illinois and Indiana are that intense.

The State of New Hampshire has occasionally, over the past decade or two, entertained talk of secession on what I believe are civil libertarian grounds, and a handful of "Christian reconstructionists" have also entertained the idea of all moving to South Carolina and seceding in order to establish a theocracy. While I would probably endorse New Hampshire's goals, I would not endorse those of the "Christian reconstructionists." However, ...

At the moment, the sectionalism and polarization in the US is comparable to the scale it was at in 1861. I would hate to see secession by almost anyone (New Hampshire probably excepted, but only if my understanding of their position is correct) at the present time, because the polarization has reached the point of caricature, so ludicrous are the opposing positions on most issues -- and because I cannot stomach either the self-righteous busybodies who want to shove their religion down my throat nor the self-righteous busybodies who want to shove their idealistic naïveté down my throat (and these are the two camps into which the nation is currently polarized, with some saner manifestations who are willing to go along with one or the other of the two extremes to some extent, if only in an effort to secure political power for themselves).

Nevertheless, I contend that any state has the right to secede, regardless of its motives in so doing (although I would hope that any secession were undertaken for the purpose of increasing liberty, rather than decreasing it).

Thus, though it pains me to affirm it, if the Christian reactionaries -- err, "Christian reconstructionists" were to form a majority of the voting population of South Carolina and vote for secession, I would be bound (on the grounds of my political philosophy) to support their decision (because my political philosophy is in favor of decentralized government and self-determination; but this also means that any residents of South Carolina who opposed said decision would need to be enabled to remain free of theocratic control somehow -- perhaps if they all lived in or migrated to certain counties in one area of SC, they could "hive off" from SC as West Virginia did from Virginia -- and I also would insist that Charleston would have to be a "free city" apart from the proposed theocracy, due to historical connections with organizations which oppose religious despotism).

[Dusk_Kittens]

there are also those like myself...who do recognize that the cause of the war was not slavery as is so often claimed

you can't recognize a false thing.

the war was about slavery. they said so themselves, loudly and often.

I have shown often enough in these fora that it was not that I don't feel the need to respond to your contention other than by telling you to consult my posting history.

[Dusk_Kittens]

No, it's the "'the Confederacy massacred all these black Union soldiers, so that proves the war was racially motivated' claim countered by 'okay, so why did the CSA have black soldiers, too?'" argument.

You defenders of the Union position really need to bulk up on Northern attitudes toward blacks at the time (the ante bellum period, the period of the war itself, and the post-war era) before you attempt playing the race card.

>implying I am either Union or Confederate
>is actually British Monarchist
>lolz

Which, however, does not excuse you from the charge of being a "defender of the Union position."

[Free Soviets]

you can't recognize a false thing.

the war was about slavery. they said so themselves, loudly and often.

I have shown often enough in these fora that it was not that I don't feel the need to respond to your contention other than by telling you to consult my posting history.

in english, 'shown' does not mean 'posted some crap that was trashed a hundred times over'. when the very states who started the war talked explicitly and entirely about slavery, then your bullshitting can't change matters.

[-St George]

>implying I am either Union or Confederate
>is actually British Monarchist
>lolz

Which, however, does not excuse you from the charge of being a "defender of the Union position."

K, I'll play your game.

1, Union attitudes to slaves and blacks are/were irrelevant to my point.
2, it is not inconceivable that there were blacks sympathetic to the Confederate position, a la the 'SHIT list' of the modern Israel-Palestine Conflict.
3, existence of said people does not mean that the Civil War was not about slavery and/or black rights/freedoms.
4, mentioning black army units and soldiers in the Confederate army and using the existence of such as 'evidence' that the conflict wasn't primarily about slavery and/or black rights/freedoms is historical revisionism of the highest order.

[Dusk_Kittens]

I have shown often enough in these fora that it was not that I don't feel the need to respond to your contention other than by telling you to consult my posting history.

in english, 'shown' does not mean 'posted some crap that was trashed a hundred times over'. when the very states who started the war talked explicitly and entirely about slavery, then your bullshitting can't change matters.

No, "shown" refers to having resort to the original documents as well as historical facts of the time, noting that South Carolina's Declaration of Secession complains of the violation of the Constitution on the part of some Northern states, which, the said document maintains, renders the whole null and void, for if a state might violate the Constitution in one part, it might violate the Constitution in any part. The fact that the part violated was related to slavery is a non-issue; South Carolina had already demonstrated that it was willing to secede over tariffs (but they got slapped down by the Federal government over that one, and threatened with force), the point being that South Carolina was looking for an excuse to secede, and felt that they would have support from other Southern states on this occasion, due to the nature of the causes stated affecting all the Southern states to a greater or lesser degree.

Obstinate insistence on Federalist propaganda is the bullshitting.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Which, however, does not excuse you from the charge of being a "defender of the Union position."

K, I'll play your game.

1, Union attitudes to slaves and blacks are/were irrelevant to my point.
2, it is not inconceivable that there were blacks sympathetic to the Confederate position, a la the 'SHIT list' of the modern Israel-Palestine Conflict.
3, existence of said people does not mean that the Civil War was not about slavery and/or black rights/freedoms.
4, mentioning black army units and soldiers in the Confederate army and using the existence of such as 'evidence' that the conflict wasn't primarily about slavery and/or black rights/freedoms is historical revisionism of the highest order.

Uh, no, you're not playing my game at all.

1. Attempts to accuse me of racism for pointing out that there were blacks who fought for the Confederacy, when the inhabitants of the North were just as prone to racism as anyone else at the time constitute an inability to see the point being made, and, as is all-too-typical in these discussions, Argumentum ad Hominem.
2. Of course there were blacks sympathetic to the Confederate position, but they were neither quislings nor collaborators, because the Confederate position was not adopted on the basis of slavery per se, but on the bases of Anti-Federalism and the nullification, by certain Northern states, of the Constitution. That this nullification concerned slavery is a moot point, because South Carolina had already threatened to secede over an issue that had nothing at all to do with slavery, and would have seized upon any act of nullification by Northern states as grounds for secession.
3. No, it doesn't. It does, however, form an inconvenient truth for those who insist that the war was motivated by racial concerns and/or concerns over slavery.
4. I've given more than enough other evidence previously; the fact of blacks fighting for the Confederacy is simply a fact worth considering in addition to the other evidence. The revisionism consists in claims that the Confederate Naval Jack is a symbol of racism and/or pro-slavery beliefs and needs to be prohibited.

[-St George]

K, I'll play your game.

1, Union attitudes to slaves and blacks are/were irrelevant to my point.
2, it is not inconceivable that there were blacks sympathetic to the Confederate position, a la the 'SHIT list' of the modern Israel-Palestine Conflict.
3, existence of said people does not mean that the Civil War was not about slavery and/or black rights/freedoms.
4, mentioning black army units and soldiers in the Confederate army and using the existence of such as 'evidence' that the conflict wasn't primarily about slavery and/or black rights/freedoms is historical revisionism of the highest order.

Uh, no, you're not playing my game at all.

1. Attempts to accuse me of racism for pointing out that there were blacks who fought for the Confederacy, when the inhabitants of the North were just as prone to racism as anyone else at the time constitute an inability to see the point being made, and, as is all-too-typical in these discussions, Argumentum ad Hominem.
2. Of course there were blacks sympathetic to the Confederate position, but they were neither quislings nor collaborators, because the Confederate position was not adopted on the basis of slavery per se, but on the bases of Anti-Federalism and the nullification, by certain Northern states, of the Constitution. That this nullification concerned slavery is a moot point, because South Carolina had already threatened to secede over an issue that had nothing at all to do with slavery, and would have seized upon any act of nullification by Northern states as grounds for secession.
3. No, it doesn't. It does, however, form an inconvenient truth for those who insist that the war was motivated by racial concerns and/or concerns over slavery.
4. I've given more than enough other evidence previously; the fact of blacks fighting for the Confederacy is simply a fact worth considering in addition to the other evidence. The revisionism consists in claims that the Confederate Naval Jack is a symbol of racism and/or pro-slavery beliefs and needs to be prohibited.

1, Who accused you of racism?
2, >war fought between slave states and non slave states. >slavery abolished following said war. >slavery is moot point. Whut?
3, You mean aside from Southern rhetoric that loudly and proudly proclaimed that "were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race"?
4, The Confederate Naval Jack, regardless of what it meant then, now is a symbol of racism and/or pro-slavery beliefs. I don't believe it should be prohibited, but what it means now is what's important, rather than what it meant then.

[Distruzio]

Nope. The Articles of Confederation were a "perpetual union," and the first state to ratify them was South Carolina, in 1777. Here's the preamble to that document:

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

I see you failed to actually read my responses to ASB in that so often cited thread in which I utterly demolish his assertion that the word 'perpetual' means anything beyond continuing.

If a league between sovereign powers have no limitation as to the time of its duration, and contain nothing making it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of the parties, although no violation be complained of. If, in the opinion of either party, it be violated, such party may say that he will no longer fulfill its obligations on his part, but will consider the whole league or compact at an end, although it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual. Upon this principle, the Congress of the United States, in 1798, declared null and void the treaty of alliance between the United States and France, though it professed to be a perpetual alliance.

Daniel Webster 1798

It can hardly be said that Daniel Webster was an anti-federalist sort. What is more interesting is that you, and ASB, along with others seem to forget that the Association was not the Confederation was not the Union. Each had to secede from the preceding in order to form the new gov't. Hell, the Confederation had its own Presidents.

[Distruzio]

The South was only anti-federalist when it came things like tariffs, saying how in the years proceeding the Civil War they repeatedly used their political influence to increase Federal power through things like the Fugitive Slave Act.

A curious accusation considering that when they actually achieved their independence, the first thing those that held the Slaves as property was to forbid the Confederate gov't from ever addressing the institution at all. Which suggests that perhaps the issue is not as clear cut as you'd like it to be.

And about the whole Northern state violating the constitution should proponents of nullification believe that the states should have the right to follow or not any federal edict?

I think you are asking if we'd say that any state, regardless of anti- or pro-federalist should enjoy the right of nullification? If that be your question, then yes.

I Additionally, all they have is allegations if they really thought they were right then they should have brought it to the court system, where their dominance would probably would have ruled favorably for them. yet, they didn't so it only allegation and one is innocent until proven guilty.

The position of the seceding states was that this was not a matter to be discussed between the different branches of the federal gov't when it was the federal gov't violating the Constitution. The Constitution was not signed by the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executive. It was signed by the states. Therefore, only they, the states, could determine when and if it were violated. The Constitution creates the Federal gov't. It is not subject to the federal gov't.

This was the position of the South.

[Distruzio]

The Constitution allows the Federal government to levy tariffs and establishes Federal Supremacy, however the South Carolina still believed they were in their right to disregard federal established tariffs enacted fully under Constitutional law. So why cannot the North also disregard stuff established in the constitution if the South truly believed in their ideals?

They did.

[Distruzio]

Obviously, the American Declaration of Independence was legitimate, while the Confederate, Biafran, Katangan and Nagaland declarations weren't. Unless you can back up your claim to nationhood by force of arms, it means nothing, To lawfully secede, one must succeed.

I can beat up my math teacher, therefore 2+2= potato.

[Desori]

Obviously, the American Declaration of Independence was legitimate, while the Confederate, Biafran, Katangan and Nagaland declarations weren't. Unless you can back up your claim to nationhood by force of arms, it means nothing, To lawfully secede, one must succeed.

That's the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard. Either they have the right, or they don't. What comes next is up to the nation that has been split.