Anti-Intellectualism and Confederate Heritage

Ben Jones, chief of heritage operations for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, offered the following observation on this blog:

Surely an old cracker like me couldn’t possibly be as knowledgable or as circumspect as these academic “intellectuals”, right? I fear that this is exactly the attitude that gives academia its bad rap as a place for pretentious, condescending folks who are “an inch wide and a mile deep.”

Apparently he targets not only yours truly but also “Professor” Albert Mackey, whom Mr. Jones calls “Al the Hokie” as a sign of his respect as he engages in intelligent discourse.

I find Ben Jones amusing. I also find him disappointing. His posts here suggest that his appointment as chief of heritage operations for the Sons of Confederate Veterans was little more than a cosmetic change, where Jones’s celebrity might prove advantageous. Some people call this putting lipstick on a pig, but I won’t go there.

Mr. Jones observes:

Both he and Al Hokie lambast me for simply being a successful person out in the world and not even reading or understanding my studies. This over-reaction subsumes real argument and earnest debate, of course.

Would someone please point out where I lambasted Mr. Jones for simply being a successful person out in the world? As for overreaction subsuming real argument and earnest debate, I wonder how calling someone “Al the Hokie” advances that agenda. Here’s how Mr. Jones engages in “earnest debate”:

Well, now I’ve got Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee to deal with.

For history professors, you guys sure have a lot of time to play on the internet.

I wonder, Brooks, if you are not too invested in your tiny bit of blog-power to be genuinely serious about “building bridges”.

Or if indeed, you are writing all this stuff….

Talk about “an aroma of social bigotry.” Mr Jones’s comments reek in that regard. Insult followed by insult–that’s how Mr. Jones engages in “real argument and earnest debate.”

Of course, that gets us back to the point made in this article.

Parents, community leaders, public figures, popular culture icons, and peers tell our children–in words, deeds, and attitudes–that education is worthless. There is an aversion to education, a rising tide of anti-intellectualism, contempt for scientific investigation, and condescension towards the study of the humanities.

It’s as if someone was describing Ben Jones, at least in light of his behavior here.

But at least we know that the Sons of Confederate Veterans are putting their best foot forward.

297 thoughts on “Anti-Intellectualism and Confederate Heritage

  1. Sandi Saunders August 13, 2014 / 12:52 pm

    Excellent article by Mr. White. Why we cannot celebrate the “common sense” of the “common man” and still honor the learned who “bother” with extensive and on-going education, research and intellectual property is a real question.

    • Brooks D. Simpson August 13, 2014 / 1:02 pm

      I think this has to do with Mr. Jones’s insecurity. For example, who really cares how many books he owns? If that’s the measure of one’s intelligence, then the books in my garage wipe out his entire collection.

  2. Al Mackey August 13, 2014 / 1:15 pm

    Well, maybe I can get a job as a professor now that I’ve been dubbed one. 😉

    Mr. Jones seems to me to be a bit frustrated that the facts aren’t on his side.

    • Rosemary August 14, 2014 / 10:52 am

      ummm… back when I recommended an honorary doctorate for you, Mr. M., I didn’t realize there’d be opportunity for such diverse support….🙂

      • Al Mackey August 14, 2014 / 4:58 pm

        We could be witnessing the beginning of a grass roots movement. 🙂

  3. The other Susan August 13, 2014 / 2:14 pm

    Aw. You gotta feel a little sorry for the guy he seems to be a case for the Twilight Zone.

    • Christopher Shelley August 13, 2014 / 6:09 pm

      ~Lovely.~ At least it’s honest. It definitely makes me rejoice that those Southern racists lost the Civil War. No doubt, they will continue to lose the modern culture wars.

      • Jessie Alan Sanford August 13, 2014 / 7:14 pm

        Mr Shelley
        How many minority members do you support or live in your home? To answer your next question, its just me, my wife and my dog. And oh by the way you have a avaitar of one of the most racists President since Wilson.

        • Christopher Shelley August 13, 2014 / 7:27 pm

          Why are you so sensitive, Mr Sanford? I never said you were a racist. And I never said Southerners were racist. But those who committed treason in 1860 were certainly racist, and the world they promoted, as illustrated by the “Fire-eaters” FB page, proves that.

          Or are you merely a sore loser?

          And I’ll stand by Mr. Lincoln–who outgrew his breeding to do the right thing because his LOGIC overcame his irrational racism–any day of the week. I’ll take his DEEDS in regard to blacks over his WORDS. Yessir, Ol’ Brother Abraham can bat cleanup for my club any time.

          • Jessie Alan Sanford August 13, 2014 / 8:10 pm

            Mr Lincoln was a racist till his dying day. And it was very sad day for the South when he was killed. He would possible have save this country from many a sorrows and troubles if he had lived. I have no respect for Mr. Lincoln because of his invasion of the CSA, but I do believe his only objective was to keep the South in the Union, and I do believe he would have tried to solve the slave problem after winning the war.The radical republicans left us in the mess we are in now.
            And no, I am not sensitive, and no the folks in 1860 did not committ treason, if they did prove it. Sore loser??? What they heck are you talking about?

          • Christopher Shelley August 14, 2014 / 10:15 am

            Prove it? Wow, that’s easy. Let’s look at the U.S. Constitution:

            Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

            Article VI, Clause 3:
            The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

            Therefore, because pretty much every secessionist in Confederate or Confederate state governments had at one time or another swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and then broke that oath, they committed treason. And because pretty much every CSA army officer above the rank of Major also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and then broke that oath, they committed treason.

            So, thanks for the softball question, Mr. Sanford. Anything else you need help with?

          • Jessie Alan Sanford August 14, 2014 / 11:13 am

            Mr Shelley
            Who invaded who? The South did not make war upon the States until they were invaded, so how could they be traitors to a country that they were no longer citizens of? Could that be the reason none were tried for treason?

          • Christopher Shelley August 14, 2014 / 1:39 pm

            You’re leaving out that whole secession thing. And the whole Ft. Sumter thing.

            But it matters not at all what their states did: they, as citizens—as men of honor, allegedly—swore their oaths to uphold the Constitution. That oath doesn’t magically go away because some wacky state decides it can leave the Union. They betrayed their sacred oaths. Try again.

          • Jimmy Dick August 14, 2014 / 1:53 pm

            Excuse me? Brain spasm? Forget about Ft. Sumter by any chance? They were traitors as Christopher explained. Would you like another lesson on the Constitution to show you where you are wrong as usual? Just look at Art. IV, sec. 4. They were not tried for other reasons.

          • Melissa Blue August 15, 2014 / 7:05 am

            In answer to your question, South Carolina thoroughly severed the political connection it once had with the United States, so it was the United States who lawlessly occupied its territorial integrity. As for treason, despite 4 years of open warfare, there was never a possibility of convicting any Confederate of the charge. This is because secession is not unlawful, and the U.S. Government knew it.

          • John Foskett August 15, 2014 / 10:15 am

            You should read a great deal more about why CSA leaders were not prosecuted for treason. It had nothing – zero – to do with the “legality” of secession. If you’re interested in facts, start with the case of Mr. Davis and delve into the 14th Amendment. If you do, you’ll also find a decision by Justice Chase which held that secession was indeed unlawful and not allowed by the Constitution (which, as I’m sure you know, says nothing about “secession”). Chase was the judge who was involved in resolution of the Davis case.

          • Jimmy Dick August 15, 2014 / 10:43 am

            Don’t worry, it’s just the Waterboy out peddling his ignorance. He makes this claim all the time, gets proven wrong, changes his name, and repeats the same claim. Parrots have made him an honorary bird.

          • Melissa Blue August 15, 2014 / 11:43 am

            When you say “resolution of the Davis case”, you mean he was convicted of treason, right? After all, he wageda protracted and public war against the United States. If it is so crystal clear that secession is unlawful, it shoulda been very, very easy to convict him of treason. Right?

          • John Foskett August 16, 2014 / 9:15 am

            I’m begging you – do some actual reading and educate yourself. It’s easy to find out what happened in the Davis case and why. Helpful tip – the 14th Amendment is involved.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 1:02 pm

            Don’t know how I missed this. Anyway, the reason the CSA leadership was never prosecuted for “treason” is because secession is perfectly lawful, and the U.S. Federal Government knew it. Their cause would have utterly ruined for all time when they failed to obtain convictions after trial. If the government wanted to demonstrtate leniency and magnamity, they couild have tried, convicted, and then suspended any sentence. But they had no hope of obtaining a conviction.

          • The other Susan August 21, 2014 / 1:34 pm

            Yeah, they knew it was “perfectly lawful” so much that they ruled that it was in Texas v White. Oh, no wait, they didn’t.

          • John Foskett August 21, 2014 / 1:36 pm

            You’re dead wrong. As usual. Go read Shortbridge v. Macon, 2 Am.L.Rev. 95, 99 (C.C.D.C. N.C. 1868). The guy who wrote it is the guy who also resolved the Davis prosecution based on interpretation of the 14th Amendment and not based on the canard that secession was in any way “lawful” – quite the contrary. Lesson learned by the US, however – don’t give traitors leniency in hopes of reconciling and moving on. By the way, I think Chase was familiar with “rebellion/insurrection”. You’re clearly not.

          • Melissa Blue August 22, 2014 / 2:56 pm

            Texas v White? Tell me again, on which provision of the Constitution did Chase rest his argument? Oh, that’s right, none. But in fairness to Chase, that’s only because there in no prohibition against secession.

          • Jimmy Dick August 15, 2014 / 10:45 am

            As usual your answer is wrong. You really need to learn instead of repeat the same old thing. I guess playing foosball at a big university didn’t do anything for your ability to learn. Now go get your fine H2O table ready for the rest of the team, Waterboy.

          • John Foskett August 15, 2014 / 10:10 am

            It was a rebellion. Look it up. Same as the AWI was a rebellion against the Crown, by the way – a fact not shunned by the perpetrators. In fact, when they stop playing word games about “secession”, the pro-Confederate crowd loves the AWI analogy. The difference between 1775 and 1861 is that the Constitution deals with rebellion. Hint: it’s not allowed. As for some simple history, the war started when those in rebellion fired on a long-existing United States military installation without provocation. Show me the dictionary definition which uses that for “invaded”.

          • Melissa Blue August 15, 2014 / 11:45 am

            “Hint: it’s not allowed:

            You keep saying that, and yet you cannot do show me where secession is prohibited by the constitution. Why is that?

          • John Foskett August 16, 2014 / 9:13 am

            Admit it – you can’t deal with the “rebellion” issue, can you? Otherwise you’d tackle it.

          • Melissa Blue August 22, 2014 / 2:58 pm

            Show me the constitutional prohibition which forbids secession. Consider rebellion tackled.

          • Jimmy Dick August 16, 2014 / 12:52 pm

            Show where it is allowed. OH, that’s right. It is not in the Constitution saying a state can secede. Gee wilikers, Waterboy! What will you say now that you have not already said and been proven to be wrong on?

          • Sandi Saunders August 21, 2014 / 2:00 pm

            They were not all tried and convicted of their treason, but that is not the same as not committing treason, which they did. Secession is not specifically outlawed in the Constitution but that is not the same as the Constitution allows it, which it does not. Federal processes are explained, they are not just left to chance. The US Congress made no law, process or system for secession because it is not allowed. You offer nothing but sophistry, fools do grasp at straws so I can see why you would.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 2:42 pm

            All? How about NONE were tried and convicted for treason. And yes, that is the same as not committing treason, which none did. As for your foolish claim secession is “not allowed”, please show me where the constitution says that. If you can not, and you surely can not, I’ll just take that as a concession on your part.

          • Sandi Saunders August 21, 2014 / 4:42 pm

            You are the one who insists it is possible so please show us where the Constitution says that States can secede and by what process. If you can not, and you surely can not, I’ll just take that as a concession on your part.

          • Jimmy Dick August 21, 2014 / 2:52 pm

            You can expect the usual Lost Cause Handbook version of denial from the Waterboy at any time. So far he has shown a complete lack of originality, critical thinking, intelligence, understanding, and ability to use context with historical analysis. He however, has excelled in cherry picking the past to suit his beliefs and providing water to foosball teams.

          • Melissa Blue August 22, 2014 / 3:00 pm

            All this huffin and puffin, and still no one cacn show me where the constitution prohibits secession. Tsk, tsk, tsk…

    • SF Walker August 13, 2014 / 6:56 pm

      I feel sorry for you. I can’t help but feel that showcasing the words of leaders of such a vile cause is a waste of time and effort. In many other countries, these men would probably have been executed for treason. Actually, I’m proud that our country didn’t do that. It’s worth remembering that their suffering at the hands of “carpetbaggers” resulted from losing a war that they both caused and welcomed.

      • Brooks D. Simpson August 13, 2014 / 7:04 pm

        Brad has always been forthright about his views. A better question is whether Ben Jones welcomes his support in defense of Confederate heritage.

        • Hunter Wallace August 13, 2014 / 7:11 pm

          The idea behind this Facebook page is to print the unedited and unvarnished truth about race in the Confederacy. We’re just going to let the Confederates and our Southern ancestors speak for themselves on that subject.

          In the spirit of Gary Adams of the Southern Heritage Preservation Group, we’re on a quest to follow the truth wherever it leads. I’ve been browsing the “Southern heritage” pages on Facebook and for some reason never see any of this material.

        • Christopher Shelley August 13, 2014 / 7:53 pm

          Aye, there’s the rub, right? He just got mad at me when I asked.

          • Jimmy Dick August 14, 2014 / 1:55 pm

            I love the line where he says he will let the people of the past speak for themselves. I wonder if he means he will let them explain that they were racists? When it comes to the truth he seems to ignore a lot of it.

          • Christopher Shelley August 14, 2014 / 2:54 pm

            No, I think that’s exactly his point. He’s arguing that today’s Confederates embrace their past rather than pretend it didn’t exist.

      • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 8:43 am

        Executed for treason? Who, exactly, was convicted of treason? And the Unionists caused the war. All the Confederates asked was to be let alone.

        • Sandi Saunders August 18, 2014 / 11:24 am

          Being pardoned is not the same as not being guilty of treason. It was an effort at reconciliation that we have paid for ever since.

          • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 12:25 pm

            Jefferson Davis was not pardoned. It would have been utterly impossible to obtain a conviction against him, so the federal government simply entered a “nolle prosequi” in the case. Had they tried to prosecute, it would have been a humiliating defeat, and they knew it.

        • The other Susan August 18, 2014 / 11:43 am

          How did the Unionists cause the war exactly?

          • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 12:27 pm

            All the Confederates wanted was political independence. They wanted no war, only to be left alone.

          • Michael Rodgers August 18, 2014 / 1:44 pm

            Ma’am, that’s a load of bunk. They wanted not just to secede but also to spread slavery to the territories.

          • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 2:04 pm

            Nonsense. The CSA wanted only to be let alone. Whatever territorial questions existed, they were more than happy to adjust through diplomacy.

          • Brooks D. Simpson August 18, 2014 / 2:25 pm

            Just look at what it did in the Southwest.

            The best thing about MB’s claims is that the lack of documentation does not deter her assertions.

            Still waiting to hear what she has to say about the League of the South’s portrayal of Confederate history. After all, if she calls everyone else out, why should she spare them? Guess.

          • Jimmy Dick August 18, 2014 / 3:30 pm

            Really? Why attack Fort Sumter? Why call up an Army? Why invade the Southwest? Looks to me through the facts that the CSA chose war as a diplomatic tool in South Carolina.

          • The other Susan August 18, 2014 / 1:46 pm

            That didn’t answer the question. Anyone fighting a war would be happy if the other side gave up and left them alone. But how did the Unionists cause the war?

          • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 1:58 pm

            “Anyone fighting a war would be happy if the other side gave up and left them alone.”

            This is blatantly false. The Confederate States were perfectly willing to stop the fighting and leave the United States completely alone. It was the United States that insisted on the war.

          • Jimmy Dick August 18, 2014 / 3:30 pm

            And you forget Fort Sumter as you usually do, Waterboy.

          • Michael Rodgers August 18, 2014 / 3:43 pm

            The United States include the insurrecting states so the only way to leave — besides getting Congressional approval via Article IV — is to physically move.

          • The other Susan August 18, 2014 / 3:52 pm

            Key word there is “stop fighting.” Much the same as the colonists were all too happy to stop fighting with Britain. Of course they wanted to stop fighting and be declared the winner. But the question was who started the fighting. And you still, still, haven’t answered how the Unionists caused the war.

        • Jimmy Dick August 18, 2014 / 11:58 am

          How did Unionists cause the war?

  4. E.A. Mayer August 13, 2014 / 6:06 pm

    Godwin be damned, I’m reminded of this:

    “Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of fascism, from Hermann Goering’s fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play (“When I hear the word ‘culture’ I reach for my gun!”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “effete snobs,” and “universities are nests of reds.” The official fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture & the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.” ~ Umberto Eco

    • Sandi Saunders August 14, 2014 / 3:13 pm

      I think you are reminded because of the eery and dangerous similarities.

  5. Jessie Alan Sanford August 13, 2014 / 7:09 pm

    Brooks, I called Big Al a jerk (by the way Mackey you are still a jerk) and now sir I call you a jerk. The only thing you folks want to do is attack anybody who does not agree with your interpretation of histor, and this is why 150 years ago my ancestors went to war with folks who think like you.
    I await your response.

    • Goad Gatsby August 13, 2014 / 10:50 pm

      Accuses people of bashing him based on his interpretation of history → Calls people jerks because of their interpretation of history

      • Al Mackey August 14, 2014 / 4:50 pm

        We’re used to that from that idiot. If he ever cracked a real history book his tiny brain would probably melt.

    • Brooks D. Simpson August 13, 2014 / 7:24 pm

      No. I just find you boring. Funny for a moment, but boring.

  6. Jessie Alan Sanford August 13, 2014 / 7:47 pm

    Yep your are right just and ole boy from Mississippi who has put hisi ass on the line for folks like you. By the way you are welcome.

    • Brooks D. Simpson August 13, 2014 / 8:07 pm

      Someday you will explain what this has to do with this thread. By the way, how do you feel about what is going on at the University of Mississippi?

          • Sandi Saunders August 14, 2014 / 10:52 am

            They did not understand the ramifications of secession then, and they don’t now. The United States owns a lot more than military installations.

          • Melissa Blue August 15, 2014 / 7:19 am

            Exactly what ramifications of secession didn’t theConfederates understand? And when the colonists separated themselves from the British Empire, did they understand all the ramifications?

          • Sandi Saunders August 15, 2014 / 7:57 am

            As Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” They knew what they were in for had they lost the American Revolution and it is specious to claim the Confederacy was without representation in the government they swore an oath to ratify and join.

          • Melissa Blue August 15, 2014 / 9:54 am

            That doesn’t answer the question as to what ramifications the Confederates didn’t understand, but all right. But let’s do be perfectlye clear about at least one thing; under our system of government, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE swears an oath to support or uphold the government. The sworn oath is to the Constitution of the United States.

          • Sandi Saunders August 15, 2014 / 10:31 am

            I never said otherwise, so the clarity is for your sake I suppose. Nothing in the Constitution they had to ratify to join the United States gave them leave to secede. That was a total assumption of powers not granted, discussed or agreed to by the other states. That is NOT how a representative Republic works.

          • Melissa Blue August 15, 2014 / 11:05 am

            Actually, you very clearly said they took an oath to uhhold the government. I correctly said they took no such oath. And I am afraid you have it backwards still; nothing in the constitution prohibited them from seceding, and the power to secede is an inherent reserved right of the states. That IS how the constitution works, and the tenth amendment makes it explicit.

          • Jessie Alan Sanford August 15, 2014 / 10:41 am

            Ms. Blue
            You are absolutely right, I myself have taken that oath the many times when I have reenlisted in the military over the last 37 years, no one swears allegiance to the government as the government changes very often. If the South had won our friends in the north may have tried Mr. Lincoln and his cronies for treason for making war upon the States. The folks on this site know this, I am not sure what their bashing of Southorn heritage groups agenda is, Maybe they would like to get a book and movie deal like McPherson. Don’t know and don’t really care.

          • Melissa Blue August 15, 2014 / 11:32 am

            Thank for the kind words Mr. Sanford. And the difference between swearing an oath to the government or swearing an oath to the constitution is positively crucial.

          • The other Susan August 15, 2014 / 12:00 pm

            A change in about 1830 read: “I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.”
            http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

          • Sandi Saunders August 15, 2014 / 12:25 pm

            The United States Constitution IS the government. It sets forth what the government is and how the government is to work. This semantic game you are playing is ridiculous. When you swear an oath to protect the Constitution that IS our government (granted not any individual president or Congress), our system of government is the purpose of the Constitution. How is it you separate the government from the Constitution?

            Nothing in the Constitution gave them the authority to leave the binding agreement they had made when they voted to ratify the Constitution and join the union and no fool on earth thinks you magically say you are anything and it is over.

          • Christopher Shelley August 15, 2014 / 10:49 am

            Mere word games. Under the Constitution, the election of 1860 was legally conducted. Secessionists refused to honor those Constitutionally sanctioned results and rebelled. You are making a distinction without a difference.

          • Jimmy Dick August 15, 2014 / 11:54 am

            It is just more of that concrete thinking from the Waterboy isn’t it Chris? It is the same old worn out argument of ignorance from a guy who just changes his name.

          • John Foskett August 15, 2014 / 10:19 am

            Thank you. Now deal with the fact that, like the AWI, the ACW was a rebellion. Follow the dots to the Constitution and tell me where you come out. That’s why what happened in 1861 was illegal and not allowed.

          • Melissa Blue August 15, 2014 / 11:06 am

            Then please show me the constitutional prohibition making secession illegal and not allowed. Thank you.

          • Christopher Shelley August 15, 2014 / 11:32 am

            Motherofgod! Really?! We’ve been over this a million times. But here is Prof. Mackey’s post describing why secession is illegal: http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/there-is-no-right-to-unilateral-secession/. And here is my blog post on why secession is illegal: http://junehog.com/2014/04/18/secession-and-the-constitution/.

            The states reserved no right to secede under the Tenth Amendment because no such right existed for them to reserve. The ratification process obliterated any such right.

          • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 7:58 am

            The ratification process explicitly reserved the right to secede.

          • Jimmy Dick August 15, 2014 / 11:50 am

            Ratification debates. You have been told this repeatedly. Why are you still so stupid? The Founders made it clear. Where does it say a state can secede? It doesn’t. How many times do you have to be told? What’s the matter, Waterboy? Too stupid to learn?

          • Christopher Shelley August 15, 2014 / 11:51 am

            …and this: http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/did-the-states-reserve-a-right-to-secede/.

            I recommend you read the comments in these posts as well, since nearly every possible angle of the “secession was legal” position is considered and demolished.

            I suspect Brooks is going to get fed up with this thread turning into a “right to secede” diatribe, so I’m done with this here. You have all the resources to need to show that your position is untenable. Enjoy!

          • E.A. Mayer August 15, 2014 / 12:09 pm

            The 10th doesn’t talk about “rights” it talks about powers. There is no need to mention ‘secession’ because the document in its entirety rejects the concept. And by your standard, if that ‘power’ were not given by omission as it were to the States as you claim, then the Federal itself government would possess it? Then how exactly would the federal government secede from itself?

            No. There is no unilateral secession allowed by the constitution. And the vague excuse of the 10th amendment cannot be used, as the 10th only is concerning issues that affect the state internally, while unilateral secession effects the entire nation, and as secession would be rejecting federal authority, it would also be unconstitutional per the supremacy clause that makes the constitution the supreme law of the land. And very plainly in Art I sec 10: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation”

            “The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.” [US Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264, 389] 1821

          • John Foskett August 16, 2014 / 9:09 am

            You folks love the AWI analogy but you never, ever, even try to address the “rebellion” question,, for good reason – you can’t. You’re on the clock……

          • Christopher Shelley August 18, 2014 / 12:25 pm

            Melissa, you show an inability to read eighteenth-century documents accurately.

          • John Foskett August 15, 2014 / 10:24 am

            As Sandi points out, yes they did because they were smart enough and honest enough to admit to what they were . They separated from Britain by an act of rebellion. Flash forward to 1861 and a group of folks who did none of that because they were too busy playing games with a concept that isn’t mentioned or allowed by the Constitution. Hence, I suppose, their surprise that the government duly established by the Constitution responded by “invading” its own territory.

          • Christopher Shelley August 15, 2014 / 10:36 am

            The American Revolutionaries understood fully the ramifications of rebellion: if they lost, they would lose their lives (not to mention fortunes and sacred honor). I think most Confederates thought they understood the ramifications of secession, although clearly they didn’t, because they instigated a war that destroyed the institution they thought they were protecting. (Ironic, ain’t it?)

          • The other Susan August 15, 2014 / 10:46 am

            I was looking up tariffs for a “friend” and came across an interesting quote of a South Carolinian “not understanding ramifications”

            The Southern States are destined to no
            common fate in the history of nations. They
            will be amongst the greatest and freest, or
            the most abject of nations. History presents
            no such combination for Republican liberty,
            as that which exists amongst them. The African
            for the laborer -the Anglo-Saxon for
            the master and ruler. Both races will be
            exalted and benefitted by the relation. We
            dare not be passive with the responsibilities
            which our situation involves. We must,
            we will awake- if not to glory, to infamy;
            if not for defence, for destruction most miserable;
            if not to triumph – to fall, to die,
            with the epitaph upon our graves (if graves
            we are allowed,) written by the hand of philanthropy:
            “Here lie the meanest oppressors
            and cowards who ever polluted the earth
            with their blood.” ​

            http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026912/1860-08-25/ed-1/seq-1/#date1=1859&index=1&date2=1860&searchType=advanced&language=&sequence=1&words=tariff+tariffs&proxdistance=5&state=South+Carolina&rows=20&ortext=Tariff%2C+Tariffs&proxtext=&phrasetext=&andtext=&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1

          • Melissa Blue August 15, 2014 / 11:36 am

            I too, was looking up tariffs for a “friend”, and I came across this splendid articulation, from a decorated war hero and United States Senator, giving clear proof that the Confederates fully understood the ramifications of secession:

            “Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny to us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, AND TAKE THE HAZARD. This is done not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit; but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children.”

          • The other Susan August 15, 2014 / 3:48 pm

            Uh, where in that speech does Jefferson Davis mention tariffs exactly?

          • Sandi Saunders August 15, 2014 / 6:57 pm

            No “tariff” mentioned, but slave is there 3 times. Glad we got that cleared up. I don’t think he understood the Constitution.

          • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 7:55 am

            I forget, did Davis own as many slaves as Washington or Jefferson?

          • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 7:54 am

            Uh, who claimed Davis said anything about tariffs?

          • The other Susan August 18, 2014 / 11:58 am

            You did remember? You said you were searching for the word “tariffs” and came across that speech. I searched the speech and see no mention of tariffs. Really, if you can’t follow your own thought process, I’m not sure how you expect us to.

  7. Melissa Blue August 15, 2014 / 11:10 am

    “with a concept that isn’t mentioned or allowed by the Constitution”

    Let me just tweak that a little:

    “with a concept that isn’t mentioned or denied by the Constitution.”

    You see, how it works is, the states need no grant of authority to act, they have it inherently. If however, the states are prohibited from performing some act, well, then they may not perform that act. AS you agree, secession is never mentioned in the constitution.

    • Jimmy Dick August 15, 2014 / 11:53 am

      Broken record time again from the Waterboy. You’ve had this explained to you and you refuse to listen. Your opinion holds no water. The facts contradict your opinion.

    • John Foskett August 16, 2014 / 9:05 am

      Here’s the interesting thing about that. The Framers spent countless man hours debating and drafting a document which established a central government/entity out of 13 separate states. They covered all aspects of that save one – how an individual state may depart. The idiots apparently missed the obvious – unless…….

      • Jimmy Dick August 16, 2014 / 12:46 pm

        They didn’t miss it at all. They made it clear that it was not going to happen. Their opponents agreed with them. It was an all in or not in deal for them. Once in, always in. Leaving was not part of the design. If it had been, then why bother to create a government under the Constitution in the first place? Patrick Henry stated it in the Virginia ratification debates and no one contradicted him. It was that obvious. It was only later when Jefferson brought it up as a political weapon via the second Kentucky Resolve that the concept was mentioned. Even then, the rest of the states rejected the concept.

        The secession conventions are wonderful things to explore what secession was all about. When tyranny was mentioned so was slavery. The concept of the federal government being a tyrant was only possible by attaching slavery to it. The people at those conventions said so repeatedly. They did not appeal to any other states but slave states for a reason. Had the issue of state’s rights, the tariff, or anything else been the real cause of secession other states would have joined in. However, the only appeal that came out of the secession conventions was about slavery. Even then only seven states were willing to secede.

        We know this to be true because the people of the time period in question wrote it down and left us the records. A LOT OF RECORDS!

        • John Foskett August 17, 2014 / 8:45 am

          Nobody but an idiot drafts something which amounts to voluntary agreement to form a joint venture and act in reliances on that without specifying the procedure and consequences under which one of them can leave. It’s basic common sense. Yet that’s the fallacious proposition these folks would have us swallow. The Framers were lots of things but they weren’t idiots. They drafted something which precluded the individual states from choosing to just pull out when, why and where they want to, If they believed that a State could simply pack up and leave if it chooses, they would have covered that. Nobody believed it – hence the “silence” which the neo-Confed crowd interprets as the right to simply pull out when you want. As for me, I’ve been waiting for a long time, through numerous blog entries and countless comments, for one of this crowd to take on the “rebellion” problem. They never do because they know there’s no answer which supports their view. .

          • Jimmy Dick August 17, 2014 / 9:31 am

            They would just shift arguments to something else. That’s a common theme with the causers. As they get their butt whipped on one thing they shift to something else for a new butt whipping. The fun part is they think they’re making their point, but are really driving people away from the Lost Cause myth. That’s the wonderful thing about facts. When you lay down the facts it is like laying down a royal flush every time.

      • Nancy Winkler August 16, 2014 / 1:30 pm

        And they argued vehemently over slavery. This is recounted in several books. The one I read is: _Dark Bargain: Slavery, Profits, and the Struggle for the Constitution_, by Lawrence Goldstone, 2005. It gives a blow-by-blow description of how the 3/5 rule came about, and connects the compromises made to the NW Ordinance of 1787, which was made under the authority of the Articles of Confederation.

        It looks as though the delegates from Georgia and South Carolina brow-beat the others into accepting slavery; even some delegates from other slave states were willing to let slavery die out eventually. (This was before slavery became as big as it would become later.) The Ordinance of 1787 was signed into law by President Washington in 1789 after some modifications.

        _Dark Bargain_ is dry in spots, but it explains a lot. One thing it doesn’t explain is why the others did not form their government without Georgia and South Carolina who were causing the worst problems at the convention.

  8. Nancy Winkler August 15, 2014 / 1:43 pm

    US Constitution: Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or CONFEDERATION. . . .” Clause 3: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENT OR COMPACT WITH ANOTHER STATE, OR WITH A FOREIGN POWER. . . .”

    The Constitution expressly forbids States from entering into a confederation, that is, making combinations outside of the Union. The whole point of secession was to form a confederation of States outside of the Union. So if “secession” is not found in the Constitution, “confederation” and “agreement or compact with another State” is. You can’t have a confederation of States outside of the Union without seceding from the Union. Secession and Confederacy go together. If you can’t have a confederacy outside the Union without secession, then secession is unconstitutional.

    • Rosemary August 17, 2014 / 9:33 am

      This part of the constitution deals with states within (remaining in) the union being forbidden to form alliances ….Alliance-making as mentioned in this article is the sole right of the federal government. ….. This part of the constitution is not talking about secession, imo.

      • Nancy Winkler August 17, 2014 / 12:03 pm

        Thanks for your insight. I hadn’t thought about it that way.

        • Rosemary August 17, 2014 / 1:06 pm

          Thanks for being so nice. I’ve been attending the school of CSPAN for a couple of years.I think my teachers on this constitutional thing are lecturers from U Albany and U Virginia. I think I remember what they said accurately… Someone will say if I’m mistaken. : )

      • Michael Rodgers August 17, 2014 / 2:21 pm

        This section delegates an implied power to the federal government to stop states from doing these things. So the question is when is the federal government supposed to stop stopping states from doing this? When it gets a secession ordinance from a secession convention from a state, declaring that that state is no longer a state anymore and has thereby freed itself from these restrictions? What if my state’s governor went rogue and mailed a state ordinance declaring secession? Shouldn’t there be oversight as required by Article IV where the federal government decides whether state governments (section 4) and state proceedings (section 1) are legally valid?

        President Lincoln explained as much to Congress in his July 4 1861 address. He said, “It may well be questioned whether there is to-day a majority of the legally qualified voters of any State, except, perhaps, South Carolina, in favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men are the majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-called seceded States.” Thus President Lincoln argued that the people of those states didn’t really want to secede and therefore recommended that Congress consider the ordinances of secession “legally void.”

    • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 7:42 am

      This is a truly wonderful reply. It demonstrates, so very clearly, that the unionists are so desperate for a constitutional prohibition against secession, that they will grab at anything. It also proves that if there was a constitutional prohibtion against secession, they would use it immediately. But alas, there is none.

      Now then, to the merits of the argument. The above cited provision has nothing whatsoever to do with secession; absolutely nothing. This is because, unlike the colonies, who announced their secession from the British Empire in unison, each State that seceded from the United States did so completely independent of any other State, and did not, in fact, confederate to declare independence. Once independence had been declared, and the political connections to the U.S. entirely dissolved, the seceded States were completely free and independent States. Accordingly,they were at perfect liberty to do whatever their interests dictated; the U.S. constitution had no applicability to them wharsoever. None. Now, if there was a provision within Article 1, sction 10, that stipulated a State was not permitted to withdraw from the Union, then the argument would be correct. But there is so such prohibition. Absolutely none at all.

      • Sandi Saunders August 18, 2014 / 11:33 am

        The utter ignorance of claiming unilateral rights to secession is so childish as to defy any kind of credibility. Why would there ever have been a need to ratify a Constitution you were only trying on? You may “declare” anything (see the First Amendment), but nothing makes that legal, sanctioned or recognized independence. In no way, shape or form had there been “dissolved” political connections to the U.S., much less “entirely”! And the war was begun because they were clearly and completely NOT “free and independent States”. This just absurd thinking. The Confederacy was not going to recognize any authority but their own and they paid dearly for their hubris.

        • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 1:33 pm

          And the Union paid for their hubris with over 350,000 dead. Talk about paying dearly for hubris. As for the rest, I guess you couldn’t find a prohibirtion against secession anywhere in the constitution, and you thought that a insult-laden temper tantrum would somehow work in its place. It did not.

          PS- Because had they not ratified, they could not have seceded from the Union under the AoC. No ratification contained a pledge of perpetuity, by the way.

          • John Foskett August 18, 2014 / 3:18 pm

            Ya’ll didn’t fare so well in the casualty count, either, if I recall correctly. Talk about the cost of hubris – how many thousands of dead, how many more crippled for life, and an economy ruined. All for a fictional premise pushed by some economic royalists who made their fortune off of human bondage. Pure genius. By the way, it was a “rebellion”. You folks react to that concept the way Dracula reacts to a Cross.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 12:05 pm

            Ya’ll fared far worse in the casualty count, iffin I recalls correctly. Indeed, talk about the cost of hubris. And all to vindicate the right of self-determination, just like the slave-owning, slave-trafficking founders. Pure genius. BY the way, it was “political independence”. And you folks react to it the wat Lucifer reacts to Holy Water.

          • John Foskett August 22, 2014 / 1:46 pm

            Smaller percentage of the population, Dude. And in case you didn’t notice, we won – you lost. You also had to give up your favorite “institution” which you started a war to save. Sort of skews the cost-benefit analysis. Post-war photos of Atlanta, Richmond, Columbia, etc. – compared with post-war photos of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, etc. – only enhance the conclusion. So now tell me what your extensive losses – human, economic, and social – got you. I’m all ears….

          • Melissa Blue August 22, 2014 / 2:38 pm

            Knarly dude, but per centages don’t die, people do. And in case you didn’t notice, your leader was executed for his war cimes. That’s a pretty big hit right there, dude. You also had to give up the institution of slavery, and boy oh boy, were the union loyal Kentuckians ever steamed at that! It completely skewed their cost-benefit analysis of the war. Post war costs absorbed by the federal government, largely paid by the Northern population to support the reconstruction of Atlanta, Richmond, Columbia etc. merely enhance the conclusion. So now tell me about your 350,000 dead, your roaming, vagabond, freedmen, and your executed President. I’m all ears. All ears.

          • John Foskett August 24, 2014 / 8:30 am

            Let’s get back to basics. We won. You lost. So the cost on our side was a better deal than the cost on your side, except on Idiot Planet. Welcome back to the Union, Dude. The one ya’ll said ya’ll were leaving. And thus it’s been for 150 years.

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 8:59 am

            Let’s get back to basics. We won. You lost. Period. And the cost on your side was a far worse deal than the cost on our side, except on Moron Planet. nice to be back in the Union, Dude. It’s so knarly. The Unio ya’ll saidwas perpetual, which it obviously was not, as you just admitted (can’t come back if ya never left-hehehe). And thus it’s been for 150 years.

          • Jimmy Dick August 24, 2014 / 11:19 am

            I’d ask you to keep lying about the past and how you seem to think it was a great and noble cause, but then you don’t really care about the fact that it was about slavery, the denial of freedom to anyone, the denial of civil rights to anyone, and basically a big struggle for a small group of white people out to stuff their own pockets at the expense of the rest of the people around them. But then again you like to feel the ring in your nose and follow the path of ignorance because to do anything else would be too difficult.

            Poor Waterboy. Nobody believes your lies. Of course, if you had gone to college and actually gone to classes that mattered you might have learned something. Too bad for you.

          • Bob Huddleston August 24, 2014 / 7:15 pm

            Let us not forget that the slave states denied their citizens the freedoms of speech and the press. Their Federal office holders, the postmasters, had censored the United States’ mail since Old Hickory’s time. Among the reasons Lincoln did not get any votes in the Deep South was that publication of the Republican platform was illegal – indeed, in most of the slave states, its publication would be a felony and any man who allowed his name to be entered as a Lincoln/Hamlin elector would have been lynched – the slave masters did not want to waste the taxpayers’ dollars on a trial.

            Even worse was the brave southron who criticized the Peculiar Institution. Consider what happened to Helper after publishing his _Impending Crisis_: remember he was a tarheel Negrophobe who argued that the slave holders were holding back the average non-slave holding white.

          • Michael Rodgers August 24, 2014 / 12:23 pm

            President Lincoln was president of the entire USA including the so-called seceded states, and he was assassinated, not executed.

          • Bob Huddleston August 24, 2014 / 6:38 pm

            A good reminder that many soon-to-be ex-Rebels in 1865 — and some neos today — applauded Booth’s murdering President Lincoln. Of course the slave states had a long history of “executing” those who appeared to be threatening their Peculiar Institution. And usually without bothering with trials.
            And, yes, slave owners in Kentucky were angered by the 13th Amendment. I wonder how many blamed Lee and Davis, et al, for attempting to create a slaveholders’ republic and thereby speeding the end of American slavery.

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 8:55 am

            Jefferson Davis was President of the entire CSA, and he was never convicted for any wroingdoing. Never. But it was a slave-owners Republic, to be sure. Just like the salve-owners Republic George Washington and Thomas Jefferson created.

          • Bob Huddleston August 22, 2014 / 3:46 pm

            Who started the War? Not Lincoln and the Black Republicans?

            Tremont House Hotel
            Galveston, Texas
            April 19, 1861

            Excerpt………………

            You may, after the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure, and hundreds of thousands of precious lives, as a bare possibility, win Southern independence, if God be not against you; but I doubt it.

            I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of States rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not fiery impulsive people as you are, for they live in cooler climates.

            But when they begin to move in a given direction, where great interests are involved, such as the present issues before the country, they move with steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche, and what I fear is they will overwhelm the South with ignoble defeat

            Gov. Sam Houston

          • Michael Rodgers August 18, 2014 / 3:35 pm

            Article IV

        • Michael Rodgers August 18, 2014 / 1:39 pm

          Exactly. It’s a constitution not a treaty. And the Ordinances of Secession aren’t magic scrolls that, when read in a Southern drawl, instantly dissolve constitutional bonds.

          Article IV Section 1 delegates the power to Congress to “prescribe the manner in which [state] acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

          President Lincoln argued that Congress should reject the Ordinances of Secession as unproved(“There is much reason to believe that the Union men are the majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-called seceded States.”) and prescribe the effect to be zero (“[Unilateral secession ordinances] are legally void.”). That’s what Congress did by authorizing President Lincoln to put down the slave state insurrection.

          The tenth amendment is about “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” The power to prescribe the effect of state acts was delegated to the United States in Article IV. While a state can declare secession, it cannot require the federal government to acquiesce to that declaration, because Article IV delegates the power to prescribe the effects of state acts to Congress.

  9. Rosemary August 17, 2014 / 9:18 am

    I was taught that the constitution was silent on secession and the “law” making it impossible was born because of the Civil War and at Appomattox. The outcome of the war decided the issue. The outcome of the war set precedent.
    The constitution being silent on secession didn’t make secession proper or improper. The issue was decided when push came to shove. In other words, the founders took a pass on this issue … but, hey, they got the constitution adopted.Later generations are ever attending to the rest. (This is just the thing that keeps law schools in business🙂 )

    • Jimmy Dick August 17, 2014 / 9:38 am

      The Constitution is silent for the aforementioned reasons stated earlier. The CW put an exclamation point on the issue in my opinion. Secession is really about one group not getting their way and wanting to pout like babies. They get rejected in the political process and cannot accept the results. The Founders put together a process to address issues and secessionists just do not like it when they lose.

      The secessionists of today fail to understand a basic truth. For every one individual who wants secession, there are a minimum of five who do not. This country was founded on some ideas with one of them being representation within a republican system. If your choices are rejected that’s just too bad. If you cannot convince enough people to support your ideas, then that’s just too bad. Secession is not an option.

      Today’s secessionists just do not get it. They are a minority everywhere. Yet, they think they’re a majority. They’re not. Their ideas have been rejected and will continue to be rejected. They will not be seceding.

      • Rosemary August 17, 2014 / 1:17 pm

        “They will not be seceding.”
        Nope. Only alternative is to move.
        BTW Liberia doesn’t want ’em.

    • Bob Huddleston August 17, 2014 / 3:11 pm

      I thought the group might be interested in exactly what the Confederate Constitutional convention (which was identical to the Provisional Congress) did about legalizing secession of any of *their* states. Secession evidently was not something that the Confederates wanted to clarify in their efforts to improve the US Constitution:

      Given that the Confederate Constitution was so careful to lay out and explain the rights of slave holders, which the slave states had argued was implicit in the US Constitution, it is odd that the lawmakers did not also implicitly provide for secession.

      WEDNESDAY, March 6, 1861.
      Congress resolved itself in Convention.

      Page 873

      Mr. Memminger offered the following as a separate clause of the ninth section, to come in after the fourteenth clause, viz:

      Upon the demand of the convention of any State, all troops under the authority of the Confederate States which may be within any fort or ceded place within such State shall forthwith be removed, except when the Confederate States are in actual war with a foreign power.

      Mr. Stephens demanded the question; and on the question to second the demand, the vote being taken by States is as follows:

      Yea: Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina.
      Nay: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

      The Congress refused to second the demand.

      Mr. Boyce moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Memminger by striking out the same and inserting in lieu thereof the following words, viz:

      That the right of secession of any State from this Confederacy is expressly
      admitted, to be exercised by any State according to its pleasure. That while a State remains in the Confederacy, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Confederate States on constitutional questions shall be conclusive in all cases capable of decision by legal process. That in such cases as do not admit of decision by legal process, a convention of all the States shall be assembled, in which convention the decision of the majority of the States shall be conclusive, subject only to the right of secession of the State or States dissatisfied.

      Mr. Kenner moved to lay the amendment offered by Mr. Memminger and the
      amendment to the same offered by Mr. Boyce on the table, and called for the question.

      The question was seconded, and the motion to lay on the table prevailed, the States voting as follows:

      Yea: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
      Nay: South Carolina.
      ….

      Page 876

      THURSDAY, March 7, 1861.
      The Congress having resolved itself in Convention, proceeded to the
      consideration of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America.
      ….
      Mr. Hill moved to amend the report of the committee by striking out Article VII; which is as follows:

      The ratification of the conventions of five States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same,

      And inserting in lieu thereof the following, viz:

      Section 1
      1. No state, while remaining a member of this Confederation, shall nullify or refuse to obey this Constitution, or any law passed by the Congress of the Confederate States.

      Page 877

      2. Any State, by a convention of the people of such State, shall have the right to demand an issue to try the constitutionality of any law of the Congress of the Confederate States. Such issue shall be tried in a manner to be prescribed by Congress, by a court to be composed of the judges of the Supreme Court of the Confederate States, and of the chief justice of the State demanding the issue.
      3. On complaint made by any citizen, body politic or corporate aggrieved, the President of the Confederate States may, and it is hereby made his duty, in a manner to be prescribed by Congress, to order an issue to try the constitutionality of any law, order or regulation of any one of the States of this Confederation, annulling, violating or impairing this Constitution or any law of the Congress of the Confederate States. Such issue shall be tried in a manner to be provided by Congress, and, after proper notice to the offending State, by the Supreme Court of the Confederate States.
      4. If any State shall fail or refuse to conform to a decision of the court on any issue tried under this section, the Congress of the Confederate States may withdraw from such States all or any portion of the privileges and benefits of this Confederation, without releasing such State from the duties and obligations thereof.
      Section 2
      1. When any State shall desire to withdraw from this Confederation, such desire shall be communicated to the Congress of the Confederate States, through a convention of the people of such State, specifically setting forth the causes of such desire to withdraw.
      2. Congress shalt consider of such alleged grievances, and, on failure to redress or accommodate the same, to the satisfaction of the complaining State and of the Confederate States, shall arrange with such State an equitable division of the public property, and a peaceable withdrawal from the Confederation.
      3. But no State by withdrawing from this Confederation in the manner herein provided, nor in any other manner, shall be discharged or released from the obligation to pay a due proportion of the public debt existing at the time of such withdrawal; and such withdrawal shall, moreover, oblige the State withdrawing to account with the Confederate States for all expenditures made, or liabilities incurred by the Confederate States, in acquiring, securing, fortifying or defending the territory or jurisdiction of such
      State.

      Mr. Chesnut moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Hill by striking out the same and inserting in lieu thereof the following, to wit:

      The right of a State to secede from the Confederacy shall not be denied.
      And whenever any State, through a convention of its people, shall dissolve the connection between it and its confederates, it shall be the duty of the President to withdraw all forces from within the territorial limits of such State, and permit it peacefully to withdraw.

      According to previous order of the Congress, the consideration of the amendment and the amendment to the amendment was postponed and they were ordered to be printed.

      Confederate States of America. Congress. The Journals of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, Washington: G.P.O., 1904-05. Volume 1, Sen. Doc. 234, 58th Congress, 1903-1905.

    • Sandi Saunders August 18, 2014 / 11:38 am

      The notion that because the Constitution did not offer provisions for a separation means that it was a unilateral decision any state could make any time after ratification is just absurd and a complete anathema to the notion of the United States of America and what the Constitution was written to do.

      • Michael Rodgers August 18, 2014 / 4:01 pm

        Hear, hear! Yes, Sandi, absurd is the word..

      • Melissa Blue August 20, 2014 / 12:06 pm

        I take it you couldn’t find a prohibition anywhere in the constitution, huh? And by your reasoning, the entirety of Article 1, section 10, is a huge redundancy, right? Why do you suppose the framers went to all that trouble to enumerate constitutional limitations on the states anyway? I mean what was the point?

        PS- If the constitution was intended to be perpetual, why did the framers not include a provision, like the one in the AoC, decclaring it to be perpetual? Why did they not write something like:

        “the Union of these States shall be perpetual, and no State shall, without the express consent of congress, withdraw from said Union”

        See how easy that was? But it isn’t there. It just isn’t there.

        • Michael Rodgers August 21, 2014 / 2:03 pm

          Finally a question expressed with curiosity, “Why do you suppose the framers went to all that trouble to enumerate constitutional limitations on the states anyway?” In Article IV, Congress was delegated the power to determine the effect of state acts, and so the founders wrote Article 1, Section 10 to tie Congress’s hands so that Congress wouldn’t be tempted to approve such state acts.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 2:23 pm

            MIchael, no offense, but where did you study con law? Your reading of Article IV is just so preposterous and amatuerish it defies belief. You wrote:

            “In Article IV, Congress was delegated the power to determine the effect of state acts,”

            This is so wrong, it is actually painful to read. Below is a link to the legislation of the first Congress that gave statutory expression to the meaning of Article IV, section 1. Please note that there is absolutely nothing in either the language of Article IV itself, or the specific legisaltion attending it, that supports your outrageous assertion.

            “http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage”

            As you can see, all the act does, all it does, is describe how the acts iof the respective states are to be authenticated. That’s it.

          • Michael Rodgers August 21, 2014 / 3:03 pm

            It’s you Melissa Blue who doesn’t understand what the Constitution is at all. It’s a document that defines how the federal government works. Congress acts under delegated power to instruct the executive branch in what to do. Congressional Acts don’t bind Congress from revisiting the Acts and re-instructing the executive branch in a broader, or for that matter weaker, way. It’s the Constitution that binds Congress by telling it what it can do and what it can’t. If any state doesn’t like what Congress does, then that’s where the Supreme Court can serve as oversight if a state wishes.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 3:24 pm

            “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto:”

            That’s it MIchael. You can cling to you ludicrous interpretation of Article IV if you wish, but the above is the extent of Congressional authority over legislative acts of the states pursuant to the full faith and credit clause. If your interested, it was promulgated May 26, 1790.

          • Michael Rodgers August 21, 2014 / 3:15 pm

            Article IV is very broad and very clear. It authorizes Congress to do whatever Constitutional thing it wishes to protect the people of one state from actions of another state and to protect each individual state from non-representative and non-majority groups of its people. Article IV is complemented by the 14th Amendment which authorizes Congress to protect the people of one state from actions of their own state.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 3:27 pm

            As I said above, the meaning of the full faith and credit clause was given statutory expression by the very first Congress on may 26, 1790. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with what you falsely claim it does. Not even close.

          • Michael Rodgers August 21, 2014 / 6:16 pm

            Ah, Congressional statutes trump the Constitution, got it.

          • Melissa Blue August 22, 2014 / 11:20 am

            Ah, the Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from legislsating. Got it.

          • John Foskett August 21, 2014 / 2:31 pm

            What is present is material addrsssing “rebellion/insurrection” Although some folks must have a magic copy which eliminates those words.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 2:45 pm

            Like some folks have a magic copy which prohibits secession.

          • Jimmy Dick August 21, 2014 / 2:49 pm

            No, they have the actual copy which when used in context shows secession is prohibited. Remember the magic word context. It is one of the 5 C’s of history. Had you actually gotten a degree in history instead of playing foosball and lugging water around you might have learned something. Instead, you show your ignorance every time you post.

          • Brooks D. Simpson August 21, 2014 / 3:02 pm

            I do. Found it at Appomattox one April.

  10. Bob Huddleston August 17, 2014 / 3:13 pm

    “To shew the absurdity — Congress have the right to admit new states. When territories they are subject to the laws of the Union. The day after admission, they have the right to secede and dissolve it.”

    Andrew Jackson to Martin Van Buren, 25 December 1832

    Bassett, Life of Jackson, II: 579-580

    • Rosemary August 17, 2014 / 9:56 pm

      Opinion not law… AJ was huge slave holder, btw… he also bopped S. Carolina on the head over that tariff tiff….

    • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 7:45 am

      Nothing absurd about it, as there is no provision anywhere in the constitution which renders secession unconstitutional. If you think that that is absurd or that it is disagreeable, then amend it. As it stands, there is nothing anywhere which prohibits it.

      • Rosemary August 18, 2014 / 1:39 pm

        Based on posts in this subsection of this thread, MBlue’s post above is redundant. And as MBlue is so rude in style throughout this blog I thought I’d go ahead and not ignore redundancy here.

        • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 3:06 pm

          Based on this thread, Rosemary’s posts are repetitive. And as Rosemary is so ill-mannered, I thought I would not let the attack go unanswered.

          • Rosemary August 22, 2014 / 4:58 pm

            With respect, y’all been clogging up my email inbox cause of this thread and among the sheer volume of words and words and words I missed until now MB’s reply above where MB takes me to task over nothing valid.
            I guess people enjoy debate even if one side, the MB troller person, is weak and ill-tempered. So be it. This blog is a good place to study conflict in so many forms. Interestingly, it is a good place for opinion proclaiming. It is not large on question answering. I don’t find herein answers to why people seem to enjoy confict. However, I’m not done searching.

          • Rosemary August 22, 2014 / 5:38 pm

            re my post above: people endure conflict in quest for accuracy… is that it?

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 8:49 am

            So much to read. And I missed Rosemary’s message until just now, where she starts a quarrel for no particular reason. So I am left with Rosemary troller. So be it.

  11. Bob Huddleston August 17, 2014 / 4:04 pm

    The easy answer is to point out that the Constitution does not authorize secession. Common on chat groups is the claim that not only was secession legal, but that this fact was so obvious that no one really disputed it in 1860-61 nor later. And those who opposed secession were close to being criminal in their opposition.

    First those making the argument claiming the legality of secession in 1860-61 ignore the fact that any arguments in favor of secession were and are instantly countered with equally valid and reasoned arguments against the proposition. While the pro-secessionists make good points, they seem to miss the fact that the pro-unionists also make good points. Secession was not obviously legal in 1860-61 – indeed, as it turned out there were a lot more folk who believed that secession was illegal than there were those who believed it to be legal. This is not to deny that secession had – and has –its arguments. Rather it is to point out that the Unionists also had their good points.

    Given that neither side had a monopoly on the legality/illegality of secession, we can turn to the second point: How had secession or the threat of secession been handled previously in American history?

    Although not strictly speaking secessionists, the farmers involved in the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion threatened the central government and the Washington Administration reacted quickly, declaring the tax resisters to be insurrectionists, and raising a military force to put down the insurrection. The military force was led by a Revolutionary war general named Light Horse Harry Lee. I am sure, with that sort of heritage, any son of Light Horse Harry would have supported the government in 1861.

    Aaron Burr may or may not have tried to split off the western territories from the United States, but President Jefferson reacted much as President Washington had, arresting Burr and trying him for treason. Chief Justice Marshall, acting as a district court judge (a la Taney in Merryman), set such a high standard for treason convictions that not only was Burr not convicted but since then the number of those even tried to for treason, let alone convicted, can be counted on the fingers of one’s hands.

    As a result of New England dissatisfaction with the course of the War of 1812, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island sent delegates to a meeting in Hartford in October 1814. Federalists self-selected delegates in Vermont and New Hampshire. Contrary to neo-Confederate myth, the Hartford Convention rejected resolutions to secede. The convention claimed a state’s rights position which the citizens of New England rejected. Nationalist Federalists such as John Quincy Adams migrated to the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson and Madison and the Federalist Party faded away. A final report (January 5, 1815) was released just as news arrived of the American victory at New Orleans and the signing of the Treaty of Ghent which ended the war.

    Andrew Jackson faced a more overt effort at secession with South Carolina and we know what he thought of the idea. It is no accident that in 1860-61, the Jacksonians were adamant that secession was not permissible. Taney may not have liked Lincoln but he upheld the government in the Prize Cases. Sam Houston was booted out as Texas governor because he opposed his state’s secession. Andrew Johnson was the only senator from a Confederate state to continue his duties in Washington.

    In the ante-bellum world the most intrusive Federal law, indeed, except for postmasters, the only Federal contact most Americans had, was the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law. In essence, it forced Northern citizens to become slave catchers. When Wisconsin attempted nullification, in Ablemen v. Booth the Supreme Court overruled the state: national law is supreme over state law. There were no complaints from the slave states; to the contrary, there were compliments. Any complaints were reserved for Free States which had the gall to attempt to maintain the right of states to protect their citizens from arrest and deportation into slavery without due process of law.

    In the middle fifties, during the fight over Kansas, Secretary of War Jefferson Davis responded to the efforts of the Free State settlers resisting the Lecompton territorial legislature – and the latter, do not forget, stands as the worse example of fraudulent voting in American History, a distinction for which there are a lot of competition!

    As Secretary of War, Davis wrote to Bvt. Major General Persifor F. Smith, 3 September 1856, “The position of the insurgents … is that of open rebellion against the laws and constitutional authorities, with such an open manifestation of a purpose to spread devastation over the land, as no longer justifies further hesitation or indulgence. … patriotism and humanity alike require that rebellion should be promptly crushed.” And three weeks later, the Adjutant General wrote to Smith, quoting the Secretary of War, “‘The only distinction of parties which, in the military point of view, it is necessary to note, is that which distinguishes those who respect and maintain the laws and organized government from those who combine for revolutionary resistance to the constituted authorities and laws of the land. The armed combination of the latter class came within the denunciation of the President’s proclamation, and are proper subjects upon which to employ the military laws.’”

    The next year the Government attempted to put down what the Buchanan administration saw as rebellion in Utah by the Mormons. Although there was little actual fighting, an invading Army, under the command of Albert Sidney Johnson, was embarrassed by the Mormon irregulars and only the efforts of Buchanan’s emissaries and the desire of Brigham Young to avoid all-out war prevented major bloodshed. Buchanan trumpeted the results as a vindication of American might over lawless religious separatists.

    It is understandable and pardonable that when the slave states attempted secession, there were a lot of Americans, both North and South, who not only did not feel that secession was legal, but, to the contrary, saw it as rebellion and treason.

  12. Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 7:47 am

    Actually, the easy, and correct answer, is to observe that there is no law prohibiting secession anywhere. No constitutional prohibition, no federal law, and, as of 1861, no common-law.

    • Sandi Saunders August 18, 2014 / 12:03 pm

      Just as easy and correct is the fact that there was no process for secession because secession was not possible. There was no law against resubmitting to England either. Does that mean it was possible? Was there a law for removing states we no longer liked? Does that mean it was possible? Not being a law does not speak one way or the other. Lots of laws were not laws in 1860-1861. It is ludicrous to believe that even if there was no Constitutional prohibition specifically related to secession, that it could therefore be done unilaterally and without consent of both parties.

      • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 1:48 pm

        And easiest of all is recognizing how the constitution actually works. Here goes: the States inherently have all the rights and powers they did not delegate, and the federal government has only the rights and powers delgated to it, or those it has by necessary implication. So with these fundamental principles of constitutional law firmly in mnid, let’s take your example of States “resubmitting to England”.

        So, if we look to Article 1, section 10, there is a clear prohibition against such an act:

        “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,”

        So no, the States may not “resubmit” to England. Now, inasmuch as there is no prohibition against a state seceding, and inasmuch as the 10th amendment openly declares that anything not prohibited to the states is left to them, a state may, in fact secede. See how it works?

        • Jimmy Dick August 18, 2014 / 3:26 pm

          And as usual you get it wrong. The 10th amendment is not interpreted the way you say it is. Why do you keep repeating yourself when you know you are wrong? You are not a constitutional authority. You are not a constitutional scholar.

          The powers come from the People. You keep missing that part.

        • Michael Rodgers August 18, 2014 / 3:41 pm

          You’re ignoring the first 11 words of the 10th amendment.

          • Melissa Blue August 20, 2014 / 11:07 am

            You’re ignoring all 28 words of the tenth amendment.

          • John Foskett August 20, 2014 / 12:52 pm

            Says the authority on ignoring words. Did you have a scary experience as a kid with the word “rebellion”? Or with its synonym “insurrection”? Must be PTSD.

          • Melissa Blue August 20, 2014 / 1:37 pm

            Says the authority of disregarding the plain language of the constitution. Did you have a scary experience as a kid with the word “self-determination”? Or with its synonym “political independence”? Must be PSTD.

          • John Foskett August 20, 2014 / 2:55 pm

            You’re losing what little creativity you ever had. If you’re going to plagiarize posts, the least you can do is try to juice it up with “rebellion/insurrection”. You can do it. I just know you can.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 12:08 pm

            You are losing what little imagination you had. If you need to copy and paste, at least you can spell “self-determination” correctly.Come on there little fella, you ca do it!!

          • John Foskett August 23, 2014 / 8:15 am

            Since we’ve diverted to the subject of spelling, you can’t make this up -try “can”, not “ca”. Unless we’re in that special little dictionary you own.

          • hankc9174 August 24, 2014 / 2:07 pm

            You all seem to have missed the reenactment of the secession debates four years ago for the sesquicentennial. It was all very good, but no minds were changed in either 2010 or in 1860 and there is no need to repeat the performance. We’ve now moved on to commemorate the results of that failed debate…

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 8:47 am

            Since we talking about spelling, this can’t be made up; try “ca”,and not, for crying out loud “can”. Unless you’re using your own little just special for you dictionary.

          • Jimmy Dick August 20, 2014 / 1:15 pm

            No, he’s ignoring your incorrect interpretation of the 10th Amendment. All you do is repeat yourself. It does not mean what you want it to mean. That’s the problem with ignorant people. They just keep saying the same thing over and over again. You really need to seek professional mental health care because you are showing what a lack of critical thinking capacity does.

          • Fergus August 20, 2014 / 11:40 pm

            You really need to seek professional mental health care because you are showing what a lack of critical thinking capacity does.

            Critical thinking skills have little to do with psychosis. Sociopaths can have excellent critical thinking skills and so can schizophrenics when they are not under the shadow of the illness. Repetition of an argument is a very old polemical device, not very savory one, but certainly not mental illness.
            Kurt Goedel arguably the greatest logician of the last two hundred years died of paranoid schizophrenia. The cavalier reference to mental illness particularly given the recent demise of Mr Williams seems grossly inappropriate and insensitive.

          • John Foskett August 21, 2014 / 7:46 am

            Lighten up, Francis.

          • Jimmy Dick August 21, 2014 / 7:50 am

            In this case this particular individual has shown a proclivity for repeating himself on multiple blogs with the exact same ideas. He has been thoroughly castigated for his erroneous statements and arguments. I think that is a manifestation of a mental issue. With what occurred with Robin so tragically I think we need to focus more on identifying mental health problems so people can get help. His death shows just what can happen when it goes untreated.

      • Melissa Blue August 20, 2014 / 11:14 am

        Easiest of all is the fact that the seceded States followed the exact process to secede from the constitution as they did to acede and assent to it. Which, by the way, was similar to the process used by the States to secede from the Articles of Confederation in order to adopt the constitution. As for the the fact that it could not be done without the consent of all the parties, just one thing; did the colonies get consent from all the parties when they separated from the British Empire? Or is that just a ludicrous idea?

        PS- Are you really trying to argue that the absence of a law is irrelevant? Tell me, how would you like to be arrested, charged, and imprisoned for an act which is not against the law? “Nulla poena sine lege”; it is an absolute bedrock principle of our civil society, and you know it.

        • Sandi Saunders August 20, 2014 / 12:15 pm

          Ah, had the Colonies ratified any Constitutional agreement with England in the first place? Pretty sure they were all considered subjects of the crown not willing participants with legislatures who voted to ratify the Constitution and join the King. Unlike the colonies that became the states in the United States of America who did have representatives elected to represent them and who then voted to ratify the US Constitution and join the Union. There is no comparison except they are both rebellions.

          How is anyone “arrested, charged, and imprisoned for an act which is not against the law?” Making things up is not helping you here.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 12:13 pm

            Ah, but the Colonies did most certainly voluntarily and solemnly agree to be governed by the Charters granted by the Crown. And nowhere in those charters did the colonists demand, or were they granted, direct representation in Parliament. And in every on of the charters they pledged allegiance to the Crown and the laws of the British Empire.

            But I agree there is no comparison. The Confedeates had every right to withdraw from the union in which they were members, whereas the colonists were lawless, violent, slave-owning, slave-trafficking traitors.

          • The other Susan August 21, 2014 / 1:19 pm

            I’m really confused here. I thought the whole point of Confederate heritage was that people claim they have no choice but to worship people who fought to preserve slavery because it was the heritage of the state they live in. But now it seems they don’t like people from the American Revolution and those people were from the states they live in… So I’m not really grasping this we have to honor our heritage thing.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 1:33 pm

            Indeed, I thoroughly understand your confusuion. Every July 4th, from Alaska to Florida, and from Maine to Hawaii, there are parades, speeches, picnics, parties, fireworks, and grand celebrations to honor the slave-owners and slave-traffickers who violently and treasonously separated from their King and Countr. And they did this in the interest of achieving political independence. And all these people celebrating these lawless slavers, then, almost unbelievably, turn around and demonize the Confederate slave-owners for wanting to achieve political independence themselves. It’s truly one for the books.

          • Sandi Saunders August 21, 2014 / 1:44 pm

            Mayhap you should back up off that indictment of those “slave-owners and slave-traffickers who violently and treasonously separated from their King and Countr” because the South was among those who objected to what he wanted to say.

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h33.html
            “Although the issue of slavery was widely debated — both the chattel slavery of Africans in America and the civil slavery that fired patriot rhetoric — it is conspicuously absent from the final version of the Declaration. Yet in his rough draft, Jefferson railed against King George III for creating and sustaining the slave trade, describing it as “a cruel war against human nature.”

            Although Jefferson’s description of the slave trade was as much an indictment of the colonies as of Britain and the king, the issue that most distressed the patriots stemmed from Lord Dunmore’s 1775 proclamation that offered freedom to slaves who joined the British cause: “…he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them…”

            When the document was presented to the Continental Congress on July 1, 1776, both northern and southern slaveholding delegates objected to its inclusion, and it was removed. The only remaining allusion to the original paragraph on slavery is the phrase “He has excited domestic Insurrections among us,” included in a list of grievances against the king.”

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 1:58 pm

            Maybe you should simply stop denying that the founders were slave-owners and slave-traffickers who routinely inflcited sadistic cruelties and severe human rights abuses against blacks. Oh, and then they whined that their taxes were too high. Well boo-hoo.

          • The other Susan August 21, 2014 / 1:46 pm

            I’m not sure 4th of July is the best example, but I get your point, you are mad at the hero worship of folks like Washington and Jefferson.
            I think we have made great progress in that area in recent years. For example check out http://www.askaslave.com/

            The American flag certainly represents a work in progress.

          • Brooks D. Simpson August 21, 2014 / 1:49 pm

            “The American flag certainly represents a work in progress.” True. The same cannot be said for the Confederate flag.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 2:01 pm

            I think I get your point now. You are just so outraged and so very righteously indignant that the Confederates owned slaves, but you happily and cheerily dismiss the fact that the founders were slave-owners and slave-traffickers. Got it.

          • The other Susan August 21, 2014 / 2:36 pm

            Lol, now try reading what we actually said, not what you hoped we said in your head.

          • Rosemary August 22, 2014 / 5:04 pm

            aw, c’mon… nobody in the 21st century lets the founders off the hook on their sin of enslaving people

          • John Foskett August 21, 2014 / 1:54 pm

            You’re getting warm: “violently and treasonously separated from their King and Countr[y].” Yup. “Rebellion/insurrection” and we salute them for it. Now flash forward to 1860-61. Here’s a pop quiz any elementary school student can answer: “What was different?” Here’s a tip if this is still too challenging : it’s a document with 7 Articles. .

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 2:14 pm

            Slowly but surely, you’re catching on. But I still have some concerns that the rest of the class is way, way ahead of you. So here’s a brief pop-quiz to see exactly how much remedial civics you still need. Here goes:

            1. Please identify where the U.S. Constitution prohibitis secession.

            (if you find this simple question too demanding, here is a helpful hint. The powers that are denied to the states are enumerated in Article 1, section 10. check there first).

          • Jimmy Dick August 21, 2014 / 2:46 pm

            Please identify where the US Constitution allows it and do not even bother to bring up the 10th amendment. You will get your butt whipped as you always do because you rely on your version of it instead of the actual interpretation. Saying secession is allowed because it isn’t in the Constitution shows you do not understand what context is. It also reveals your lack of intelligence because you keep saying it and you keep losing to people that are far more intelligent than you.

        • Christopher Shelley August 20, 2014 / 12:44 pm

          Yes–it’s ludicrous that you equate revolution with secession; and it’s ludicrous that you ignore all of the arguments why the Union is perpetual.

  13. Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 9:02 am

    Almost forgot. When the slave states separated from the British Empire in 1776, that was, in fact, regarded as treason, right?

    • Brooks D. Simpson August 18, 2014 / 11:09 am

      By the British Empire? Yes. And the revolutionaries knew it. Care to discuss why they were so honest about this while Confederates were not?

      • Jimmy Dick August 18, 2014 / 11:23 am

        When John Adams and Ben Franklin met with the British in 1776 at New York, the representative of the British has a list of names who would be pardoned if the Americans would end their rebellion. John Adams’ name was not on that list. He was to be hung for treason should he be captured or the Americans give up.

        • John Foskett August 18, 2014 / 3:29 pm

          “Rebellion”. There’s that dirty word again – the one that Melissa apparently can’t read.

          • Melissa Blue August 20, 2014 / 11:06 am

            “Political self-determination”. There’s that dirty phrase again-the one Foskett evidently can’t read.

          • Sandi Saunders August 20, 2014 / 12:28 pm

            Every state in the Union had and still has “Political self-determination”. The South just could not accept not winning in Congress or in Secession. What, in the Confederate “constitution” gave them more “Political self-determination” than they already had in the US?

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 12:15 pm

            Umm, the Confederate Constitution is not at issue here. Only the U.S. Constitution is.

          • Christopher Shelley August 20, 2014 / 12:48 pm

            If you start with “political self-determination,” then you are at least being honest, rather than trying to equate natural rights with secession. But we’ve already explained why the seceded states did not have the right of political self-determination: those states were part of a larger organic, sovereign whole that cannot be severed against the will of that sovereign whole.

          • Fergus August 21, 2014 / 9:16 am

            Without revolution anyway.

          • John Foskett August 20, 2014 / 1:48 pm

            Hey, I’m cool with that as a form of “rebellion/insurrection”. You’re scared —-less about that concept, for some reason. Franklin, Adams, et al. weren’t.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 12:17 pm

            Hey. I’m kewl with the notion of peaceful and legal secession. You’re frightened-somehow less about the practical application than the theory. Davis, Spephens, and Rhett weren’t

      • Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 1:52 pm

        There is no dishonesty in the case. The confederates had the luxury of drawing from either the political and natural law arguments promulgated by the Declaration, or the constitutional and positive law rights promulgated by the constitution. And they made both arguments.

        • Jimmy Dick August 18, 2014 / 3:28 pm

          They did not have that luxury. They then got their asses kicked for being in an illegal rebellion. They failed to prove their points which were rejected by the majority of Americans including the majority of Southerners.

          • Fergus August 20, 2014 / 11:43 pm

            in an illegal rebellion
            Has there ever been a legal one?

          • Jimmy Dick August 21, 2014 / 7:46 am

            Isn’t that the entire point?

          • Fergus August 21, 2014 / 8:23 am

            Yes of course it is.

        • Michael Rodgers August 18, 2014 / 3:45 pm

          They could argue whatever they want until they were blue in the face or until they were dead in the grave taking so so many lives with them, but the fact remains that Congress using Article IV power rejected the Ordinances of Secession making them as President Lincoln called them “legally void.”

          • Melissa Blue August 20, 2014 / 10:56 am

            There is a prohibition against secession in Article IV?! Please show it to me, and I will concede the point and retract everything I said on the subject. However, if there is no prohibition against secession in Article IV, you will concede the point. and retract. Deal?

          • Michael Rodgers August 20, 2014 / 2:45 pm

            I have pointed you to it again and again and it’s Article IV.

            Let’s begin on a point of agreement. Article IV Section 3 is about new states, about how a state could join the union. This would be a good place to explain how a state could leave the union. Yet there is no specific explanation there. Agree?

            You interpret the lack of an explanation to mean that however a state wishes to leave is fine — no, apologies, you interpret that to mean that if a state follows the same process to leave as it did to join — no, apologies again, you say that if a state determines itself that it has followed the same process to leave as it did to join, then it is immediately no longer part of the United States. Do I have that right?

            Let’s read the rest of the Article. Article IV Section 4 delegates power to the United States to “guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.” Thus the United States can, whenever it wishes, investigate a state’s government, determine whether that government is republican in form, and do something about it. Further, Article IV Section 4 delegates power to the United States to “protect” each state from “domestic violence.”

            What would be an instance where domestic violence is threatened? When the leaders of a state suddenly declare that their state is in their control and that the citizens of that state will be deprived of the right to travel freely and conduct business in all the other states? When the leaders of a state suddenly declare that all people who travel to that state will immediately be out of jurisdiction of the US, thus freeing them from debts that they were obligated to pay under Article IV Section 1 or bonded service or criminal sentence that they were required to perform or to serve under Article IV Section 2? When the people of that state suddenly no longer are constitutionally guaranteed to get their debts paid by debtors from the other states? When the people of that state suddenly no longer are constitutionally guaranteed that escaped criminals and fugitive slaves will be returned to that state?

            When a state purports to declare secession is a perfect time for the federal government to step in and guarantee that that state’s government is really a republican form of government.

            And that’s where Article IV Section 1 seals the deal by delegating power to the United States to “prescribe the manner in which [state] acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof” if they have any bearing at all on the concept of “full faith and credit.” Secession is an extreme attempt to deny “full faith and credit” and thus falls into this very large category. When something falls into a category it need not be mentioned explicitly.

            Moreover, Article IV Section 2 says explicitly, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Thus the Constitution delegates to the United States the power to ensure that citizens retain “all privileges and immunities.” Again, secession is an extreme attempt to deny citizens of their rights. If secession held, citizens of SC would have lost their privileges and immunities in the other states.

            In short, Article IV is all about how the Constitution delegates to the United States the power of protecting the citizens of a state from that state denying them full faith and credit in the other states, destroying their privileges and immunities in the several states, causing domestic violence in their state, and denying their right to a representative government in their state. And, even shorter, Article IV outlaws secession on a state’s “mere motion,” as President Lincoln described it.

            Article IV delegates power to Congress to “prescribe the manner in which” all acts of a state obviously including the worst kind of act, Ordinances of Secession, “shall be proved” and moreover Article IV delegates power to Congress to prescribe “the effect thereof,” meaning obviously what the effect of all acts of a state actually are.

            Congress could have said that the states that declared secession had republican forms of government and that those states’ Ordinances of Secession were legally valid. What happened though is that Congress agreed with President Lincoln, who called such ordinances “legally void.” His opinion, as I mentioned shared by Congress at the time, was later upheld by Texas v. White.

            Finally, the tenth amendment talks about “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” The power to determine the provedness and the effect of state acts such as, for example. publishing ordinances of secession, is delegated to the United States. A state cannot, on its own, determine the provedness of its process.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 12:00 pm

            A very, very, lengthy reply, and still no language which prohibits secession, huh? Let’s be honest Michael, if it was there, you would pounce on it, and immediately offier it as proof positive that secession is unconstitutional. But it isn’t there; as desperately as you want it there, it just is not there.

            As for the specifics of your Article IV, section 1, argument, a former U.S. District Attorney, appointed by George Washington, has this to say:

            “The subject cannot perhaps be better introduced than by presenting in its own words an emphatical clause in the Constitution.

            ‘The United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government, shall protect each of them against invasion, and on application of the legislature, or of the executive when the legislature cannot be convened, against domestic violence.’

            The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.

            But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, “to repress domestic violence.” If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

            Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the, express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

            The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.”

          • Jimmy Dick August 21, 2014 / 12:23 pm

            However, you conveniently forget the part where that was rejected by the states themselves. Come on! How many times are you going to keep ignoring the context of what was said?

          • Sandi Saunders August 21, 2014 / 1:31 pm

            So you found a constitutional scholar who believed secession was allowed. Even he clearly however did not believe it would be wise, good or beneficial. Is that why you offered no link to it?

            “The consequences of an absolute secession cannot be mistaken, and they would be serious and afflicting.

            The seceding state, whatever might be its relative magnitude, would speedily and distinctly feel the loss of the aid and countenance of the Union. The Union losing a proportion of the national revenue, would be entitled to demand from it a proportion of the national debt. It would be entitled to treat the inhabitants and the commerce of the separated state, as appertaining to a foreign country. In public treaties already made, whether commercial or political, it could claim no participation, while foreign powers would unwillingly calculate, and slowly transfer to it, any portion of the respect and confidence borne towards the United States.

            Evils more alarming may readily be perceived. The destruction of the common hand would be unavoidably attended with more serious consequences than the mere disunion of the parts.

            Separation would produce jealousies and discord, which in time would ripen into mutual hostilities, and while our country would be weakened by internal war, foreign enemies would be encouraged to invade with the flattering prospect of subduing in detail, those whom, collectively, they would dread to encounter.”
            http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_32.htm

          • Brooks D. Simpson August 21, 2014 / 1:33 pm

            Look, if “Mellssa Blue” wants to support secession, I think she should be encouraged to do so.

          • Rosemary August 22, 2014 / 5:12 pm

            but MB cannot secede..the state where MB lives cannot secede… MB personaly only can move beyond US borders…
            … I can’t believe i’m getting sucked into this argument which is going in circles over and over and over.. augh! I begin to see why it keeps going… has to do with wanting acknowledgement of accuracy.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 1:41 pm

            Pretty clear statement on the right to secede, huh? But tell me, why did you not post this in your lengthy quotation:

            “But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal.”

            The argument is one of right, and the right is clearly there. Always has been.

          • Michael Rodgers August 20, 2014 / 6:11 pm

            You will never concede the point and never retract everything you said on the subject because you are already thoroughly convinced in your rightness and because you can just change your name from one pseudonym to another.

            Thank you for encouraging me to write more about Article IV and about President Lincoln and about how he got Congressional approval to fight and win the war and about how he freed all the slaves, slowly but surely, in the process.

            I’ll always treasure these exchanges.

        • Christopher Shelley August 18, 2014 / 6:27 pm

          No, they couldn’t, and mostly didn’t. They avoided invoking the Right to Revolution, because it is part of Natural Rights theory. Another of the Natural Rights is Liberty, which of course was incompatible with slavery. Some few fire-eaters tried to invoke Jefferson, but most secessionists were afraid to endorse the Right to Liberty.

          Your understanding Natural Rights is weaker than your understanding of the Constitution.

          • John Foskett August 19, 2014 / 6:56 am

            What they did do was engage in a “rebellion”. Franklin, Adams, et al at least had the cojones to admit such against the Crown. Not these word-smithing frauds and their verbal contrivances..

    • Sandi Saunders August 18, 2014 / 12:09 pm

      Oddly enough it was the very idea of independence and “all men are created equal” which stoked the fires to end slavery which started in the Northern States. Certainly England saw the revolt as treason. Had we lost the war, it would indeed have gone hard for many. They knew that. We owe much to the American Revolution, certainly the realization of the wrongs in slavery among them.

  14. Melissa Blue August 18, 2014 / 1:50 pm

    Good point. By the way, how many human beings did Jefferosn hold in bondage when he wrote that “all men are created equal?

      • John Foskett August 19, 2014 / 6:54 am

        Yep. And there’s no question that Lincoln held racial views common to his time and race. That didn’t stop him from doing the right thing. Those who side with Satan are adept at attacking the character of others rather than their ideas, even if imperfectly achieved.

        • Melissa Blue August 20, 2014 / 10:50 am

          Yup, there’s no quesruion that Jefferson daviso held racial views common to his time and race. And that certainly didn’t undermine his right to self-determination any more than it did the founders right to self-determination.

          • Sandi Saunders August 20, 2014 / 12:29 pm

            Except that Jefferson Davis’ view of his “right to self-determination” included, by his own admission the right to continue slavery no matter what the nation did.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 12:34 pm

            And that Thomas Jefferson’s view of his “right to self-determination” included, by his own admission, the right to continue to own and traffick slaves no matter what the rest of the British Empire did.

          • John Foskett August 20, 2014 / 1:50 pm

            What you mean is that it didn’t undermine his right to engage in “rebellion/insurrection” against the Crown.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 12:36 pm

            Yes. The fact that the colonists were slave-owners and slavee-traffickers did not inhibit them even a little bit from aggressively pursuing their claim to independence.

          • John Foskett August 21, 2014 / 2:35 pm

            Now we’re getting somewhere: “aggressively pursuing their claim to independence” a/k/a what they admitted it was – “rebellion/insurrection”. Tiny steps….

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 2:49 pm

            We’re making progress. Teensy-weensy baby-steps to be sure, but progress nevertheless. Slave-owners and slave-traffickers whining about their rights being violated, and simultaneously claiming a natural law right to political freedom.

          • John Foskett August 23, 2014 / 8:20 am

            And therefore engaging in “rebellion/insurrection”. Now I understand why the Secesh said they were only doing what their forefathers did. Thanks. Over and out.

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 8:41 am

            When you say “secesh”, you are, no doubt, refering to slave-owner GW, correct? Thought so. Over and out.

    • Sandi Saunders August 19, 2014 / 7:22 am

      The question, if you need to ask one of Jefferson, is not “how many human beings” he held “in bondage” (especially as you defend your Confederate brethren for the same). The question is, did Jefferson go to war to keep slavery after people realized the ignominy of the immoral practice in view of his words and vision for the United States. Unlike the Confederacy, the answer is a resounding “no”, he did not. Neither did Lincoln, Grant or others you all seek to malign.

      • Melissa Blue August 20, 2014 / 10:45 am

        No, the questuion is did Jefferson go to war for independence and liberty, and claiming Kiong George had violated the basic human rights of the colonists, while he himself, and the other slave-owning, slave-trafficking colonists commited grotesque and severe human rights abuses against the persons he sadistically held in human bondage. And did this fact thereby render his Declaration a hypocritical farce. The answer, of course, is a resounding “yes”. Any if you malign the Confederates for their slavery, I most certainly will malign Grant, Washington, and Jefferson for their slavery. Count on it.

        • Sandi Saunders August 20, 2014 / 12:32 pm

          “Malign” anyone you care to, again, Jefferson did not fight to keep slavery. That was not what the American Revolution for Independence was about. The Civil War was about the Confederacy demanding to keep slavery.

          • Melissa Blue August 20, 2014 / 1:28 pm

            “Malign” any Confederate you care to, Jefferson held hundreds of human beings in bondage. So did Washington. And while they incessantly whined about their taxes being too high, they perpetrated the most gruesome and grotesque human rights abuses imaginable. And the War for Southern Independence was, like the War of 1776, a war for political independence.

          • John Foskett August 20, 2014 / 4:07 pm

            Yep – they were both “rebellions/insurrections”.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 12:20 pm

            Nope. The 1861 secession was perfectly lawful. The 1776 secession was utterly lawless.

          • John Foskett August 21, 2014 / 2:37 pm

            They were both “rebellions/insurrections” Or maybe the 1860-61 Secesh were really stupid, because many of them said they were doing nothing different from what their forefathers had done in 1776. Too bad you weren’t around to ‘splain the difference to them.

          • John Foskett August 23, 2014 / 8:11 am

            More crickets.

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 8:39 am

            In 1776 the slave-owners perpetreated a lawless rebellion. In 1861, the Confederates perpetrated a perfectly lawful secession. As for the secesh being really, really, toopit, it is true that George Washington had almost no formal education, but I still don’t think he was toopit. There, I splained it to you.

          • John Foskett August 25, 2014 / 9:55 am

            Scoreboard.

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 12:10 pm

            Scoreboard.

          • Jimmy Dick August 21, 2014 / 7:39 am

            Fire away with everything you got, Waterboy. Until you understand the context you’re going to be flailing in the wind helplessly. You keep trying to make a link between two events to give your opinion validity. However, the context shows you are wrong.

        • The other Susan August 20, 2014 / 1:30 pm

          I didn’t post this for my health. Please read it.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

          The Confederates on the other hand were not hypocrites they both fought for slavery and had slaves.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 12:31 pm

            No, no, you are mistaken. In the Declaration, Jefferson clearly announced to all the world that one of the reasons for the separation was that King George had interfered with the colonists right to own slaves. So yes, the colonists fought for the right to own slaves. Oh, and traffick in slaves too.

          • The other Susan August 21, 2014 / 3:02 pm

            Really? That would be weird considering he said this in an early draft.

            “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.” http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery#sthash.qqKzYmEQ.dpuf

          • Melissa Blue August 22, 2014 / 2:50 pm

            Actually, I have already quoted this in an earlier post. And I am afraid that in also quoting this pasasge, you shoot yourself right in the foot. The passage was deliberately removed. And the result? Well, the New Englanders could go right on trafficking in slaves. For a profit, of course.

          • The other Susan August 23, 2014 / 2:28 am

            Actually, no. As Thomas Jefferson said, the Colonies had tried to pass measures to limit or end the slave trade to America, but they were overruled by the crown. After declaring their independence they no longer had that problem. All of the new states banned or suspended the international slave trade. Several northern states ending slavery all together. For a brief period after the war North and South Carolina as well as Georgia reopened the slave trade. But eventually Jefferson got his way and it was outlawed altogether in 1808.

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 8:35 am

            Actually, yes. The Continental Congress had a perfect opportunity to protest international slave-trafficking in the Declaration, but purposely did not. And they did not because Massaschusetts, New York, and Rhode Island found it very, very profitable to traffick in slaves. And, of course, Jefferson owned hundreds and hundreds of slaves until the day he died.

          • The other Susan August 25, 2014 / 12:11 pm

            So according to you, because they missed a “perfect opportunity to protest international slave-trafficking in the Declaration,” that means they clearly “fought for the right to own slaves. Oh, and traffick in slaves too” in spite of the fact that as soon as they had their freedom they banned the slave trade and some states banned slavery altogether?

            PS it was South Carolina and Georgia that asked for that clause to be struck; but Jefferson did admit he felt that some from the north were probably glad to see the comment go, not because they wanted to continue the salve trade, but because they were feeling the guilt of having taken part in it.

            “The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary still wished to continue it.
            Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under those censures; for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 12:29 pm

            So, according to you, because they deliberately did not protest international slave-traffickin when they could have, that means they clearly and passionately protested it? Oh, and as soon as th salve-trafficking colonistsy had their freedom, they protected slave-trafficking for twenty full years. And for twenty years the New Englanders sadistically stuffed Africans into the filthy holds of slave ships so they could turn a profit. But nah, this doesn’t bother you in the least, does it? not even a little bit.

            PS-It was the New England States that asked for the clause to be stricken, but Jefferson did admit that the South was probably glad to see the comment go, not because they wanted the slave trafficking to continue, but because they felt guilty of having taken part in it.

          • Jimmy Dick August 25, 2014 / 3:23 pm

            Show proof or shut up. It is that simple. You have not shown proof. The other Susan did show proof which proves you wrong. As usual you keep running your mouth while ignoring the facts that prove you wrong. No matter southern heritage is going the way of the dodo.

          • The other Susan August 25, 2014 / 4:13 pm

            You do realize how childish your answers sound don’t you? I know you are just going to repeat that back at me because that’s what children do. Don’t worry. I am prepared with, I know you are but what am I times infinity.

            Even though Southern states made sure to add to the Constitution that the slave trade could not be banned nationally until 1808 the only state that still allowed the international slave trade when the constitution was written was Georgia, and they banned it in 1798. The slave trade was outlawed in New England. States rights, you should be so pleased. Yes there were people who carried on the trade illegally, but that will hardly prove your point that the colonists fought to protect the international slave trade.

          • Melissa Blue August 22, 2014 / 2:52 pm

            And the founders were also not hypocrites. They too, fought for slavery and they had slaves. Oh, and trafficked in slaves too.

          • Sandi Saunders August 25, 2014 / 9:38 am

            You continue to lie that the founders “fought for slavery” when they did not. Yes, they “had slaves” but many evolved and moved away from it, many more willingly joined the movement to free slaves and end slavery, but again, unlike the Confederacy, they never fought to keep it or spread it. You are just not honest.

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 12:09 pm

            Thomas Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves until the day he died. He “moved away” from nothing. And in his Declaration, he openly protested the Crown’s interference with slavery. So just like the Confederacy, the colonists fought to preserve slavery. You are just not honest.

          • John Foskett August 25, 2014 / 1:19 pm

            There’s that analogy to the colonists again. Good to see that you share the views of the 1860-61 Secesh, who proudly analogized their rebellion/insurrection against the governing authority to that which took place in 1776.

          • Sam Jones August 25, 2014 / 3:24 pm

            Rather, it’s good to see that the 1776 slave-owning, slave-trafficking secesh set the standard for the 1861 Confederates. Except, of course, the Confederates acted lawfully, whereas the slave-trafficking secesh of 1776 did not.

          • Brooks D. Simpson August 25, 2014 / 3:25 pm

            Gee, Melissa, trying on a new identity?

            Bye.

          • Sam Jones August 25, 2014 / 3:46 pm

            What could you possibly care whether the screen name is Sam or Melissa? What possible difference could it make? This forum is about ideas, not personalities.

          • Brooks D. Simpson August 25, 2014 / 6:43 pm

            When you pretend to be more than one person, you’re out. Simple as that. It’s not as if you were doing well in the ideas category, anyway.

            By the way, it’s a blog … my forum. Want a discussion group? You can always start your own. You can even pretend to be different people offering different points of view, or create a chorus echo chamber. Think of the possibilities!

            Farewell. It’s been real … well, not in your case.

  15. Jimmy Dick August 18, 2014 / 3:38 pm

    Every entry by MB also known as the Waterboy is the same as always. Lie, lie, lie, distortion, false interpretation, and another lie. This individual has made the same claims repeatedly on multiple blogs and keeps repeating them over and over again even when they have been proven wrong. It is ridiculous.
    This is another reason why the Lost Cause fails every single time. It is built on nothing but lies. Here we are with another thread going down the same rabbit hole with an ignorant Lost Causer making the same claims they always make.

    • Michael Rodgers August 18, 2014 / 7:14 pm

      I am tired of this absurd, meaningless, and pointless nonsense from that kind, goodhearted, and learned lady, my dear anonymous correspondent, Melissa Blue.

      What the heck is the point?? Secession was constitutional so? No it isn’t, though many southerners thought so because the argument is an “ingenious sophism” that the “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” President Washington warned about used to commence “an insidious debauching of the public mind” and then
      “With rebellion thus sugar coated they have been drugging the public mind of their section for more than thirty years, and until at length they have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against the Government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the farcical pretense of taking their State out of the Union who could have been brought to no such thing the day before.”

      Many good men! President Lincoln respects the people of the southern states and so do I. The war was fought. It’s over. Everybody has some ancestors that did good things and others that did bad. If a person fought for the Confederacy, that person probably did so for his friends, his unit, his state, etc., following a chain of command with civilian oversight in the state and the Confederate government, i.e. wrong cause, but fine service and deserving of respect for the service and sacrifice.

      So, what’s the point that our indefatiguable, rude, and redundant correspondent wishes to make?? The USA was formed with the idea of all men are equal in mind but in practice with racism, slavery, and slave-trafficking. The states in the south always wanted more slavery and several of them fought a war to try to get it. So?? Meanwhile racism in the northern states continued. So??

      We should know our history, the history of the United States of America to understand where we’ve been as a country and what we mean to the world as a place that puts ballots over bullets, and that history is story-telling learning facts to gain more understanding not complaining while seeking to get less understanding.

      • John Foskett August 19, 2014 / 6:51 am

        Ask “Melissa” about “rebellion”. “She” seems to have a real (and quite understandable) mental block on that one.

        • Melissa Blue August 20, 2014 / 10:39 am

          ASk Foskett about “self-determination”. “He” seems to have a real (albeit understandable) mental block on that one.

          • Jimmy Dick August 20, 2014 / 1:11 pm

            Oddly enough so do you. You seem to have a different interpretation of it then most people today do as well as the people of the past.

          • John Foskett August 20, 2014 / 1:52 pm

            As i posted above, I’m fine with “self-determination” as a synonym for “rebellion/insurrection”. Your turn.

          • Melissa Blue August 21, 2014 / 12:21 pm

            And as I posted above, I’m fine with “self-determination” as a synonym for “lawful secession”. My turn.

          • John Foskett August 23, 2014 / 8:10 am

            You lose. Just like 1865. Vince <Lombardi said it best.

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 7:58 am

            You lose. Just like in 1865. And Vince Lombardi, indeed, said it best.

          • Brooks D. Simpson August 25, 2014 / 9:18 am

            Actually, Lombardi was not happy with how that “quote” was interpreted, but then you have a tin ear and blind eye when it comes to context.

          • John Foskett August 25, 2014 / 10:02 am

            Let’s leave it at this. “She” thinks “her” side won. I know some Browns fans who’d like to have what “she’s” having.

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 10:24 am

            In truth, the quote is vapid, platitudinal, and tautological. And that is its proper context.

          • Brooks D. Simpson August 25, 2014 / 11:57 am

            Well, you would be the expert on that.

          • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 12:12 pm

            Let’s leave it at this. “He” thinks “his” side won. I know some Browns fans who’d like to have what “he’s” having.

      • Sandi Saunders August 19, 2014 / 7:28 am

        We need a “like” or “agree” button! Well said Jimmy and Michael!

        • Melissa Blue August 20, 2014 / 10:59 am

          I want a “like” or “agree” button too!!

          • Jimmy Dick August 20, 2014 / 1:10 pm

            As long as it was set up so you could not spam it with false names like you do on this and other blogs. It must be frustrating to have your opinions rejected repeatedly by people.

      • Melissa Blue August 20, 2014 / 10:48 am

        And I too, am tired am tired of this vapid, ludicrous, and pointless jabberwocky from that kind, goodhearted, and learned lady, my dear unionist correspondent, Michael Rodgers.

        Etc., etc., etc…

        • Michael Rodgers August 20, 2014 / 3:40 pm

          Thanks for the misery.

      • Fergus August 21, 2014 / 12:02 am

        America’s exalted view of itself is not universally shared even in the West. I know many of you believe you are the “greatest country in the world” and so on. When I read all these discussions about your Constitution I keep coming back to the fact that it was written with full knowledge of and acceptance of the institution of slavery. This in my slightly colored opinion(pun intended) renders morality claims of either the Unites States or the Confederate States moot. I am reminded of a Dr Johnson’s remark about the Irish they a very truthful people they never speak well of one another”.

        • Sandi Saunders August 25, 2014 / 9:33 am

          I think it is wrong to say that the evolving nation which was indeed turning away from Slavery therefore lacks any claim to morality. Can England claim no hand in Slavery, therefore no morality either? When there is no prohibition on Slavery even in the most holy of books, The Bible, it is little wonder it was so easy to subjugate an entire race, but the morality comes in letting that go and evolving.

  16. Michael Rodgers August 24, 2014 / 5:09 am

    The first sentence in Article IV Section 2, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” was interpreted in 1823 to mean that the Constitution guaranteed that citizens in their own states couldn’t be denied in any other state the rights they enjoyed in their home states, meaning that people from out of state are guaranteed the rights, among others, “to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state.” Obviously if a state declares itself to be a foreign country then it unconstitutionally denies the privileges and immunities that the Constitution guarantees to the citizens of the other states,

    • Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 9:19 am

      When the slave-owning, slave-trafficking American colonies seceded from the British Empire, the laws of the Empire were no longer applicable to them. In like manner, when the Confederates seceded from the United States, no provision of the U.S. Constitution, nor any U.S. law was applicable to them. So it wasn;t just Article IV section 2 that no longer applied, it was the entirety of the Constitution.

      This should not be a surprise to anyone, and secession was perfectly legal, as there is nothing anywhere in the constitution which prohibits the act. However, a State cannot print its own money. Know why? Because the constitution specifically prohibits that. But again, it does not prohibit secession.

      • Michael Rodgers August 25, 2014 / 1:35 pm

        Independence declared in 1776 was not independence accomplished in 1776; what made British law no longer applicable in America was the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

        Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 clearly and irrefutably forbids state secession. State secession violates the Constitution by abrogating rights of the people recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution in Article IV Section 2 Clause 1.

        Secession declared in 1860-1 was not secession accomplished in 1860-1; what made American law no longer applicable in the so-called seceded states was nothing. American law never ceased being applicable in those states.

        Congress authorized President Lincoln to put down the slave state insurrection and he did so.

  17. Rosemary August 24, 2014 / 4:48 pm

    Lincoln argued the constitution did not allow slavery in his Cooper Union address…. just an fyi. … here is link to actor Sam Waterston performing Lincoln’s speech on the same Cooper Union stage… Lincoln went deep into the motivations of the founders… I havent read all of this thread so forgive me is Lincoln’s Cooper Union remarks already were covered.
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?181864-1/abraham-lincolns-cooper-union-address

    • Rosemary August 24, 2014 / 4:53 pm

      correction: didn’t allow spread of slavery…
      reason I put link here is cause of the parts about motivations of founders… these parts seem relevant to conversation in this thread…

  18. Sandi Saunders August 25, 2014 / 12:32 pm

    On virtually any site that allows comments, one has to contend with the Confederate revisionists and their dishonesty and attacks. I see no need to stay here and “enjoy” it.

  19. Melissa Blue August 25, 2014 / 1:14 pm

    And on virtually any site that allows comments, one has to contend with the Federal revisionists and their dishonesty and attacks. I too see no need to stay here and “enjoy” it.

    • Jimmy Dick August 25, 2014 / 3:30 pm

      Really? I guess historical correctness is just too much for you to handle. You can’t handle the truth and you can’t handle facts. If you were a student of mine you would be getting a big F. I had another student today say the CW was caused by state’s rights. I asked him what the state’s rights were. It was as if no one had ever asked him that before. He couldn’t name any. You could hear the gears grinding as he began to engage the thinking process. I pointed him in the direction of the secession conventions and it was the first time he had looked at what the people were saying in the secession winter.

      You should be doing that, but you won’t. You can’t accept what you know is true about the war being about slavery. That is you being willfully ignorant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s