Chat Room

Crossroads offers readers a discussion of various topics, most related to history, historians, and the academic life, although here and there other subjects may be included.

Brooks D. Simpson is a historian and writer who teaches at Arizona State University.  He has been known to write about nineteenth century American history, although he’s also written on other topics, from George Washington’s Supreme Court appointments to Derek Jeter.   You may contact him at

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author alone and are not those of Arizona State University, for those of you who might be confused.  Nor are they endorsed by ASU.

355 thoughts on “Chat Room

  1. P Diddy December 28, 2013 / 8:21 am

    You are all the time rubbing the South for Slavery and the plight of Blacks, It is a worthy note in History to find Blacks owning slaves. Take a little note from History that you may have never known– WHO STARTED SLAVERY IN AMERICA

    An interesting fact of American history is found in English-speaking America: Virginia, Guide to The Old Dominion, WPA Writers’ Program, Oxford University Press, NY, 1940, p. 378.

    “In 1650 there were only 300 negroes in Virginia, about one percent of the population. They weren’t slaves any more than the approximately 4,000 white indentured servants working out their loans for passage money to Virginia, and who were granted 50 acres each when freed from their indentures, so they could raise their own tobacco. Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, a negro. This was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime. But who was Anthony Johnson, winner of this epoch-making decision? Anthony Johnson was a negro himself, one of the original 20 brought to Jamestown (1619) and ‘sold’ to the colonists. By 1623 he had earned his freedom and by 1651, was prosperous enough to import five ‘servants’ of his own, for which he received a grant of 250 acres as ‘headrights.’ Anthony Johnson ought to be in a ‘Book of First.’ As the most ambitious of the first 20, he could have been the first negro to set foot on Virginia soil. He was Virginia’s first free negro and first to establish a negro community, first negro landowner, first negro slave owner and as the first, white or black, to secure slave status for a servant, he was actually the founder of slavery in Virginia. A remarkable man

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 28, 2013 / 10:13 am

      This information is in wide circulation. So what? Am I to understand that you believe that Anthony Johnson’s ownership of a slave exonerates all white slaveholders? Really? Funny, I don’t see that fact mentioned when secessionists justified secession on the grounds of protecting slavery. Why do you think secessionists were so ignorant and stupid as to ignore the historical fact of which you seem so enamored?

      You folks really need to work on your material. All you do is recycle the same stuff.

    • Jimmy Dick December 28, 2013 / 2:21 pm

      Johnson’s descendants were driven out of Virginia as the colony passed more and more restrictive laws regarding race and rights. In 1723 the governor declared that only by fixing “a perpetual Brand upon Free-Negroes & Mulattos by excluding them from that great Priviledge of a Freeman” could they be taught “that a distinction ought to be made between their offspring and the Descendants of an Englishman, with whom they never were to be Accounted Equal.” Alan Taylor, The American Colonies, pg. 156.

      As fewer indentured servants came from England in the latter 17th century, Virginians turned to African slaves as a labor force. Unlike the earlier half century, Virginians used their power to create a system of forced labor based upon race in order to put all white colonists above that of the slaves. This was done to bind whites against blacks which was just another form of the ancient theme of Us vs. Them. As a result, men like Anthony Johnson had their rights stripped from them (in his case his descendants), were kidnapped and enslaved, had their lands and properties taken from them, were driven from the colony, or if they were lucky they read the writing on the wall and sold their properties and moved to a colony with fewer restrictions on race.

      What this shows us is that any society that has an unequal form of citizenship will violate the rights of minorities across race, gender, class, and religious lines. The concept of equality is extremely important and must be applied at all times or we risk repeating the mistakes of history.

      How could Johnson be the founder of slavery when he himself was a slave? He wasn’t the founder of slavery in Virginia. He was one of the earliest known slave owners. However, he nor his kin were the founders of the racially based slave system which was instituted in the late 17th century in Virginia.

      • Christopher Shelley April 7, 2014 / 11:32 am

        I think Edmund Morgan’s great book _American Slavery, American Freedom_ should be cited more often. It shows exactly how race-based slavery evolved, as Jimmy hints at above. If Morgan’s scholarship is out-of-date, then please by all means correct me.

    • Jennifer Sanchez October 24, 2015 / 3:01 am

      i always thought financial gain was the real reason. i do find it very interesting that a black man was technically the first slave owner. If this is the real p diddy it has been suggested that some of your business dealings could be slave like, i hope that is just a rumor. goodnight guys!

  2. Rob Baker January 15, 2014 / 9:49 am

    Interesting new look Brooks.

  3. BParks January 15, 2014 / 3:10 pm

    Thanks Brooks for the new look and this great new Chat Room section that will allow these Confederate heritage troglodytes to insert their foot into their mouths and provide us with even more entertainment. (On a side note, I find it very refreshing that my children’s schools here in Virginia are presenting Civil War history in their classrooms with an unbiased, truthful, and Pro-Union agenda that teaches students that we are far better off together as one, equal and unified country!)

    • David Vazquez October 16, 2017 / 1:06 pm

      Did I read this correctly– “An unbiased… pro Union agenda”? How can something be unbiased if it is pro something else? And as a Virginian myself, I’m curious, which schools do you mean?

  4. George Purvis January 30, 2014 / 8:56 am


    Do just make a post here or is there a way to start a new page?

    George Purvis

  5. George Purvis February 1, 2014 / 8:17 am

    Slavery was not a cause of the war. Prove me wrong

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

      • George Purvis February 3, 2014 / 10:45 am

        Sure thing–

        My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without
        freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear,

        A. Lincoln.

        Now prove that it was. Go ahead trot out the secession documents or the Cornerstone Speech. Better keeep mackey close you are going to need his help.

        George Purvis
        Sourthern Heeritage Advancement Preservation and Education

        • Jimmy Dick February 3, 2014 / 2:06 pm

          You roll out one thing said by Lincoln and call that proof? It does absolutely nothing to prove what the war was caused by. I will say that it does bring up the issue of slavery in relationship to the war which obviously indicates it is part of the overall conversation. However, it does nothing to prove your point. The secession documents on the other hand go a long way in disproving your point as does the Cornerstone speech.
          You really need to learn what context means. If you would take a classes on history you would find out.

          • Jimmy Dick February 3, 2014 / 6:12 pm

            Now that I am at home and have time to analyze this, let me begin by pointing out two things. One, that you only took part of the entire letter from Lincoln to Horace Greeley, and did not use the emphasized words that Lincoln used. You did not place the document in the context with which it was written either. This is a clear example of the lack of context which plagues the Lost Cause mentality. It is cherry picking as usual.

            Let us now place the entire text into the system.

            Executive Mansion,
            Washington, August 22, 1862.

            Hon. Horace Greeley:
            Dear Sir.

            I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

            As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

            I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time “save” slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time “destroy” slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle “is” to save the Union, and is “not” either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing “any” slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing “all” the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do “not” believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do “less” whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do “more” whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

            I have here stated my purpose according to my view of “official” duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed “personal” wish that all men every where could be free.

            A. Lincoln.

            The letter to Greeley was written while the Emancipation Proclamation lay in Lincoln’s desk. The letter reveals what Lincoln saw as his official duty, and also expressed his personal wish that all men could be free. This letter tells us nothing of what started the war. It also tells us nothing of what caused the Southern states to attempt secession or does it? The letter goes into the issue of slavery and was written in response to Greeley’s editorial, “The Prayer of Twenty Millions.” You may read that editorial in its entirety here at this website,

            Greeley later stated that he thought Lincoln’s response was in preparation for the Emancipation Proclamation due to the way events would play themselves out. The issue of slavery was on the forefront of a lot of minds when Greeley wrote his editorial on August 19, 1862. Obviously he had made a connection between the cause of the war and slavery, but then that should have been obvious from the beginning since the leaders of the South were telling everyone that was the cause of the war.

          • John Bacharach February 8, 2014 / 8:55 am

            Arguing that African slavery was not the cause of the war tacitly admits the truth that argument denies. The deniers spend the time and energy because they must either acknowledge that the Confederacy was protecting a sin or deny that sin was the primary reason it was created.

  6. John Pippin February 1, 2014 / 1:18 pm

    Since this is Black History Month I thought I would pass a few facts to help the discussion this month and yes Brooks my name appears and I am not ashamed of it. Look it up also and you might find some interesting facts..
    Black History Month Spotlight:
    Free Colored Slave Owners
    Via Bernhard

    “There were black masters in every State where slavery existed [including the North], many black Americans of the antebellum period believed that slavery was a viable economic system. In Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina and Virginia, free blacks owned more than 10,000 slaves, according to the Federal census of 1850. Many of the black masters in the Lower South were large planters who owned scores of slaves and planted large quantities of cotton, rice, and sugar cane.

    In 1860, for example, Auguste Donatto, a free colored planter of St. Landry Parish in Louisiana, owned 70 slaves who worked 500 acres of land and produced 100 bales of cotton. About 600 miles to the east…in the county of Sumter, South Carolina, William Ellison, a free colored planter, used the labor of 70 slaves to cultivate 100 bales of cotton in 1861. {in the same State], Robert Michael Collins and Margaret Mitchell Harris used their slaves to till the soil of Santee Plantation and grew 240,000 pounds of rice in 1849.

    In 1860, Madame Ciprien Ricard and her son Pierre Ricard , free mulattoes of Ibeville Parish, owned 168 slaves. The joint operation of mother and son used the labor of slaves to produce 515 hogsheads of sugar in 1859. Not all of the black masters were planters, nor were they all from the South. In 1830 the city of New York had eight black slave-owners who owned 17 slaves. The institution of black slave-owning was widespread, stretching as far north as New York and as far south as Florida, extending westward into Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Missouri.

    Where did these free black masters come from? Many…were former slaves…emancipated for meritorious military duty, faithful service, saving a life, and other such reasons. Many of the colored slave owners inherited slaves from black relatives as well as white kinsfolk. A few black masters owned slaves in West Africa and transported their slaves to the New World.”

    (Black Slave-owners, Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860, Larry Koger, USC Press, 1985, pp. 1-2)

  7. George Purvis February 4, 2014 / 9:14 am

    Good job.

    I posted that to get you started. That is just one example. There is more to com, but let’stake your examples first.

    Secession documents–these documents are just waht they say they are Ssecession documents nothing more, not declarations of war. Post me any passage of the secession docs that state we are going to war for the isnstution of slavery..

    The Cornerstone speech. Post any passage Stephens said “we are going to war for—-.” Also it should be noted that there is no copy of that sppech that exists today. That being the case we have no idea what Stephens really said. We do know what the reporter on the scene had to say —-
    [REPORTER’S NOTE. — Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator. — G.]

    WWe also know that Stephen s came back and clarified his statements. That is more than can be said about Lincoln and his racist remarks. What I Really said -A. Stephens—

    Post the passage in any of these docs. It is that simple.

    • Bob Huddleston February 5, 2014 / 2:05 pm

      After the Civil War was over came the time for the writing of memoirs, which the participants did with great gusto, while justifying their mistakes and lambasting their enemies –most of whom had been on their side during the war!

      One of the first to get into print was Alexander Stephens in 1868-70 with his _A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States; its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results Presented in a Series of Colloquies at Liberty Hall_.

      Not only did Stephens attempt – with a great deal of success – to change the name of the War, when he invented “War Between the States,” but also change the reasons for secession: he (and later, Jefferson Davis) both realized that 750,000 dead to attempt to create a slave holders’ country was not a good enough reason.

      But Stephens had to forget or explain away, his most famous speech, the Cornerstone Speech of 1861.

      Stephens started his revisionist history as early as the summer of 1865, when he was incarcerated at Fort Warren, Massachusetts.

      In an age innocent of CNN, a politician could repeat a speech several times without worrying that his listeners had already heard or seen the speech. Stephens appears to given the basic Cornerstone Speech at least two times: in Atlanta on March 12 and in Savannah on March 21. The first speech was reported in the _Atlanta Southern Confederacy_ the following day and repeated in the _Charleston Mercury_ on March 18 but appears to have not been noted in the Northern papers. However the second speech was copied from the _Savannah Republican_ and made its way into the war-time _Rebellion Record_, edited by Frank Moore (Doc 48, vol. 1, 1861). While Stephens was in Fort Warren, (Myrta L. Avery, ed., _Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens: His Diary Kept while a Prisoner in Fort Warren, Boston Harbor, 1865_ (reprint 1998, pp. 172-174) he claimed that his “cornerstone analogy was taken out of context.

      While justifying his involvement in starting the Civil War, Stephens also forgot a third time when he used the “Cornerstone” as part of a speech. On April 23, 1861, Stephens addressed the Virginia Secession Convention, urging them to join with the other slave states in the new Confederacy. In addition to all but promising that Richmond would be the Confederacy’s capital, Stephens carefully laid out the consequences to the Particular Institution if Virginia did not join the Confederacy.

      What is not mentioned in any of the biographies of Robert E. Lee is that Stephens made his address right after Lee was appointed major general of the Virginia state army – right after Lee had made his famous and taken out of context statement about never drawing his sword except to defend Virginia. Lee’s confirmation by the convention was an add-on for the day’s events, when the army officer arrived in Richmond after Stephens had already been invited. And Lee had to know that his sword was going to be drawn to defend Virginia as part of the Confederacy. Lee also conveniently forgot that he was still a United States Army officer, since his resignation had not yet been accepted by the Secretary of War.

      As for Stephens, his declaration both at Fort Warren and in the _War Between the States_ that he was misquoted and taken out of context is interesting since both the Savannah Republican version of the speech as well as the Virginia Convention speech appeared in his authorized biography and speech collection, Henry Cleveland, _Alexander H. Stephens in Public and Private. With Letters and Speeches Before, During, and Since the War_ {National Publishing Company: Philadelphia and Chicago, 1866), a book which was written with his full cooperation, including the use of letters written by president-elect Lincoln to Stephens and the inclusion of a letter from Stephens to Cleveland approving the page proofs.

  8. George Purvis February 4, 2014 / 9:17 am

    There is no need to put the letter in context, content or any other kind iof con. That is an accurate statement made by Lincoln and you know it. The war had nothing to do with slavery. And there is no law against secession.

    • Jimmy Dick February 5, 2014 / 1:04 pm

      Sounds like a parrot, talks like a parrot, squawks like a parrot…must be George Purvis who has never met a fact he can’t ignore.

      • George Purvis February 6, 2014 / 8:42 am

        “must be George Purvis who has never met a fact he can’t ignore”

        Exactly right unlike you you who has met a fact you can accept. It is also a fact I never met a Yankee that I couldn’t outsmart.

        • Jimmy Dick February 6, 2014 / 11:35 am

          Sounds like a parrot, talks like a parrot, squawks like a parrot…must be George Purvis who has never met a fact he can’t ignore.

      • Rob Baker February 13, 2014 / 7:56 am

        Did he just say there is no need to put a primary source into context? Wow. George Purvis everyone

  9. George Purvis February 5, 2014 / 9:38 am

    Well looks like Dick and Mackey cannot or will not post the law that makes secession illegal. Guess after I ate them up about the Chase quote they are done.

    Wondering when someone is going to provide some solid proof the war was caused by slavery? I hear that statement constantly yet no facts are presented. What is the big deal about presenting facts .

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

    • Jimmy Dick February 5, 2014 / 1:02 pm

      Looks like you failed again George. I’d ask if you were stupid, but you prove it in every post. You have never presented any factual evidence to support your statement. You have been presented with a lot of evidence proving you wrong but you are too ignorant to understand it.

      George, let’s face it. You are dumb. You are a liar. You are nothing but a parrot who has nothing original in this argument. If you are what passes for education in Southern Heritage the country has nothing to fear. My students laugh at you and so do the other people I show this stuff to. They are amazed that someone as ignorant as you exists.

      No matter how many times you lie to people, George, you will always come off as looking incredibly stupid. You’re nothing but a running joke on every blog. The title of your blog really means Southern Heritage Ignorance, Stupidity, and Lies. Fortunately for you the Supreme Court has ruled that lying is a First Amendment right. One which you exercise in every post.

      Now go back and play with the other children while the adults continue to teach people that want to learn.

  10. John Pippin February 5, 2014 / 8:02 pm

    George when a Liberal can’t prove a thing they always attack and act as we all are dumb or crazy. It is as if water ran uphill and it never rained.

  11. George Purvis February 6, 2014 / 8:40 am

    Yes, yes, stupid, ignorant etc. etc.out of context etc etc. Fact ofthe matter is I just proved to all the readers of this pages how little you know about histoty. Can’t insult your way out of this!!! LOL LOL LOL

    Post the law. It is that simple

    • Jimmy Dick February 6, 2014 / 11:34 am

      We did. You ignored it because you’re too ignorant to accept factual evidence that shows you lie to people.

  12. George Purvis February 6, 2014 / 9:08 am

    Very interesting and civil reply –thank you. Please understand I fully understand and appreciate what you are saying but the secession docs and the Cornerstone epeech, if we assume what we read on the web is absolutely correct, have nothing to do with the war. If secession was, as Mississippi says, throughly associated and in Stepens speech, (you can pick any passage you want) there is still no declaration of war.

    Another tidbit for your consideration, which by now we have heard from Lincoln and Davis —
    “I tried in all my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, and for 12 years, I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination, we will have….Slavery never was an essential element. It was the only means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations . . . ” (President Jefferson Davis, July 1864)

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

    • Jimmy Dick February 6, 2014 / 11:44 am

      No declaration of war? You don’t declare war on your own states because they are not a foreign country. You put down a rebellion. There is a huge difference.
      Also don’t forget the South fired the first shots and started the armed conflict.

      • George Purvis February 8, 2014 / 9:02 am

        “No declaration of war? You don’t declare war on your own states because they are not a foreign country. You put down a rebellion.”

        Do you want to support that statement are you too scared to challenge me on facts again?

        Where did I read ” secession is not rebellion?” Hummmm

  13. George Purvis February 7, 2014 / 9:25 am

    Nowhere did I say Mississippi declared war on Georgia. Are you sure youwant to stick to that statement?

  14. George Purvis February 7, 2014 / 9:27 am

    Still insulting huh. Post the law that makes secession illegal. Prove slavery was the cause of the war. Those are your major concerns.

    Quit being an idiot.

  15. George Purvis February 7, 2014 / 9:32 am

    No you did not. You have no idea what you are posting. Get out of the way and let Bob post his facts.

    Again Stephens speech is not accurate, tyhe reporter on the scene says so. The secession docs do not mention war. Find that statement either in the Declarations or the Ordinances.

    And while you are at it post the law that makes secession illegal and bringforward some real proof that slavery was a cause of the war.

  16. George Purvis February 7, 2014 / 9:37 am

    I know John I am in there house making them look like fools. They are always gonna say they win, means nothing to me, I know the truth. I am used to the insults, they roll off of me like water water off a ducks back.

    Have a Dixie day,
    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservatiion and Education

    • Jimmy Dick February 7, 2014 / 11:58 am

      Is marijuana legal in Mississippi or wherever you really are, George? In any event you need to lay off the dope or booze because it isn’t helping you. You’re still wrong and still lying and only you believe what you say.

      • George Purvis February 8, 2014 / 9:00 am

        Not a problem for me to be wrong. The problem is for you to prove it. Bet you are amking a good impression on the readers of this forum??/ I note not a singkle person is supporting you. Seems i am the one getting all the replys.

        • Jimmy Dick February 8, 2014 / 9:09 am

          Yeah, replies that disagree with you. You also won’t go over to Al’s board where your ignorance was shattered as usual.

    • Jimmy Dick February 7, 2014 / 1:16 pm

      Come on, Jim! You know George hasn’t met a fact he can’t ignore. If he can’t twist something out of context to prove his lies, he won’t acknowledge it. The guru of Southern Heritage Ignorance, Stupidity, and Lies just doesn’t want to deal with reality.

      • George Purvis February 8, 2014 / 8:57 am

        Right I do not ignore facts. It isd so nice of you to point that out. I leave the twisting and lying to you.

        • Jimmy Dick February 8, 2014 / 9:14 am

          You ignore everything that rejects your opinion. That is called ignoring facts. You sound like Ken Ham.

    • George Purvis February 8, 2014 / 8:56 am

      Thank you sir. I have plenty of information on why Secession occured. The fact of the matter is secession was not illegal and the Southern states could have left the Union because of the color of Lincoln’s eyes. Dick nor any of these so-called historians who visit these baords have yet to prove there was any law against secession

      Secession is not the discussion, the discussion is about a statement I made, “Slavery was not the cause of the war” I have posted quotes by Lincoln and Davis supporting my position. The only thing I have gotten from the opposite side is the Decalations of Secession and the Cornerstone speech. We know the Secession Ordinances take the place of the declarations and that Stephen’s speech may not be accurate. This is proven by the reporters notes. Now this being the case I want, someone to post any information they may have, from any major player, proving slavery was the cause of the war

      Thank You,

      George Purvis
      Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

      • Jimmy Dick February 8, 2014 / 9:13 am

        George, you have lost your argument because you take your sources out of context. You have only proven that you don’t know much about history and that you are not a historian in any sense of the word.
        You say secession is legal because it is not in the Constitution. The opposite of that is that secession is not legal because it is not in the Constitution. Which one is right? The Supreme Court addressed this issue. The people who ratified the Constitution addressed this issue. The Civil War addressed this issue. In all three cases secession lost.
        You can go on and on about it, but the proof is clear. Secession is not legal. It will not be attempted again.

  17. George Purvis February 8, 2014 / 9:14 am

    Feel free to post your proof. You would be the first person to do so.

    Do you believe in the Constitution of The United States???

    • Jimmy Dick February 8, 2014 / 12:39 pm

      And once again you show you do not. How many times do we have to explain it to you? I’m sorry you can’t figure this out on your own. You say because it is not in the Constitution secession is legal. You ignore that part where if it is not in the Constitution it is not legal. You don’t get to pick and choose what’s legal and not based on how you want it interpreted.
      This is where context comes into play and it is clear that the founders did not allow for secession. That has been proven repeatedly. If you cannot accept that then you fail.
      This was addressed a few times and each time secession failed. There will be no secession in the future.

  18. gpthelastrebel February 10, 2014 / 10:56 am

    LOL LOL LOL If you would post facts maybe I wouldn’t ignore you!!!!!!!

    BTW I see that coward Rob Baker has banned me. Boy you and Isabella can really lay the insults out now can’t you???!!!!!!

    • Rob Baker February 13, 2014 / 11:38 am

      You were banned for racist remarks George. You’ve proven what we all suspected. I’m amazed that Jimmy wastes so much time conversing with someone of your character.

  19. gpthelastrebel February 10, 2014 / 10:59 am

    Al has shattered anyone. He is a bigot and only post his opinions. And as i said once Al has banned me because of the facts I posted. Al is welcome here and try Also remember if Al has shattered me IT WASN”T YOU!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL

  20. gpthelastrebel February 10, 2014 / 11:20 am

    ecession was not illegal you have failed to prove that fact. Not only you but everyone who tries to prove that secession was illegal has failed. The best you folks can do is citing the Declarations found at or Stephens speech found at You simply ignore the Ordinances of secession found at In citing Stephens speech you completely ignore these parts –The Cornerstone Speech was delivered extemporaneously by Vice President Alexander H. Stephens and no official printed version exists. The text below was taken from a newspaper article in the Savannah Republican, as reprinted in Henry Cleveland, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, before, during, and since the War, Philadelphia, 1886, pp. 717-729.
    And this– REPORTER’S NOTE. — Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator. — G.]
    Now that being said who is ignoring facts or taking anything out of content or context?
    Now I have posted a quote from Lincoln and one from Davis, the least you could do is post something that remotely resembles a historical fact.
    I will say again before Chase’s ruling in Texas vs White in 1867(?) there was no law making secession illegal. You claim there is such a law in the constitution. If that is so then post it. It is just that simple.

    You cannot say secession will not be attempted again. You just don’t know.

    I think I am giving everyone a fair and equal chance to post their facts, even though you do nothing but insult, you are welcome to post facts.

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

    • Jimmy Dick February 10, 2014 / 5:32 pm

      Once again, George lies to everyone including himself because he has been proven wrong and refuses to acknowledge the truth.

  21. gpthelastrebel February 10, 2014 / 11:24 am

    Because they disagree with me doesn’t mean their opinions are right.

    I told you Mackey banned me as did Baker on some BS remark he deemed racist. I guess I should have insulted more???

    • Rob Baker February 13, 2014 / 11:39 am

      You demeaned Puerto Ricans for being Puerto Rican….everyone deems such remarks as bigoted/racist.

  22. gpthelastrebel February 10, 2014 / 11:26 am

    And I have explained it to you more than once. If the law exists before 1861 POST IT. Simple

    • Michael Rodgers February 10, 2014 / 4:19 pm

      Article III of the US Constitution says, “The judicial power [of the US Supreme Court] shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states….”
      Thus what South Carolina was required to do with their complaint (i.e. secession declaration) in which it was stated clearly that South Carolina had a controversy with several “non-slaveholding states” was to file it with the Supreme Court and await a hearing and a decision. Perhaps the Supreme Court would have granted South Carolina the relief sought.

      • Thad February 10, 2014 / 10:42 pm

        A complete misreading of Article III and the secessionist cause. The seceding states acted in accordance with their reserved powers under the tenth amendment. Curiously enough, however, the obligation to bring a case in federal court rested with those who would have challenged the constitutional right of a state to secede. No state or federal agency brought such a case before the court, which merely served to cement the fact that secession is perfectly lawful.

        • Jimmy Dick February 11, 2014 / 9:26 am

          Only if you ignore how the constitution is interpreted which is the continuing problem. A Supreme Court case was decided, Texas v. White which ruled that secession is only allowable if the federal government gives it consent. It did not therefore secession of those states was not allowed.

          Now if you really want to get into it, go back to the Kentucky Resolutions written by Jefferson. They were rejected when submitted to the other states. Since it advanced the theory of secession and was rejected by Congress that ends the issue of secession. The tenth amendment does not reserve secession in any way, shape, or form.

          • Thad February 12, 2014 / 12:31 pm

            You are incorrect. Texas v White fully recognizes, in clear and unambiguous language, the right of the states to secede. And the reserved powers of tenth amendment give the states the power to do all that is not prohibited to them by the constitution. Article I, section 10, fully enumerates the acts and things a state may not perform or do. Can you please show me where secession is prohibited? Thank you.

        • Michael Rodgers February 11, 2014 / 12:14 pm

          South Carolina was directed by the text in Article III of the US Constitution to submit its controversies with several non-slaveholding states to the US Supreme Court. South Carolina’s refusal to do so is inconsistent with this text.

          • Thad February 12, 2014 / 12:26 pm

            The 10th amendment fully protected South Carolina’s constitutional right to secede. If any entity wished to challenge that right, it was obligated to file a case with the federal courts. The failure to do so contradicts the plain text of the U.S. Constitution.

          • Jimmy Dick February 14, 2014 / 11:56 am

            How can the tenth amendment protect a state’s constitutional right when that right does not exist? Secession was known in the ratification process to not be possible so that ends the concept of it being a right. You can state that it is a right all you want, but the bottom line is that it is not a right and therefore the tenth amendment did not apply. Nor does it apply today.

          • Thad February 15, 2014 / 3:55 pm

            The ratification process was a process of secession, When the States ratified the Constitution, they necessarily seceded from the Union of the AoC. No way around that one. Secession is a protected right to all free peoples everywhere.

          • Christopher Shelley April 8, 2014 / 9:30 am

            No–the states did NOT ratify the U.S. Constitution. The People of each state ratified the Constitution. This was not an accident; this was what the Founders intended. They purposefully created a federal government that was NOT a creature of the states.

          • Michael Rodgers February 14, 2014 / 4:02 pm

            When SC issued the secession ordnance and declaration, in which SC justified secession by employing not the tenth amendment but an extra-constitutional “fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact,” most other states and the federal government waited to see what actual action SC would take if any.

            President Lincoln responded to the eventual action, SC’s firing on Ft. Sumter, by describing SC’s action as the beginning of an internal war of rebellion and by asking Congress for approval to put down same, in order to teach SC and the other states and that followed SC’s lead that “what they can not take by an election neither can they take by a war.”

          • Thad February 14, 2014 / 1:44 pm

            Article III, section 2, establishes the jurisdiction of the Federal Judiciary; it directs the States to do absolutely nothing. And out of pure curiousity, to what tribunal did the colonies submit their claim to secede from the British Empire? Also, inasmuch as you seem to take the word of the Declaration of Causes at face value, why did you not argue in favor of their assertion that the DoI gave them the God-given right to be free and independent? Surely you know that the Declaration of Causes was issued as a justfication of their act of secession. Again, how is it that you managed to ignore the arguments favoring the right of secession and utterly pervert their claim?

          • Jimmy Dick February 14, 2014 / 8:02 pm

            There is no right of secession. The arguments are moot because in the ratification process the issue was brought up. Patrick Henry pointed out to the Virginia Ratification Convention that once Virginia joined the Union under the Constitution there would be no going back. Secession is an abomination and not permissible without the consent of the federal government.

            It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Jefferson Davis not decided to attack Fort Sumter in order to hold the failing Confederacy together. The way things were beginning to be discussed, it is very likely that some states would have given up on the idea and opened discussions with Washington on reconciliation. Lincoln without a doubt would have welcomed them back by saying that they had never left. One by one the states would have come back into the Union with a few holding out for a while, but eventually giving up.

            Actually, saying come back is wrong. They would have resumed their normal place with little to no penalties and the whole thing would have been a footnote in political history. Instead, Davis ordered the attack because he knew that the confederacy was going to collapse without additional support and that many were questioning the rash choice made by a minority of people in each state. So instead of a footnote we have volumes of pages of men killing each other because a few were so desperate to retain some form of political power and their type of society that they were willing to destroy everything instead of allowing change to occur naturally.

          • Thad February 14, 2014 / 11:26 pm

            There is an absolute, and unquestioned right of secession under our systems of government. In point of fact, the United States owes its very existence to secession, a secessionwhich was promulgated by the Declaration of Independence, arguably the greatest secession document ever written.

          • Jimmy Dick February 15, 2014 / 11:14 am

            The Declaration was a nice document. Notice the part about all men being equal? Ending slavery was part of fulfilling that document. Therefore the South was blocking the fulfillment of the promises made in the Declaration. It is ironic that secessionists want to claim the Declaration, yet reject the issue of equality it contains. As we have been finding out, equality is one of the main principles of the American Revolution. We are still striving to fully realize that promise. The people that advocate secession whether it was in 1860 or today only claim the Declaration in an attempt to deny the principles of the American Revolution. It is a big paradox and one the big reasons why secession today will not occur again.

          • Thad February 15, 2014 / 3:53 pm

            The principles of the American revolution were white-supremacy, self-determination, treason,and secession. And they were put in written form by a white,traitorous,secessionists slave-owner. In fact, the Father of the United States was a white, traitorous, secessionist slave-owner. So the principles of 1861 were virtually identical to those of 1776.

          • Jimmy Dick February 15, 2014 / 8:40 pm

            Yeah, I think you just ended any hope of credibility you had. Have a nice night.

          • Thad February 14, 2014 / 11:33 pm

            Secession is an “abomination”? I take it you curse and condemn the Mexican secession from Spain, and the Texas secession from Mexico, and the Colonial secession from Great Britain? What about the Panamanian secession from Colombia, which we sponsored and supported in order to get the canal. Were those secessions “abominations” as well ? And can you show me where the constitution prohibits secession. That, I admit, would be very persuasive.

          • Jimmy Dick February 15, 2014 / 11:10 am

            Show me where it says secession is legal. It doesn’t and nothing you have dredged up makes it legal. The point was fought over via war and resolved. If that doesn’t prove anything to you then you are beyond the point of rational thought. Note that in every case you cite secession involved conflict. Those nations that won their independence had to fight a war to do so. Those that were worthy won their independence. Those that were not lost. Please note the Confederacy lost.

          • Michael Rodgers February 15, 2014 / 3:05 am

            Please try not to be so obtuse, smug, and condescending. Just state your argument. Article III, section 2, requires the states to submit to Supreme Court jurisdiction because that’s what jurisdiction means. “God-given” and “constitutional” are two different things. The revolutionaries made “a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” and the secessionists appealed to “the Supreme Judge of the world.” In other words, both groups submitted their claims for independence to the tribunal called war.

          • Thad February 15, 2014 / 8:20 pm

            Please try not to employ such addlepated and fatuous “arguments” Just do the best you can without the dramatics. Article II, section 2, in no way requires a State to file a complaint to perform a constitutionally protected act. Never has, and never will. In fact, that interpretation of Article III is so ludicrous, that it is to be immediately dismissed with a hearty chuckle. What Article III jurisdiction does mean, by the way, is that the Court has the authority to hear and decide cases that are brought before it. That’s it. Not, for chrissakes, that a State is required to bring a specific action. That is completely and utterly bogus, and cannot be taken seriously.

          • Michael Rodgers February 16, 2014 / 8:56 am

            Obviously (so, so obviously, I mean, really) if a state doesn’t want legal redress, then it is not required to file a complaint. If a state does want legal redress, then the US Supreme Court is the place to go, not the “Supreme Judge of the world,” i.e. the battlefield of war.

        • Bob Huddleston February 12, 2014 / 7:58 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.

          • Thad February 13, 2014 / 1:14 am

            I am afraid you have things, well, bottom-over-backwards. The Constitution grants powers to the Federal Government, it does not grant power to the States. Indeed, under the Constitution, the States inherently possess and fully retain every power they did not surrender and are not prohibited from exercising. The 10th amendment, of course, promulgates and codifies this bedrock constitutional principle. And once again, Article 1, section 10, carefully enumerates the powers which are denied to the States; please note that the power to secede is not among them. As a further illustration, is it your contention, for example, that because the Constitution does not “authorize” the States to establish Universities, that the existence of the University of Virginia, is unconstitutional? Of course not. Likewise, under the Constitution, in order for secession to be unconstitutional or unlawful, there would have to have been either a constitutional provision or federal legislation prohibiting it. Please note that as of 1860, neither existed.

          • Jimmy Dick February 14, 2014 / 8:08 pm

            Secession is not mentioned in the Constitution. That does not make it a power of the states. The argument brought up that because it is not in the Constitution, therefore it must be legal is a silly argument. The counterargument to that is if it is not in the Constitution, it is not permitted fits just as well. The concept of leaving the union was brought up in the ratification process and shown to be incompatible with being in the union to begin with.

            This legal because it isn’t in the constitution or the tenth amendment garbage is the usual crap from the Lost Cause crowd in adherence with their Confederate Catechism. It is not how the Constitution is interpreted and it certainly is not how the constitution is examined by scholars and legal experts. Only a little tiny fringe element believes the Lost Cause version of secession’s legality. They repeat it like a mantra because everything else shows that they’re wrong.

          • Thad February 14, 2014 / 11:47 pm

            Actually, there is no “counterargument” to the constitutional principle that all that the States did not surrender, they retained; it is carefully articulated in the plain language of the tenth amendment. Conversely, the only power the States granted to Federal Government to act without specific enumeration is the restrictive “necessary AND proper” clause under Article I. So despite the absurd and empty sewage spewed by the Emancipation Mythologists at the altar of Lincoln, secession is, and always has been, both a natural and constitutional right. As proof, whenever you ask an Emancipation Mythologist to show either federal legislation or a constitutional prohibition against secession, they typically respond by hurling angry insults. But they never do show you the prohibition against secession. Never.

          • Jimmy Dick February 15, 2014 / 11:19 am

            Yet when we ask an ignorant secessionist to show where secession is allowed in writing in the Constitution all they can do is rely on a discredited and false interpretation of the Constitution which has been rejected for over two centuries. They keep repeating it thinking it will come true, but instead it continues to be rejected and ridiculed for the incompetent and ignorant idea that it is.

            The Constitution is what it is. It was deliberately made to end the power of the state legislatures over that of the federal government. It clearly made the federal government supreme over that of the states. This was what the ratification process was all about.

            The only thing an ignorant secessionist can do is claim secession is a right and that is total crap. It is not a right and never has been. Therefore the tenth amendment does not apply.

          • Thad February 15, 2014 / 3:41 pm

            So again, when a stupid uninformed Lincolnite imperialist is asked to identify where the constitution prohibits secession, it can reply only with meaningless incoherent nonsense. The point stands; there is not now, and there never has been, a constitutional prohibition against secession. Despite what stupid uninformed Lincolnites hysterically wail.

          • Jimmy Dick February 15, 2014 / 8:41 pm

            And once again, the sound of Confederate parrots masquerading as apologists echoes across the land.

          • Michael Rodgers February 15, 2014 / 3:26 am

            Perhaps you see the difference between a establishing a university and becoming a separate country? No? A state educating its citizens is consistent with Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution. When the state university grants a degree, that degree should be given full faith and credit in the other states.

            Also in that section, “Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such [a state’s public] acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Because SC didn’t file its claims in the Supreme Court but instead issued an ordnance of secession, the Constitutional power to decide the effect of the ordnance fell to Congress. Congress said, after President Lincoln’s July 4, 1861 address, that basically the secession ordnance was a declaration of war.

          • Jimmy Dick February 15, 2014 / 11:23 am

            He won’t see anything, Michael. The only thing he will do is keep repeating the Confederate Catechism because that’s the only thing he knows. He will reject any and all evidence that proves him wrong. It’s a freaking display of complete ignorance.

          • Thad February 15, 2014 / 4:00 pm

            I see you have conceded the point that the Constitution, with limited exceptions, does not grant power to the States, and that rather, the States inherently have all powers they did not surrender. Now perhaps you can tell me to which tribunal the colonies submitted their claim of independence?

          • Michael Rodgers February 15, 2014 / 7:33 pm

            Dear Thad,
            Please start a new thread below, without putting words in other peoples mouths and without trying to get people to dance to your music. Please respond to what people have said in a nonarrogant manner and ask real questions about which you have actual curiosity. I believe that I have answered all your serious questions, that you should read my answers and think about them, and, while you’re at it, that you should reread the Constitution, SC’s Secession Declaration, and President Lincoln’s July 4 address to Congress. I’m ready to discuss these issues with you. Any further petulance from you though and I’m done.

          • Thad February 15, 2014 / 10:03 pm

            Dear Mike,
            It is neither possible nor believable that you could have failed to observe that the insults and verbal abuse, as always, started on your side. I would like to see you complain to Jimmy Dick regarding his uncivilized, indeed almost violent, debating tactics. Until you do, it is clear you are not serious about the grievances you articulate against me. Nevertheless, if you wish a serious and legitimate debate on the constitutionality of secession, I am fine with that. Conversely, if you wish to continue exchanging insults, I am fine with that too.


      • Bob Huddleston February 12, 2014 / 8:08 pm

        Had South Carolina appealed to the Supreme Court, they would have been bound by the decision of the Court. And even the Taney Court of Dred Scott fame had ruled in 1859 in Ableman v. Booth, that Wisconsin could not nullify a law. And in 1863 in the Prize Cases, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that secession was illegal. The Court then ruled 5-4 that the President could resist the attempted secession.
        So South Carolina appealed to the God of Battles and started a terrible civil war. And lost the resulting bloody war.

    • Jimmy Dick February 10, 2014 / 5:21 pm

      We did. You can’t understand how the Constitution is interpreted outside of your erroneous concept which has been rejected. It is now your problem to prove secession is legal. Saying it isn’t in the Constitution is meaningless as we’ve explained to you repeatedly. If you cannot understand that, then too bad.

  23. gpthelastrebel February 12, 2014 / 8:24 am

    Prove your statement. If mackey has crushed me as you say, use hisargument and then you can crrush me also. Don’t worry more is coming today.

  24. gpthelastrebel February 12, 2014 / 8:26 am

    To be honest I haven’t noticed such a law posted to date. Please post the law again so that I may be educated.

    • Jimmy Dick February 13, 2014 / 8:32 am

      And with this last bit of ignorance from you, George, I must bid you adieu. You are incapable of learning and have failed in every attempt you have made. You are nothing but a parrot saying the same thing over and over. You have been shown where you are wrong and you refuse to admit your error. If this is all you have to say, then talk to yourself in the echo chamber because I do not have time to waste on somebody that refuses to accept reality.

  25. gpthelastrebel February 12, 2014 / 8:31 am

    Show me secession. Again the Chase quote “no law has ever been passed” appears to be true even though it is no quite accurate.

    Perhaps the reason no case was brought was the fact war came before suich a case could be brought. Thake for instance Virginia didn’t leave the Union until Fort Sumter had been fired on.

  26. gpthelastrebel February 12, 2014 / 8:34 am

    And no place does it say anything about secession. By your logic Washington could have filed suit to force SC back into the Union. They did not instead they sent an invasion fleet toward Charleston and Pensacola.

    Nice try.

  27. gpthelastrebel February 12, 2014 / 8:44 am

    Nice try but you are wrong. South Carolina and the other states never had a chance to go before the Supreme Court. Lincoln wanted his war and he got it. Buchannan nor Lincoln never argued for a legal case if that is to be your argument. As a matter the Secession Ordinances presented by the Confederacy would be the legal groundwork for the beginning of a court case.

    At any rate both parties were working under peace agreements until Anderson moved to Sumter.

    • Michael Rodgers February 13, 2014 / 4:40 am

      Obviously what happened is that South Carolina and the other states decided not to go before the Supreme Court despite the fact that the Constitution requires them to. The Constitution says “all cases” and it specifically includes “controversies between two or more states.”

      South Carolina’s specific complaint on Dec 24, 1860 was, “The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.”

      Instead of going to the Supreme Court with this complaint, South Carolina chose to declare, on its own, “[The US Constitution] has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.”

      By issuing an ordnance instead of obtaining a judgment, South Carolina produced a meaningless declaration that President Lincoln rightly considered “legally void.” Between the time of South Carolina’s declaration and the war, Lincoln became President on March 4, 1861 and went about things business as usual, assuming correctly that all states including the seceding states were still part of the union.

      President Lincoln didn’t have to sue in the Supreme Court to bring the seceding states back because they never left. Secession declared was not secession accomplished.

      After South Carolina finally took unignorable military action against the USA at Ft. Sumter on April 12, 1861, President Lincoln asked Congress to give him authority to undertake a war to put down the rebellion. The story, details, and argument in Lincoln’s July 4 address are superb.

      • Michael Rodgers February 13, 2014 / 8:01 am

        Just to add that, upon rereading SC’s Declaration of Secession yet again, I see that even SC argued that secession was extra-constitutional.

        In the Declaration, SC does bring up the tenth amendment, but not as a justification for secession; instead the tenth amendment is offered to buttress the argument that SC was and continued to be an independent sovereign state when it ratified the Constitution and afterwards.

        SC’s rationale for secession was a new “fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact.” This principle is in neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. SC on its own (1) characterized the Constitution as a compact, (2) claimed that it was “deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States” and (3) declared that “the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.”

        SC was not claiming to follow the Constitution when it declared secession. On the contrary, SC was claiming that the Constitution was broken and therefore no longer applicable to SC. SC was claiming to follow something else entirely, the law of compact.

        SC was not appealing to the Supreme Court to interpret secession as part of the Constitution. SC was “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world.” And I think we all know how that turned out.

      • gpthelastrebel February 13, 2014 / 8:40 am

        . The secession docs are only meaningless to you because you support Lincoln’s actions. The Ordinances ( clearly show a legal attempt to leave the Union in a peaceful and legal manner.

        Are you sure that South Carolina took the first military action? I suggest they did not and have proof to back up that statement.

        Thank you for your civil and factual replies. They are much better than Jimmy Dick’s who as an educator had three chances to present a factual argument and could not do anything but insult. I applaud you for representing your side in a civil and cordial manner

        • Michael Rodgers February 13, 2014 / 9:02 am

          Peacefully, yes, that was SC’s first hope that secession would be accomplished peacefully. Legally, no, but I’ll agree with procedurally, as in SC followed a due process type of thing.
          As President Lincoln said in his second inaugural, “Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.”

  28. gpthelastrebel February 12, 2014 / 8:49 am

    Again Texas v White happened AFTER the war was over. It wasn’t in effect in 1861. The Constitution is the document mentioned in all secession docs.. So now prove this statement wrong “no law has ever been passed that explicitly outlaws secession”

  29. gpthelastrebel February 12, 2014 / 10:40 am

    Al get your keyboard oiled and warmed up. Here is some new ammo for you.

    More on the issue of slavery as a cause of the WBTS—


    Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That in this national emergency,Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged on their part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but
    to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as
    these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

    Decided in the affirmative:
    Yeas 117
    Nays 2

  30. gpthelastrebel February 13, 2014 / 8:19 am

    Bob I hate to be rude but you folks are off on a tanget that is unlated tothe statement I made. I said no law had ever been passed that outlawed secession. So far that statement holds true.

    As to any state applying tothe Surpreme courty, they may have but Lincoln started his war before a court case was ever heard in a lower court. Or to put it better court case I ever heard of. If there is a lower court ruling please post.

    Thank you for your reply

  31. gpthelastrebel February 13, 2014 / 8:27 am

    Bob You are simply giving your opinion without posting any facts. I have no exact count, but if you like will find out, of the exact number of secession attempts inthe US. The South was the first to try.

    Now I would think if there was a law even remotely associated with making secession ollegal that Buchannan and Lincoln would have mentioned it along the way. Please post any speech were any of them stated you cannot leave the Union because the law written in the Constitution says this—-.

    In fact Abe Lincoln said this ——

    Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.

    Abraham Lincoln

  32. gpthelastrebel February 13, 2014 / 8:45 am


    You have had at least three chances to put up a factual argument. You are supposed to be an educator, yet the best you can do is make insults. Go sit in the corner with Al Mackey and Rob Baker and entertain yourselves, leave the civil and factual debating to these other fellows that are representing your side very well.

    Your leaving makes these boards that much better.

  33. gpthelastrebel February 13, 2014 / 9:05 am

    Post where I said that. The best thing you can do is go hide behind Isabella your admin buttons.

    Oh by the way i saw where the US is thinking about taking in some 30,000 syrians. That ought to make you wet your pants.

  34. ChampaignChris February 13, 2014 / 6:54 pm

    Props to Brooks for last-minute pinch-hit speaking at the Abraham Lincoln Symposium in Springfield. This is the second year in a row he’s had to whip together a speech with little advance notice. He’s also one of the few there that actually DELIVERS a speech (instead of just reading one). Why do so few speakers not memorize their material any more (or at least speak from an outline)?! Anyway, nice job.

  35. gpthelastrebel February 14, 2014 / 7:12 am

    So??? You and Isabella demeaned white Southerners. If you are ashamed of being white just say so.

    • Rob Baker February 14, 2014 / 4:15 pm

      I’m a white southerner and I don’t feel demeaned by her comments.

  36. gpthelastrebel February 14, 2014 / 7:16 am

    In reality I was banned because youdisagreeed with me and could not discuss facts in a civil manner. You allowed thinly veiled insults at me to be posted you allowed insults to my heritage to be posted. In the end I am better off without your ignorance.

    • Rob Baker February 17, 2014 / 10:42 am


      The reality is in black and white. I allowed the comment to go through so that I could refer people to it whenever they wanted to see why you were banned. You were banned, for making a racist comment to another commentator on my blog. Having said that, I will add this: When you die, and your racism is wiped from the Earth along with that of the other sick, bigoted, advocates of white supremacy masquerading as Neo-Cons (Confederates and Conservatives), the world will be better off.

  37. gpthelastrebel February 14, 2014 / 7:42 am

    I can see that I have let this go far enough.
    First the 3rd amendment does not address secession at all. As Chase is reported to have said ‘no law has even been passed—.”

    Second the Confederate states did in fact have representatives draw up the secession documents and withdrew their representatives to congress. Now look at your argument, “legally.”. Buchanan, Lincoln nor Obama have ever mentioned anything about following any legal channels. To my knowledge, there are no legal means for withdrawing from the United States. If there were I am sure the Confederate States were following them after all these were learned men of the day. In fact I challenge you to bring forth the Rules, Regulations and Procedures for secession. Let’s see what that document says about how to go about secession.

    Now you Lincoln quote “but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive” That is meaningless to this discussion. The Lincoln and the Union is the one who brought on war while a peace delegation waited in Washington. Those are true historical facts.

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

    • Michael Rodgers February 14, 2014 / 4:22 pm

      Mr. Purvis we are having a discussion, a chat, and so this “I challenge you” rhetoric is unwelcome. We agree now that “there are no legal means for withdrawing from the United States.”

      Which brings us to your quote about people having the right to rise up and shake off their government and form a new one. This right is not a Constitutional right, as it is not found in the Constitution. This right is not a legal right, as there are no laws, no legal means, to exercise it.

      This situation is similar to our country’s founders and the Declaration of Independence. There were no legal means for revolution. The 1860-1 secessionists, like the 1776 revolutionaries before them, followed the best legalistic process they could invent, and, as you say, they “were learned men of the day.”

      And so here we are, at the end of the day. Secession declared was not secession accomplished. Revolution declared was not revolution accomplished. The revolutionaries didn’t want a war, but of course they got one. The secessionists didn’t want a war, but of course they got one.

  38. Michael Rodgers February 16, 2014 / 6:07 am

    The main principle in SC’s Declaration of Secession is “the law of compact.” SC held “that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.”
    This claim, “where no arbiter is provided” is false. Article III says that the US Supreme Court serves as the arbiter for such controversies. SC chose to publish a secession ordinance instead of seeking a Supreme Court hearing. Article IV says that the US Congress prescribes the effect of public acts of a state. Congress, after hearing President Lincoln’s July 4 address, decided that the effect of the secession ordinances were declarations of rebellion.

    • Jimmy Dick February 16, 2014 / 11:43 am

      There is no compact under the Constitution.

      • Michael Rodgers February 16, 2014 / 12:15 pm

        That is a more fundamental reason why SC is wrong. I’m arguing that even if I were to accept SC’s compact argument, SC would still be wrong.

      • Thad February 16, 2014 / 12:57 pm

        It is an established and irrefutable fact that the States entered into a COMPACT by ratifying the Constitution. Below is the EXACT LANGUAGE from the Massachusetts ratification:

        “… the goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe in affording the People of the United States in the course of his providence an opportunity deliberately & peaceably without fraud or surprize of entering into an explicit & SOLEMN COMPACT with each other by assenting to & ratifying a New Constitution…”

        Everything you say, is just so hopelessly wrong.

        • Jimmy Dick February 16, 2014 / 3:28 pm

          Read the entire statement, not just one part that on its own makes you seem correct. They were referring to the “people” of the United States, not the states themselves. All the document does is ratify the Constitution without any additions, corrections, or deletions just like all thirteen states did.

          “The Convention having impartially discussed, and fully considered, the Constitution for the United States of America, reported to Congress by the Convention of Delegates from the United States of America, and submitted to us by a resolution of the General Court of the said commonwealth, passed the 25th day of October last past, — and acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the universe in affording the people of the United States, in the course of his providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud or surprise, of entering into an explicit and solemn compact with each other, by assenting to and ratifying a new Constitution, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, — do, in the name and in behalf of the people of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, assent to and ratify the said Constitution for the United States of America.”

          You’re back to square one. In fact, you’re in the hole. Let’s look at Art. I, sec. 10, third paragraph. “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, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

          If you want to play the cherry picking game, that paragraph seems to indicate that no state can enter into a compact. That of course is not what the meaning of that paragraph entails, but by ignoring the context of the document and the process by which it was ratified you could begin to think that the idea of a compact was being shot down here.

          Let us then look at what Patrick Henry had to say during Virginia’s ratifying convention. He uses the word compact three times and by the end of his speech it was clear that he didn’t think the new government was a compact or a confederation. Remember that Thomas Jefferson, the man who proposed the idea of a compact with the Kentucky Resolutions was in Paris.

          [4 June]

          And here I would make this enquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late Federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated Government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear, and the danger of such a Government, is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration of those Gentlemen,–but, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People. My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the States.

          [5 June]

          I am not free from suspicion: I am apt to entertain doubts: I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my own mind. When I asked the question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and America may depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing–the expression, We, the people, instead of the States of America. I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a Monarchy, like England–a compact between Prince and people; with checks on the former, to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland–an association of a number of independent States, each of which retain its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government. We have no detail of those great considerations which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is as radical, if in this transition our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the States be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see, that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this same relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans: It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and an half had adopted it, I would with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.’

          Patrick Henry opposed ratification for the reasons he stated. The states would be subject to the new federal government which would be supreme. He asks if it is a compact, then he asks if it is a confederation. He knew it was neither which is why he asked. He wanted his audience to consider what they were going to be giving up if they joined the new government. He made it clear in 1788 it was not a compact nor a confederation of independent sovereign states. Virginia went on the ratify the Constitution with no conditions.

          The best thing here was that Patrick Henry put aside his differences when the Constitution was ratified and went into effect. He opposed James Madison for several reasons, denounced both the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, supported the Federalist polices of both Washington and Adams, and was even elected to the House of Representatives in 1798 as a Federalist, but died before he could be seated.

  39. Thad February 16, 2014 / 1:55 pm

    Almost forgot. By making a reference to the “Supreme Ruler”” of the world, Massachusetts was, quite obviously, issuing a declaration of war against the other states. Who knew?

    • Michael Rodgers February 16, 2014 / 8:17 pm

      Nonserious childish and unacceptable attempted snark. Goodbye.

      • Thad February 16, 2014 / 10:46 pm

        Petulant and peevish. C ya.

  40. Thad February 16, 2014 / 5:10 pm

    Like I said, Massachusetts explicitly stated that it was entering into a COMPACT when it ratified the Constitution.

    PS- I noticed you finally got around to reading Article I, section 10. Please show me, among that rather lengthy list of prohibitions imposed upon the States, where the States are prohibited from exercising the right of secession. If you can’t find it, I’ll understand.

    • Michael Rodgers February 16, 2014 / 8:13 pm

      Fine, you want to focus only on article 1 section 10 and you have a serious question/challenge that you want me to use that section only to prove that States are prohibited from seceding. OK, I’ll do it.
      If a state secedes, then do those prohibitions still apply? If they don’t, then there’s your answer. The federal government obviously has to be the one prohibiting the states from doing these things. If they do apply, then how in the world is a state going to operate as an independent nation? And done.

    • Jimmy Dick February 16, 2014 / 8:39 pm

      Show me where a state has a right to secede. You can’t. Your argument is circular and repetitive. It keeps coming down to intent of the people who created the Constitution. They made it clear that secession was not permissible. You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with them.

      And your Massachusetts concept is crap. Read it in the proper context. I pointed it out to you and you are ignoring it. It is not a compact of states they were entering. Also, Patrick Henry pointed it out clearly.

      You do not have a valid argument here.

      • gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 7:17 am

        And you cannot show that a state does not have the right of secession.

        You do not have a valid argument.

        • Rob Baker February 17, 2014 / 10:46 am

          Burden of proof George. It is a logical fallacy to ask someone to prove your argument wrong, it is up to you to prove that they do.

          Come on Georgy, you cannot show me that a unicorn does not exist.

  41. Thad February 16, 2014 / 10:28 pm

    If by “and done” you mean you have finished putting your foot squarely in your mouth, then yes, you are done. As you have clearly stated, there is no prohibition against secession in Article I, section 10. And in the complete and utter absence of any prohibition whatsoever against secession, the States were perfectly free to secede. Once the act of secession has been performed, the seceding State, in fact, becomes a free and independent country. Just think of it this way; when the slave-owning, slave-trading American colonies seceded from the British Empire (without submitting their claim of independence to any British Court), British Law no longer applied to the colonies. In like manner, when the Southern States seceded from the United States, the laws of the United States no longer applied. Why, exactly, do you find this so confusing?

    • Jimmy Dick February 17, 2014 / 8:51 am

      Once again, Thad, you argue something that has been rejected as being incorrect. You are merely taking that same old tired line that was rejected by the people that wrote the Constitution. Your argument is with them.

      • Thad February 17, 2014 / 3:05 pm

        That is false Jimmy, and you have a most imperfect understanding of constitutional law and the constitution. So in order to help you achieve a more complete understanding, I will repeat the salient points at issue:

        1. The States, with limited exceptions, do not possess power, authority, and rights through positive grants.Under the constitution, the States naturally and inherently posses the power, rights, and authority to do everything that is not prohibited to them. The power to withdraw their political affiliation with the other states within the United States is not prohibited to them. This fundamental constitutional truth is what allows a State to lawfully secede from the Union.

        2. Contrary to the States, and with limited exceptions, the Federal Government can only exercise power and authority through positive grants. Without a grant, or in the absence of a “necessary AND proper” implied grant of power, the Federal Government can do nothing.

        3. In view of the above, it is perfectly legitimate to ask where the constitution prohibits secession, and utterly meaningless to ask where the constitution grants the authority to states to secede.

        4. In evidence of the above, if your erroneous interpretation held, the States would need positive grants of authority to build schools, universities, bridges, tunnels, highways and roads. Just for starters. That, of course, is absurd.

        • Jimmy Dick February 17, 2014 / 10:23 pm

          Thad, you do not know your Constitution or your Constitutional history. Now you are doing nothing but flat out lying. Your circular argument is getting pretty boring and you have not proven a thing. There are multiple Supreme Court rulings that contradict your opinion and whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter on the US Constitution.

          Again, your argument is with the people who founded a government you don’t like because it does not let you do what you want when what you want is unconstitutional. Secession is not a state’s right, never has been, and never will be. The Supreme Court ruled on it. We fought a war over it. If necessary, we’ll fight another one, but that isn’t going to happen because only people like you who don’t understand the Constitution and merely repeat themselves want that. I have students who understand the Constitution better than you because they are capable of learning. You on the other hand reject everything because you can’t handle the fact that you are wrong.

          • Thad February 18, 2014 / 2:16 am

            Jimmy, it is so very sad that you choose to remain so thoroughly and profoundly ignorant of U.S. constitutional history and law. Sadder still, that you have immediately resorted to a pack of bald-faced lies to “support” your baseless, and propagandistic interpretation of history. There is, however, a very amusing feature in your position; it is actually you who ignores and disregards any and all facts that you dislike, and it is you who simply cannot handle the fact that you are so clearly in the wrong. But let’s test our respective theories of the Constitution. You vigorously assert that the States cannot secede because the Constitution does not grant them the power to secede. I, with equal vigor, maintain that the States may secede because that power was not denied to them. To test these competing theories, please show me the following:

            1. A constitutional grant of power which permits the States to establish Universities.
            2. A constitutional grant of power which permits the States to build bridges
            3. A constitutional grant of power which permits the States to build tunnels
            4. A constitutional grant of power which permits the States to build a roads
            5. A constitutional grant of power which permits the States to establish a police force

            Remember, your contention is that the States are not permitted to do anything that they are not given the constitutional authority to do (like secede). My contention is that the States may do everything that they are not prohibited from doing (like secede). If your theory is correct, because every State in the Union does all of the above, you will find every one of the above State powers carefully enumerated in the Constitution. If my theory is correct, you will find none of these State powers enumerated (because the States inherently possess them). Let me know how it turns out.

  42. Thad February 16, 2014 / 11:05 pm

    Your “arguments” are empty and meaningless garbage. When bold facts are presented to you, you immediately resort to insults and name-calling. Bring it big fella, two can play at that game. So to repeat, as there is no prohibition anywhere in the constitution against secession, it is a reserved right of the States pursuant to the 10th amendment. And are you truly ignorant enough to believe that Massachusetts alone referred to the constitution as a compact? And by “proper context” you mean that when Massachusetts used the language “compact” to describe the constitution what it really and truly meant was “not a compact”. You are too much.

    • Jimmy Dick February 17, 2014 / 8:55 am

      I showed the entire paragraph that you cherry picked from. It shows that your interpretation is wrong. I also pointed out that Patrick Henry pointed out vividly that the new government was not a compact, yet I note you ignore that. When we examine the creation of the Constitution in context it becomes crystal clear that the new government was definitely not a compact. Jefferson tried to say it was and his interpretation was rejected as well.

      The only thing you are doing here is saying your interpretation is correct while the one taught since 1788 is wrong. History shows your version has been rejected repeatedly and consistently, yet here you are trying to say you are correct? No one is buying your argument.

  43. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 7:43 am

    thing as a fact be prepared to back it up. That being said don’t try to baffle me with a BS argument.

    The Lincoln quote I posted is more appropriate to this discussion than you passage from the 1st Inaugural address. Besides LINCOLN started the war. Feel free to address that statement.
    The right of secession is not addressed one way or the other in the Constitution. You and all others in this discussion have failed to prove that fact. Even though the quote I posted by Chase “no law has ever been passed” it seems the quote my not be accurate and no primary sources supports it, but it is holding up as the truth.

    The “secessionist” invented nothing. You are inventing a scenario to suit your needs. Now you admit there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting secession. No law against it. Now you want to say there is nothing allowing it? What sort of argument is this? Sounds like you are playing games. To me it is simple if no law, written or law of man, prohibits the act of secession then the action must be legal.

    And now the discussion moves to why the secessionist got a war?

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

  44. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 7:49 am

    No. You are a white who lives in the South. There is a difference.

    Why should you feel demeaned? I and my heritage is good for nothing but to be insulted. Your words remember?

    • Rob Baker February 17, 2014 / 10:49 am

      No, I’m a Southerner, born and bred. My Southern roots go back to 1640 in Virginia. The difference is that I do not belittle education; I aspire to it. As a result, I am not a brainwashed sheep attempting to glorify the actions of a ancestor that fought in the defense of slavery; whether said person wanted to or not.

      I also never used those words in that context. Yet another reason why context is important.

      • Thad February 17, 2014 / 3:30 pm

        George is correct. You are not a Southerner. You never have been, and never will be. And no one needed to fight in defense of slavery. You could own as many slaves as you wanted to. You could beat them, sell them, even rape them. That is, of course, so long as you stayed in the Union to do it. Just ask the slave-owners in Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri, for example. What you could not do, however, was seek political independence. That would cause a war. But fighting in defense of slavery? That idea is complete rot.

        • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 6:55 am

          Oh do tell Grand Inquisitor of all things Southern. How exactly am I not Southern? Although I must confess, I consider myself Appalachian first.

          That would depend on what state you lived in Thad. Whether or not slavery was legal depended on the state, as well as the laws regulating the actions of said slave. That would depend on the type of political independence wouldn’t it? Also, the Enlightenment ideals to which the Founders referred to, do not reinforce a simple notion of Revolution for the sake of political independence. The restrictions on property certainly would, but like you said, the property was not threatened. However, Southerners felt that slavery as an institution, and the political influence of slave states, was threatened. They talked about it routinely, and cited it as their reasons for secession.

          Yes, secession occurred because of slavery. Yes, the Confederacy formed on the foundation of those secessionist arguments. Yes, the Confederacy fought to preserve those secessionist ideas. Yes, the Civil War was about slavery. Yes, the South fought to defend slavery. Yes, you are an idiot for thinking otherwise. History is against you. Logic is against you. The 1860 South, included those in government and those that wrote the Ordinances and Declarations of Secession are against you as well.

          • Thad February 18, 2014 / 1:54 pm

            Baker, you are obviously a moron. Slavery, (and this fact has it somehow has escaped that pea brain of yours) was legal in both the USA and the CSA. Did you really not know that? Good grief, the stupidity you people demonstrate is shocking.

          • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 6:27 pm

            I never said it was not. Not once. Perhaps your propensity to insult rather than debate is blocking your ability to comprehend what you are reading. Don’t get me wrong, I’m pretty thick skinned when it comes to insults, but the least you could do is actually include debatable facts. That’s something you and George fail to do repeatedly. BTW, it is now my duty to prove that there are laws against secession, that burned of proof is on you when you decide to argue that there are no laws.

          • Thad February 18, 2014 / 9:13 pm


          • Brooks D. Simpson February 19, 2014 / 1:31 am

            I wonder what screen name you’ll use next. 🙂

          • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 8:22 am

            My oh my, is it the internet thesaurus too cowardly to use his own name? What a laugh.

          • Thad February 19, 2014 / 2:38 pm

            lol. What a cowardly schmuck. And a fat, ignorarnt, scruffy, and grubby one too. lol

          • Brooks D. Simpson February 19, 2014 / 3:05 pm

            And we’re done. See ya, Caldwell/Austin/Melbourne … talk about cowardly schmucks. 🙂

          • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 6:57 pm

            Nice “I’m rubber you’re glue defense”

          • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 6:58 pm

            I’m sure you think so.

        • Patrick Young February 19, 2014 / 6:49 am

          What are you, the freakin’ Pope of who is a Southerner?

  45. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 7:55 am

    It doesn’t matter what law SC employed. The facts is they had the right of secession and employed that right.

    When SC fired on Sumter, military action had already bee taken by the United States. South Carolina and pensacola were facing invasion fleets. They had no choice but to surrender or fight. Regardless since no laws had been broken in the act of secession, Lincoln took an illegal action against a free and peaceful country.

  46. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 8:01 am

    The right to cross a street is not mentioned in the Constitution, so does that mena one should stay on either the right or left of the street? People cross the street every day but never get arrested. It would be my guess that there is some sort of un-wriotten right associated with this action??????

    • Rob Baker February 17, 2014 / 10:50 am

      There are laws that regulate crossing the street George. Ever heard of jaywalking?

      • Thad February 17, 2014 / 3:34 pm

        Yup. And there is a written law against it. That is why you can’t do it. Now show me the written law prohibiting secession.

        • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 6:43 am

          Thanks for proving my point. Let’s reread that shall we, since you lack the ability to.

          George said,

          The right to cross a street is not mentioned in the Constitution, so does that mena one should stay on either the right or left of the street? People cross the street every day but never get arrested. It would be my guess that there is some sort of un-wriotten right associated with this action??????

          In his attempt to substantiate the act of secession by comparing it to the act of crossing the street, George makes a blunder in that there are laws dealing with street crossings. Yet, street crossings are dealt with through local ordinances and not national law. Another Purvis blunder it would seem.

          Finally your statement, “Now show me the written law prohibiting secession”

          Ever heard of Burden of Proof? It is not my duty to present anything to you except to reinforce my own arguments. You are the one who began the argument, you are the one that must provide proof.

          • Thad February 18, 2014 / 2:03 pm

            Baker, are you really this stupid? You specifically cited laws which regulated street traffic. I immediately replied that there are indeed such laws, and those laws are precisely what makes an act opposing them unlawful. If there were no laws regulating street traffic, jaywalking would be perfectly lawful. Now again, show me the law which prohibits secession. And if you can’t, and you surely can’t (hence the reason for your evasiveness) then secession is perfectly lawful.

          • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 6:25 pm

            It’s hilarious that you are calling me stupid. I didn’t specifically cite any laws that regulated street traffic. I referred to laws that regulated street crossings and crosswalks. I referred to them because George made the argument that because crossing the street is not in the Constitution; that crossing the street has an implied natural right associate to it. He equated this to the act of secession, which is wrong. The reference to town/city/county/state ordinances, was to point out that not all laws, legal precedent, and Constitutional interpretation that the nation considers law, is found directly in the Constitution. Try to keep up next time.

          • Thad February 18, 2014 / 9:17 pm

            I made a mistake; you really are that stupid. We did not live in a society which requires positive grants of authority to perform everything we do. We live in a society where we may do everything that is not prevented by law. Cheese and cracker you are so GD stupid.

          • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 8:24 am

            I didn’t imply otherwise, you just continue to imply otherwise. Sadly, walking across the street, as George’s example, is a restricted act. Again, learn to read. I understand this has been an issue for you in the past Thad/Austin/Caldwell/Melissa/etc.etc.etc., but hopefully you can turn over a new leaf under this screen name. Who knows, maybe you’ll grow the balls it requires to use your real name.

  47. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 8:04 am

    Please post any law that says the SC government must file with the S. Court.

  48. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 8:08 am

    Jefferson Davis did not attack Fort Sumter. He was protecting his people against invasion. How about what would have happened if Lincoln would have met the peace delegation? Or perhaps what would have happened if Anderson had been order back to Moultrie?

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

    • Rob Baker February 17, 2014 / 10:51 am

      Sort of hard to argue that Davis, who fired first, was protecting his people from invasion, by firing at a fort owned by the federal government.

  49. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 8:13 am

    ” Hurl insults”

    Exactly right. Well said.

  50. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 8:21 am

    “Can you show me”

    Thad allow me to answer your question. No they cannot show you any law making secession illegal. I have given Dick, Baker, and Mackey chance after chance to answer that one question. Each of them can bring the insults, not one of them can bring facts. If they do post facts it is usually twisted and corrupted to meet their agenda. This is typical of any discussion you try to engage them in. You will find out.

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

    • Thad February 17, 2014 / 3:37 pm

      I know, I know. The most frustrating thing is the the way they blatantly ignore the mountain of evidence that directly contradicts them.

  51. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 8:26 am

    In other words he will continue to kick butt as long as the likes of Dick keep making comments as above.

    Gee Dick with your 8,000 docs., your publication and you being certified and bonafied one would think you could present the facts proving secession was illegal. What is your malfunction?

    Oh yeah when are you going to make me being a vet come back and bite me in the butt? I am waiting.

  52. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 8:30 am

    Darn ignorant secessionsit always bringing up those pesky facts. Why can’t a neo-yankee get a break.

    Remember Thad making his comment about insults? .It appears that as usual you are the one who breaks down first!!! LOL LOL LOL

  53. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 8:35 am

    Ending slavery was not one of Lincoln’s goals in 1861.Not really sure about in 1865 either. At any rate i can post plenty of quotes of Lincoln and Union leaders that prove their racism.

    No I will make a statement, feel free to challenge me.

    SLAVERY WAS NOT A CAUSE OF THE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.


    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

    • Rob Baker February 17, 2014 / 10:52 am

      Pretty much the entire 1861 South disagrees with you…..

  54. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 8:42 am

    If the issue was resolved why do you folks make such an effort, with your twisted history, to prove secession was illegal?

    The fact of the matter is secession was not ollegal. S. P. Chase as chief justice says so. That is proof beyond a shdow of a doubt, proof that you neo-yankees cannot matchI might add.

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

  55. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 8:49 am

    Whooo better watch out Thad!!1

    Translation — If you don’t see things my way i will pack my keybord up and leave in a huff!!!!!

    • Thad February 17, 2014 / 3:13 pm

      Hello George,
      Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it. I have not published any works on the topic, but the potential invite is very flattering. I also have very much enjoyed your contributions here. Both you and I have asked, repeatedly, and politely, for someone, anyone, to point out where the constitution prohibits secession. So far, of course nothing. Let me know if someone shows you though, it would surprise the heck out of me. 🙂

      PS- “The Union of these United States shall be perpetual, and no State shall, without the explicit consent of the Congress, withdraw from said Union”

      Do they really think the framers were not capable of incorporating the above language into the constitution if they had intended it to be there?

  56. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 8:56 am

    Heck you lost your credibility months ago. Prove Thad wrong Mr. 8,000 documents. Prove him wrong.

  57. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 9:05 am

    I have no idea what you are reading, but the Ordinances and the Declarations both mention the Constitution and to the best of my knowledge refer to no other set of laws. Correct me if I am wrong.

  58. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 9:12 am

    “If they do apply, then how in the world is a state going to operate as an independent nation? And done.”

    How would we know Lincoln never gave them a chance to be a free and indeppendent nation. Just my opinion I would say in the situation with the Confederacy, very well. Thank you.

  59. gpthelastrebel February 17, 2014 / 9:16 am

    Your argument is based on the act of secession being illegal. You have went around the world with this argument. Now if you can’t prove secession is illegal, then that would makes Chase’s statement true.

    You do not have a valid argument.

  60. Michael Rodgers February 17, 2014 / 2:11 pm

    The SC secessionists believed that the Constitution was a contract between the states, that the non-slaveholding states had broken it, and that SC could on its own decide that it was broken. The SC secessionists claimed that the Constitution had not designated an arbiter of controversies among two or more states, but it had. Article III of the Constitution gives the power to arbitrate such disputes to the US Supreme Court. SC’s claim of no arbiter is false. SC could have brought its complaints to the US Supreme Court, but it chose not to. SC’s belief that the Constitution was a contract between the states was also false. The Constitution begins “We the people” and it was ratified by the states on behalf of, not in place of, the people. Finally, SC’s belief that the non-slaveholding states broke the Constitution is false. The non-slaveholding states were merely exercising their tenth amendment rights to govern their own domestic affairs within the Constitutional structure.

    The SC secessionists also claimed that the northern states “have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” This characterization of the election process is so biased as to be false. The entire country elected President Lincoln. Many people in the northern states voted for Lincoln; some voted against. Many people in the southern states voted against Lincoln; some voted for.

    Lincoln brought his concerns — about the firing on Ft. Sumter and the secession ordinances and more — to Congress on July 4, 1861. Congress, using its power under Articles I and IV, agreed with Lincoln’s arguments and authorized the war. People should really read Lincoln’s July 4 address; it’s superb. One important point Lincoln made about the election was to call on Congress to “demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion.”

    Modern day secessionists believe that the tenth amendment is, among other things, a state’s escape clause, that a state can — on its own and consistent with the Constitution at any time and for any reason — leave the USA, forfeiting its Constitutional benefits and freeing it from its Constitutional prohibitions and obligations. They believe that a state that declares secession becomes a separate nation from the USA instantly and immediately and that the other states, the USA, and every nation in the world is required (by what? the Constitution? God?) to respect the instantaneous new status that that state claims.

    The modern day secessionists’ characterization of the tenth amendment as an “instantaneous escape and recognition clause” is false because of Congress’s delegated power under Article IV, Section 1. That section states, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Thus it is Congress’s delegated power to insure full faith and credit and to prescribe the effect of state acts. When a state acts in a way to deny full faith and credit to the people in the other states, Congress may step in and pass laws

    The tenth amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The power to decide if a state’s public acts have the effect of denying full faith and credit was delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Thus this power is not reserved to the states. Thus Article IV makes secession illegal for those states that attempt it under the false modern day secessionist’s frequently claimed characterization of the tenth amendment as the “instantaneous escape and recognition clause.”

    • Jimmy Dick February 17, 2014 / 4:42 pm

      Michael, This is a very good, well thought out, and extremely accurate post. Well done.

      • Michael Rodgers February 17, 2014 / 6:03 pm

        Thank you, Jimmy.

        • Thad February 17, 2014 / 9:21 pm

          Wow. Very, very long post. And still no reference to any provision in the constitution or any federal legislation which makes secession unlawful. By the way, are we to believe that all those prohibitions carefully enumerated in Article I, section 10 are useless? I mean, why bother to list any of those limitations if all we had to do was rely on that anfractuous constitutional gobblydeegook Mike has written.? And really, who is kidding who? Would you people really have us believe that if there was a prohibition against secession you wouldn’t immediately point to it and say “see, the constitution says right here that no state may lawfully secede without the express consent of Congress”? But it isn’t there. And so you are reduced to ridiculous theatrics and preposterous constitutional alchemy. See! Secession is illegal because of a dose Article II, section 2, a dash of of Article IV, section 1, a smattering of the Preamble, and a sprinkle of Article VII. Presto! Secession is illegal!!

          Wouldn’t this make much more sense:

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

          But it just isn’t there. It just isn’t there.

          As for Mike, in creative writing he gets an A. In constitutional law, he gets an F.

          • Jimmy Dick February 18, 2014 / 11:29 am

            You need to learn constitutional law first, Thad. You are failing it pretty well right now. Your argument has no merit and has been rejected by the Supreme Court. So it is pretty idiotic for you to say Michael is failing constitutional law when you are the one who is displaying a complete lack of understanding of it.

          • Thad February 18, 2014 / 1:43 pm

            Another moronic post from dimwit Dick, who has quite clearly never taken a class in constitutional law.

          • Jimmy Dick February 18, 2014 / 4:44 pm

            I teach the Constitution as part of my teaching load. I had to take classes on it where I got A’s. I say again, the Supreme Court rejected your interpretation years ago. It does not matter how many times you say it, secession is not constitutional.

          • Thad February 18, 2014 / 9:34 pm

            You were never took Con Law, and you know it. I repeat, secession is perfectly lawful, no matter how deep you bury your head in the sand.

          • Jimmy Dick February 19, 2014 / 5:54 am

            Try it and find out what happens again. By the way, got a problem posting under your real name? Or do you just need to use an alias as you always do?

          • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 9:01 am

            The Supreme Court disagrees with you; which, btw, is a part of Con. Law.

          • Jimmy Dick February 19, 2014 / 11:47 am

            That’s the weird part. For Caldwell to be correct the Supreme Court would have to be wrong. Since SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution it would seem that it (Caldwell is an it since we actually don’t know what it really is) is wrong. Apparently it must be in an alternate universe where it is in a higher state of authority than SCOTUS. I believe we call that La La Land.

  61. Michael Rodgers February 18, 2014 / 7:49 am

    Secessionists see the Constitution as a contract between the states. Moreover, they claim that it’s a contract that doesn’t have a dispute resolution clause but does have an escape clause. They’re wrong on all three counts. It doesn’t have an escape clause. It does have a dispute resolution clause. It’s not a contract between the states at all.

    It’s not a contract between the states: The states ratified the Constitution on behalf of, not in place of, the people. And that’s why the Constitution begins “We the people.”

    It does have a dispute resolution clause: Article III states that the judicial power of the US Supreme Court extends “to controversies between two or more states.”

    It doesn’t have an escape clause: If a state suddenly declares itself no longer bound by the Constitution, then that state has claimed a power it does not have. While states do have inherent powers and those powers are protected by the tenth amendment, those powers do not extend to powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

    Everyone understands that the states in the United States of America have power to govern their own internal affairs. Everyone knows that the explicit prohibitions on state power are listed in Article I, Section 10. Everyone knows that there are also obligations, some more explicit than others, that states have as part of the constitutional structure of our government. The phrases “supreme law of the land,” “necessary and proper,” and “full faith and credit,” among others, have meaning.

    Secessionists claim that the power to secede is a power that a state has. They claim that this power is of the same inherent origin as all the other powers that a state has to govern its own internal affairs. They claim that anyone who argues that states do not have the power to secede must also be arguing that states do not have any power at all.

    In fact, there is no such thing as the power to secede. A free and independent nation doesn’t have the power to secede, because from what would that nation secede? It’s free and independent!

    Also, the power to secede, if it existed, is clearly a completely different sort of power than internal governing power. There’s an old saying that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The power to secede is a punch in the nose, not calisthenics.

    If a state were to exert the nonexistent power to secede, then the other states and the people of the other states would have lost the full faith and credit and interstate commerce and so many things that we all take for granted because we’ve delegated those powers to the United States. I’d have to get a passport and foreign currency to go on vacation! And all the people who owe me money could just move away.

    When a state attempts to exert a power that interferes with powers delegated, explicitly or implicitly, to the United States by the Constitution, that exertion is not protected by the tenth amendment. When a state exerts powers that do not interfere with powers delegated, explicitly or implicitly to the United States by the Constitution, then that exertion is protected by the tenth amendment.

    The question then is who decides whether what a state does or attempts to do is interfering or non-interfering with federal power. Generally, what a state does is assumed to be non-interfering. If a state believes that another state is interfering, it can sue in the US Supreme Court. If the federal government believes that a state is interfering, Congress can make laws.

    Finally, a constitutional democratic republic doesn’t need an escape clause, and the United States doesn’t have one, because laws can be made, the constitution can be amended, civil rights are protected, disputes can be resolved, elections have consequences, and the government is of, by, and for the people.

    • Jimmy Dick February 18, 2014 / 11:42 am

      Here is what Chief Justice John Jay had to say about the creation of the Constitution in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793.

      “[The people] made a Confederation of the States the basis of a general government [i.e. the Articles of Confederation]. Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it, and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that, in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and, conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, ‘We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.’ Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner, and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects in a certain manner.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793). Jay went on to say that the people had delegated to the federal judiciary the task of interpreting the meaning, construction, and operation of the Constitution

      This was one of the earliest cases to come before the Court in its capacity as the SCOTUS, not a federal court.

  62. Michael Rodgers February 18, 2014 / 8:16 am

    Secessionists like to say that the 1860-1 secessionists were very similar to the 1776 revolutionaries. Yes and no, mostly no. The key differences are these:
    1) The revolutionaries protested against a micromanaging tyrant who wouldn’t let the colonies manage their own affairs at all. The secessionists whined in a busy-body way about how other states where managing their own affairs.
    2) The revolutionaries protested against not being part of the overall government at all (taxation without representation). The secessionists whined in a petulant way about how they lost an election that they participated in.
    3) The revolutionaries claimed equality and democracy as core principles. The secessionists claimed black slavery / white supremacy and parties can unilaterally void contracts as core principles.
    4) The revolutionaries fully accepted that they were traitors to England and fully anticipated the inevitable war as a result of declaring independence. The secessionists ridiculously pretended not to be traitors to the United States and ignorantly claimed that inevitable war couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with declaring secession.
    Feel free to add any other differences you see….

    • Jimmy Dick February 18, 2014 / 11:50 am

      Let’s see, the Revolution was about creating a new system of government built on new principles while the secessionists were trying to maintain the same government that they said was oppressing them and building it on the principle of slavery.
      The Revolutionaries spoke of not wanting to be slaves while the secessionists spoke of wanting to maintain slaves. That paradox just keeps coming up all the time. How do you have a country built on liberty, equality, and freedom while at the same time you enslave your fellow man, deny equality based on gender and race, and say you are a nation of free people?
      This is why I personally say the Revolution has not ended. It certainly had not ended in 1861 because the Civil War and more specifically the struggle to end slavery in America was part of the egalitarian process set forth by the Revolution itself. It is still ongoing today because of the need to firmly establish equality today. The Civil War did not have to be a war. Slavery was going to end in some manner via legislation at some point, but the slave owners chose war instead. The results were different directly due to those slave owners making that choice. Everything they opposed came to pass with far, far worse consequences for them and the country as a whole had they not chosen to fight a war in order to perpetuate the expansion of slavery in America.

  63. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 9:18 am

    Again post your facts.I have mine facts in order be sure of yours

  64. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 9:25 am

    No you are just a white living in the South. The fact your family was in Virginia in 1640 means nothing to me.

    No you don’t belittle education, neither do I , however there is a didfference. I present factual truths in history.,you post half truths and outright distorted facts about history. I know the Confederacy or the South was right, based on historical fact. You take every opporunity to run down the Southern Confederacy and its leaders based on what you think is fact.. Huge difference between us.

    Oh and by the way I never once mentioned what race I am. You just assumed I am white.

    • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 10:28 am

      Bless your heart. Pray tell, what is a Southerner?

      What are those “factual truths” of history George? The Chase quote, which you’ve never cited? The one that has no primary source to speak of? From your points above, the huge difference is that you are wrong, and I am right. You’re right…huge difference.

      I never said you were white, but you did imply it:

      So??? You and Isabella demeaned white Southerners. If you are ashamed of being white just say so.

      This came after you accused us of insulting you, but that does not matter.

  65. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 9:29 am

    Yes but that law is written down. Still Chase’s or my quote, depending on who you want to give credit to, still holds true doesn’t it??

    “No law had ever been passed that explicitly outlawed secession, the argument simply having been sidestepped by events”,

    • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 10:22 am

      Citation George….that is primary source citation and not a secondary source. Go ahead….I dare you.

  66. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 9:33 am

    Robby B,
    “No law had ever been passed that explicitly outlawed secession, the argument simply having been sidestepped by events”.

    All the proof I need. Burden of proof met. Your turn.Do you really think you can do a better job than anyone else??? Have at it.

    • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 10:17 am

      Citation? Context? Entire document perhaps?

      There is no proof here; just another cherry picked quote.

  67. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 9:36 am

    There was no racism there. As i said you can’t handle the truth. Here is another fact. I would rather serve with the Black woman and the trannie than serve with a group of white BOYS like you.

    Racism that!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 10:18 am

      The comment stands George. You made a racist remark, and have yet to apologize. It was implied racist, it was received racist, and it has been commented on by others as being racist.

  68. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 9:41 am

    The issue was not between two or more states but between tseveral states and the Federal government. hence no abriter. They simply wanted existing laws enforced and expressed that to the Federal government.

    • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 10:19 am

      “The issue was not between two or more states but between several states…”

      Two or more is several….

  69. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 9:43 am

    Let it be known that with all the chance Dick, Baker and Mackey have had to present a reasonable argument, neither of the three could do nothing but insult.

    I don’t agree with you, but good job.

  70. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 9:54 am


    Reading your post “the states’ brought a question to mind. Have you ever read of the united states referred to, as a country, The United States before the WBTS. I don’t recal reading anything but the “Federal Governemnt.”

    • Thad February 18, 2014 / 2:26 pm

      In political parlance, the terms “State” and “Country” are interchangeable. More specifically, the fundamental requirements to achieve statehood are; population, territory, and government. This confuses some people, who don’t understand that the very name of our country reflects the fact that each and every state was once (after achieving seceding from Great Britain) and independent country. So referring to the US as a country makes sense, and referring to the CSA as an independent country also makes perfect sense.

  71. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 10:04 am


    In regards to your potential articles. I can give you as much space as you need. The thing I cannot do is offer you any sort of copyright for your work as SHAPE is a recognized charity/educational group by the state of Mississippi and at one time was so recognized by the Federal governemnt. As such we are a free use website. This is posted in our bylaws

    Let me remind you we are talking about a group of people who take the Declarations ofSecession and try to present them as declarations of war, all the while throwing the Secession Ordinances away.In truth I am not sure thay ever heard of these documents until Ipointed them out. These same fellows take Stephen’s Cornerstone speech and use it as proof positive the South was fighting to preserve slavery. The fact the reporter on the scene says this may not be accurate is of no concern to them.. What these fellows believe is in thier own
    agenda and nothing more

  72. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 10:06 am

    Can’t make a response without insults can you? Typical

  73. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 10:24 am

    1. Where were the states whining? Show me. I only see a list of grievances the Southern states wanted the Federal government wanted address. And speaking of whining, what was that you were doing when you thought Thad was being “Snarky?”
    2. Still do not see any whining on the part of the South. Do see quite a bit from you though.
    3. The secessionist only claimed what rights was granted to them under the Constitution. Slavery was one of these rights. In fact the Confederate Constitution went a greater distance than the US Constitution to outlaw the African slave trade. White supremacy. I don’t think you want to go there I will certainly destroy your “holier than thou art” impression of the Union.
    4. Prove treason. Name any Confederate leader brought to trial for treason. Now if there is any treason surely it was on the Union side. The reason I say is because they fought for to prevent the application of the Constitution in a fair and equal manner to all citizens. In fact fighting for the Constitution could be said they were also fight to preserve the institution of slavery since there were so
    many racists up North

  74. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 10:26 am

    I am almost sure the preamble is not part of a leagl document.

  75. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 10:30 am

    George made a blunder. I think not.

    Show me any law written into the Constitution that deals with street crossing. No such law there, however you have a right to cross the street. Now we can go back to the Declaration or to the magna Carter if yiou want and try to find this law, however I think it is a waste of time to do so.

    • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 11:29 am

      I was pretty clear in highlighting that not all laws exist in the Constitution. That is why certain laws are listed at town/city/county/state levels and remain enforced unless determined to be Unconstitutional through an implied interpretation of the Constitution and the law. For instance, the Constitution does not prohibit, plainly, a state established religion; only the national government. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled against such a notion using Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury Baptists”.

      So yes, you made a blunder. First in attempting to suggest you have the right to cross someone’s property in whatever manner you see fit (you don’t) and second, by comparing secession to street crossing, which is asinine.

  76. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 10:37 am

    According to the Constitution slavery was leagal in the United States, all states.

    Secession happened because of many reasons, Indian attacks, Federal spending and as Mississippi said the care of freed slaves. I don’t think anyone fails to acknowledge the role of slavery and secession. However—-


    • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 11:32 am

      That’s not accurate. Please point out where slavery is legalized by the Constitution.

      Again, you are wrong. You’ve shown this time and time again. It’s incredibly stupid to say that.

  77. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 10:44 am


    You hit on something I have been asking for months, if the law exists please just copy and paste it here. Let me read it for myself. You see the answers I have been getting.

    I gotta give thee fellows their props they are masters and twisting history to suit their agenda.

  78. gpthelastrebel February 18, 2014 / 10:54 am

    Now you are going to use some well worn Southern lingo to prove you are Southern. How childish.

    These factual truths or lies, depending exactly what you mean, just happen to be anything you post about the WBTS.

    No you, like Isabella, made the assumption because I run a Southern Heritage website and defended the attack on whites.

    You did insult me and my southern Heritage. i know you are white, or at least appear to be, for you did post some photos at one time. Now the fact that you are white and attack oreal SOUTHERN whites because of no other reason than their heritage, the question remains are you ashmed of being white? Wouldn’t you really rather be Black or transgender???

    • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 12:24 pm

      There is a plethora of well worn Southern “lingo” as you call it, that is well worn but constantly used.

      I’m sure they are George, but I have historical documents and peer review on my side. You have fits on yours.

      I made no assumption, I made an observed observation based on your implications. Nor did I ever specifically say that you were white.

      How did I insult you specifically on my blog George? I control not the color of my skin nor the heritage I was born into. But I do have a follow up question. What exactly is a “real SOUTHERN white”?

      Heritage is not limited to the Civil War, by the way.

  79. Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 11:11 am

    Cobens v. Virginia (1821) established the legal precedent that the Federal Government is the superior law and entity in the Union. It also adds precedent that it is the duty of the states to resist any attempt of a single state or section of states from overthrowing the Constitution of the United States. This, by the way, is one of the last cases in the early 19th century that deals with state and federal powers. All cases to that point demonstrate that Federal Power exceeds that of the State.

    There is also Jackson’s address, cited routinely in 1869, Texas v. White. James Madison, by the way, made the same arguments that Michael is making.

    There is a long and diverse history on American political figures regarding the right to secede or not to secede. Most founders would agree that secession, as a moral action is a natural right in line with a rebellion, especially true “under absolute despotism.” But there is no consensus on the Constitutional right to secede or not to secede among American political leaders until after the Civil War and Texas v. White. However, just about all leaders in the executive office of the country, from Revolution to Civil War, adhered to the national government’s supremacy and when faced with nullification and secession, those leaders rejected those notions as Constitutional rights.The arguments being expressed by Jimmy and Michael, are pretty much on par with Unionists in the 19th century, much of the rhetoric and examples are the same as well; trademarks of educated men that know their subject well.

    Thad and George’s arguments on the other hand are childish and unintelligible. They offer no arguments for proof of their position nor have they really poised an argument outside of a stance in the negative. Why bother to engage either child when neither one comes to the table with anything to offer?

    From George we have a misquoted Chase excerpt; of which there is no primary source to validate that Chase even said those words. From Thad, we have a rehashing of George’s stance, along with maintaining that a “mountain of evidence” exists vindicating his argument, of which he has never offered up as proof.

    The fact of the matter is that there is clear precedent that supported nor denied peaceful secession. Outside of Jackson’s response to the nullification crisis, and the argument established thereof, prior to the Civil War secession was not a settled issue. The Civil War, however, settled the issue. Texas v. White also settled the issue legally. Secession remained a natural right, but certainly not a constitutional one.

    Now expect some stupid response to this as vindication, demonstrating the incompetence in reading comprehension.

    • Thad February 18, 2014 / 4:06 pm

      Another ignorant, stupid, useless, quasi-literate, incoherent and childish verbal temper tantrum form dimwit Baker. Just imagine living in the world of ignorant blowhard jackasses like Baker. Imagine that you could be arrested and imprisoned for jogging through a park one warm breezy afternoon. Why? Well, because there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly permits you to jog through the park on a warm breezy afternoon. Imagine having the police arrest and imprison you and your family as you take a walk at the local park. Your crime? Well, there is nothing in the constitution that explicitly permits you to take a walk at the local park. Imagine the utter stupidity in assuming that you must have a positive grant of constitutional authority for each and every thing that you do. This, in essence, is the world Baker and his idiot cronies occupy.

      • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 9:14 am

        I’m sure you think so; but in the end you are wrong, and you failed to post any counter argument as clearly or logically developed as mine. That pretty much proves my above assumption about you and George. Perhaps one day you will, but I won’t hold my breath.

        You also prove, yet again, that you do not understand the Constitution within the system of Federalism. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you the right to walk in a park; but there also is nothing that says that you can. One must take into account all local and states laws before acting on their own, as those laws would apply as long as they did not violate Constitutional law. To stay on topic, jaywalking is against the law in most local administrations, yet it is not outlawed by the Constitution. To think that you can do something simply because it is not in the constitution is complete and utter stupidity. Of course, your twisting of my words to create your straw man argument demonstrates your knowledge on the subject. So yes, continue to call me and others stupid while engaging in your logical fallacies; they only demonstrate your true nature, a moron that only Connie Chastain tolerates. Of course, this is not the first time you have muffed statements to claim superiority on an issue. Much of the same from you Thad/Austin/Caldwell/Melissa/etc. etc.

  80. Michael Rodgers February 18, 2014 / 11:37 am

    Here’s a nice paragraph from constitutional law professor Cass Sunstein from p. 95 of his book Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do.
    “The old Soviet constitution created a right to secede. The United States Constitution does not. Although some secessionists in the American South, invoking state sovereignty, claimed to find an implicit right to secede in the founding document, it was more common to invoke an extratextual ‘right to secede’ said to be enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. In any case, no serious scholar or politician now argues that a right to secede exists under United States constitutional law. It is generally agreed that such a right would undermine the spirit of the original document, one that encourages the development of constitutional provisions that prevent the defeat of the basic enterprise of democratic self-government.”

    • Thad February 18, 2014 / 2:30 pm

      Still waiting for the provision of the constitution or the federal legislation which prohibits secession. Surely that nice paragraph from Cass Sunstein didn’t rely on his opinion alone. Surely he cited the specific constitutional provision or federal legislation which makes secession unlawful. Can you show us that too, please? Thanks.

      • Jimmy Dick February 18, 2014 / 4:47 pm

        Oh look, the same repeated statement of ignorance from Thad.

        • Thad February 18, 2014 / 9:10 pm

          Oh look, more of the same stupidity from Dick.

  81. Michael Rodgers February 18, 2014 / 2:31 pm

    Rob Baker’s assertion that peaceful secession was an issue not yet settled in 1860-1 is a good place to end this discussion. Back then, some people made arguments that peaceful secession was legitimate and possible, while others argued that secession would rightly and assuredly lead to war.
    I object to people claiming that fighting against secession had no legal basis at all. I’m fine if you personally disagree with the legal basis.
    I can see how people might object to claims that secession had no legal basis at all. While I personally disagree with the legal basis, I see that arguments for the legality of secession were made and that secession was attempted by states peacefully via procedures, conventions, deliberation, votes, etc.
    Finally, what many people get upset about is how this debate spreads onto the soldiers and other people with a broad brush. War is horribly, horribly awful, and the soldiers on both sides generally behaved honorably and fought for each other, for their units, and for their superiors. Just because I believe secession is wrong doesn’t mean I don’t respect the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy. Just because others believe secession is right doesn’t have to mean that they don’t respect the soldiers who fought for the Union.
    Hey, we’re all one country. Peace out. Go vote!

    • Rob Baker February 18, 2014 / 6:30 pm

      Thanks for the shout out.

      I agree to the legal discourse that reinforced the arguments that secession is and was illegal. The case for peaceful separation is abundant as well, just not on a federal level (where it mattered). What irritates me, are the arguments of “you can’t prove….” Besides the fact that it is a logical fallacy, it shows a complete inadequacy to use intelligible thought by the proponents of such claims. It brings dialogue to a screeching halt.

  82. Thad February 18, 2014 / 3:21 pm

    I would like to add a few differences:

    1.The slave-owning traitors of 1776 were, in fact, blatantly committing treason, whereas the secessionists of 1861 were acting in full accordance with their constitutional rights
    2. The slave-owning traitors of 1776 were deeply involved in the foul and brutally cruel international slave-trade, whereas the secessionists of 1861 outlawed that barbaric practice
    3. The slave-owning traitors of 1776 cowardly sniveled about paying their fair share of the French and Indian War, whereas the secessionists of 1861 always met their fiscal obligations
    4. The slave-owning traitors of 1776 enjoyed enormous autonomy, whereas the secessionists of 1861 experienced severe oppression from the general government
    5. The slave-owning traitors of 1776 only won their independence because of the military and financial support of powerful European countries. The secessionists of 1861 received no such support.

    Feel free to add more…

  83. E. K. Wardle February 19, 2014 / 6:56 am

    “If you raise the standard of rebellion, your green fields will be wash’d with the blood of your people and your country laid desolate by the flames of civil discord! If you attempt to pull down the pillars of the Republic, you shall be crush’d into atoms.” (Virginian John Campell writing to New England Federalist David Campell, July 12, 1812.

  84. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 8:07 am

    The WBTS was not a struggle to end slavery. The issue of slavery was only a war measure to cripple the South Nothing more nothing less.

  85. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 8:09 am

    Nice . I would almost accept that as fact except YOUR own statements and research proves otherwise.

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 9:52 am

      No one knows what you are talking about since you don’t know how to use the reply feature.

  86. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 8:18 am

    Section 9
    1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    Now for the sum of 10 bucks you could import slaves. The Confederate Constitution forbids such impoerarion—- IX—The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

    There you go now you can begin your play on words.

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 9:53 am

      What is there to play on? No one was talking about the slave trade.

  87. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 8:21 am

    Please point out where the the states gave up the right of secession

  88. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 8:23 am

    So then you are admitting that because no law in the constitution allows you to cross the street then you have that right? That is the same with secession, it is not outlawed, the state have that right.

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 9:57 am

      No, I never said that. I implied that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. States/Counties/Cities/Towns can create laws that are stricter, as long as they do not violate said Constitutional law. Walking the street is an example. If you cross the street in the State of George, you are subject to the State of Georgia’s laws on that matter. Unless that state law is defeated in the court and declared Unconstitutional, then the law is in place and applicable. However, if the Constitution included a clause about the freedom to cross any street; then it is possible that laws such as Georgia’s might be Unconstitutional. In the end, you are comparing two drastically different things in an attempt to crudely simplify the issue.

  89. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 8:26 am

    Ok fine, nice work. The Confederate States never tried to overthrow the Federal Government. In fact they wanted nothing to do with it.

  90. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 8:28 am

    HA HA HA HA You are a day late and a dollar short. I need no citation that is my quote. LOL LOL LOL

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 9:57 am

      Really? Because you’ve been pawning it off as Justice Chase’s quote.

  91. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 8:30 am

    So??? Didn’t the post say single state? I think it did. Look it up doesn’t matter to me because “No law has ever been passed”

  92. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 8:36 am

    LOL LOL LOL If that is racist then I am a racist. So what are you gonna do, go “Dueling Banjos” on me??? I make no apologies to a bunch of wanna be historians and bigots for standing up for the white race and my heritage.If you are so against racism how about asking Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, Holder, Obama, and all Black groups for apologies? let me know when you receive a reply

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 9:59 am

      I know you are racist, that is why you are not allowed to comment at The Historic Struggle anymore.

      Why the “us” (white) vs “them” (black) mentality George? Seems you are more racist than previously thought.

  93. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 8:38 am

    I told you that is my quote. Prove my quote wrong!!!!!!!

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 10:00 am

      What is your quote George? No one knows what you are talking about because you can’t use the reply function accurately. And btw, one does not put their quote in quotations. Quotations implies that you are quoting another or referencing yourself at a previous date.

  94. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 8:44 am

    After I spent several weeks trying to drag an answer out of you, and you responded with nothing but insults. Now Mike has made several facts, but incorrect posts to this forum, you want to hitch you horse to his wagon and PRETEND you are contributing to a factual discussion? You are now a Constitution expert??? I think not.

    Thad, betcha in 6 weeks after this discussion Baker, Mackey, and Dick will be writing papers using Mike’s arguments as their own.

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 10:02 am

      This is why you are not a historian George. Mike’s arguments have always been around. They were used in the 19th century abundantly by Southerners and Northerners alike (such as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln) who knew secession was not a Constitutional right.

    • Thad February 19, 2014 / 2:27 pm

      I agree, and more’s the pity. The simple truth is, Mike’s “arguments”, from a constitutional perspective, are foolishly stupid. The fact that Dick regards them as worthwhile speaks volumes about his own constitutional ignorance. It is absolutely appalling how cloddish Mike’s constitutional “analysis” truly is.

  95. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 8:54 am

    On lingo.
    Those of us who use the lingo do it because it comes natural.We are Southerners we do not have to make a childish attempt at knowing the language to prove we are Southerners.

    All my infocomes from Yankee documents. I don’t have to lie and twist facts to ptove a point. Yankees of the period support me.

    As my old football coach would tell us when you assume you make an ass(out of)u (and)me. Don’t assume. But then again I may be white. never know do you?

    Do you deny making this or a similar statement– Your heritage is only good for insulting? I ccan look it up and post a link unless you engage the edit button.

    There is no other heritage but the WBTS. How about that???If I have to explain to you what Soutehrn heritage is then you will never be a Southerner.

    Do you eat black eyed peas and cabbage on New Years day???

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 9:51 am

      I’m sure you think you’re right in all this George, which makes it even more laughable.

      Please find that quote…but make sure that it is in its proper context.

      “There is no other heritage but the WBTS.” I’m sure you think so.

      No. I eat black eyed peas and greens. Usually with cornbread, ham and some homemade apple relish. Do attempt to define an entire culture based on one plate is pretty ludicrous though. For instance, substituting cabbage is a regional thing. So to is using ;collard or turnip greens. My staple Southern food is cornbread and pinto beans (which is more Southern Appalachia). I’m as Southern as they come George, I’m just not stupid about being Southern.

  96. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 9:04 am

    The discussion doesn’t end because you can’t prove your point, Sorry.

    Where was your respect when you were calling my ancestors traitors?

    I have a whole website – that documents atrocities against Southern civilians of all races. Why shuld I respect a hoarde of so called soldiers who come into my state and rape, steal, muder and burn everything in sight?

    What on God’s green earth is “Peace Out” supposed to mean. Are you throwing peace out the door???That is about the dumbest thing I evr heard

  97. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 9:15 am

    I must stick up for Dick. he is published, has over 8,000 documents related to slavery, heis a certified and bonafide historian and just became an expert on the Constitution in the last three days. You and your facts are just a bit more than he can handle.

    I think all that learning may have over loaded a circuit!!!! LOL LOL LOL

    Now Baker that is Southern. Sticking upfor those who cannot stick up for themselves. LOL LOL LOL

  98. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 9:21 am

    “the secessionists of 1861 experienced severe oppression from the general government”

    It should also be noted the general governemnt did not fight the war by themselves. Think of the Irish off the boats and the Germans that were hired to fight.

  99. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 9:47 am

    Isn’t it stange that under buchanan peace existed, but under LLincoln a war was fought? Isn’t it starnge that on the very day an invasion fleet was launched toward Charleston, a Confederate peace delegation waited to meet with Lincoln/

    There is nothing I have stated I can’t prove including the “no law has ver been passed’ statement. The fact you and your cronies fail that such a law has been passed speaks for itself. I gave you and Dick weeks to form a reasonable argument against that statement and the best I got was insults. You lose, retreat back into your hole.

    I give Thad all the credit for kicking some serious butt in a civil
    and factual manner. Good Job Thad– Well done.

    Now just to close off any arguments of going before the Supreme Court and the Confederate governemt not following any legal channels I offer you this from the SHAPE website—

    It would seem from the report that the President confined his observations at their interview exclusively to the reënforcement of the forts in Charleston harbor, for which General Scott, according to his own statement, in the letter to the ” National Intelligencer,” could spare but two hundred men, the remaining eight hundred being required for the, other fortifications. The President having expressed the opinion, according to the report, “that there was at the moment no danger of an early secession beyond South Carolina,” he proceeded to state, “in reply to my [ General Scott’s] arguments for immediately reënforcing Fort Moultrie, and sending a garrison to Fort Sumter,” that “the time has not arrived for doing so; that he should wait the action of the Convention of South Carolina, in the expectation that a commission would be appointed and sent to negotiate with him and Congress, respecting the secession of the State and the property of the United States held within its limits; and that if Congress should decide against the secession, then he would send a reënforcement, and telegraph the commanding officer ( Major Anderson) of Fort Moultrie to hold the forts (Moultrie and Sumter) against attack.”

  100. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 9:51 am

    You absolutely did say slavery was not legal under the Constitution. I posted bothe the USA and Confederate articles related to such.

    Regarding insults– How does it feel now the tail is chasing the dog and YOU DON”T CONTROL THE ADMIN TOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 10:19 am

      No, what I said is that the Constitution did not protect the legality of slavery, that was handled state by state.

      • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 10:22 am


        The Constitution did not legalize slavery .It made the possibility of owning slaves legal, but it fully recognized the right of a state to prohibit slavery.

  101. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 9:53 am

    How can I be wrong when you can’t prove It? You are wrong.

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 10:23 am

      Again, use the reply function. No idea what this refers to.

  102. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:03 am

    That is either not true or it was a very easy class. I base my comments on your past pots which are nothing but insults.I have a 10th grade education (or do I?), surely you Baker, Mackey and Ms Superior Education, Isabella , could have come up with at least one reasonable answer.

    Do I need to postslinks to support my statement? No wait Baker has the edit button he just may protect you.

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 10:13 am

      I don’t run this blog. Her name is Isabel. Please, post links. I dare you.

  103. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:09 am

    Thad don’t let their cheap tactics get to you. It is just part of their game.

  104. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:19 am

    —- and you still haven’t proved my statement wrong. “No law was ever passed”

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 10:45 am

      No law was ever passed that said a state establishing a religion was illegal.

  105. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:21 am

    Post your facts. How would the SCourt know what classes Dick took.

    Still you haven’t proved us wrong.

  106. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:23 am

    Oh my my look Baker, not known to be the sharpest tack in the pack makes and issue out of a name. Why don’t you prove Thad’s statements wrong and post the law. You are that smart aren’t you???

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 10:36 am

      I make issue out of the dishonesty. The little coward wants to troll the internet using numerous screen names, pretending to be numerous people agreeing with one another. It’s counter productive. He usually quits posting once he realizes that he’s been caught. he’ll run back to Connie’s blog now because she knows he’ll protect her.

  107. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:26 am

    and maybe you will grow the balls not to hide behind the admin tools like the coward you are. maybe while you are groing balls yoou will grow them big enough to admit you are wrong and cannot prove me wrong — no law has ver been passed—–

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 10:32 am

      I don’t hide behind the admin. key. I gave you clear rules of which I also placed on Jimmy and others. I have also edited their insults out. You decided to continuously violate the rules, and the you made racist comments, so you’re done. Get over it George.

  108. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:28 am

    No he is the 7th son and in the whole wide world there is only one!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 10:37 am

      Again, no one knows what you’re talking about because you don’t know how to use the reply feature

  109. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:31 am

    I’ll try you. You never took Con law. neither did I Still the facts is you can’t prove me wrong. When are you going to make the fact that I am a vet bite me in the butt?

  110. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:34 am

    OK so I am not a historian.i will say this, I haven’t met the historian who can prove wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  111. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:39 am

    and you are a bigot and racist also. You think I care about you and your dumb remarks on your cheap blog. I have yet to read the pages you have posted that was actual fact. You know if you post facts it will just prove you and your agenda wrong.

    I will say this anytime I disagree with you I will post it to Cold Southern Steel.

    • Rob Baker February 19, 2014 / 7:08 pm


      You and Thad/Austin/Caldwell/Clarissa/Reed etc. will have somewhere to talk.

  112. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:43 am

    You are way gone aren’t you. Do you even read what you post. Try your post Cobens vs Virginia.

    Still that doesn’t provide a law against secession

  113. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:45 am

    I let him borrow it. Go ahead with this line and I will prove just how ignorant you really are.

  114. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:47 am

    and there is still no law in the Constitution that outlaws secession. Post it. It is just that simple.

    • Christopher Shelley April 7, 2014 / 11:14 pm

      No–secession was illegal. The Union was and is perpetual. The Founders intended it so. Madison’s letter to Hamilton (“The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever”) during the New York ratification debates demonstrate that decisively.

      But on an even more profound scale, the ratification process itself demonstrates that the Founders intended the permanence and strength of the Union. They had had it with powerful states. That’s why the Founders stated in Article VII that ratification had to happen in special conventions, not the state legislatures: if the Founders had left it to the state legislatures, those legislatures would have rejected the document out of hand. But the special ratifying conventions were different. They were composed of delegates elected by We The People of each state, not the state itself. In addition, the states liberalized voting rules by getting rid of the property qualifications. This was a special one-time-only thing in order to ensure the broadest possible participation to select delegates in order to make it as democratic as the 18th century mindset would allow. In the North, five states even allowed blacks the right to vote. When the Constitution says “We the People” that’s not just a rhetorical flourish; that’s a description of the nature of the Union. (See Akhil Reed Amar’s excellent book _The American Constitution: A Biography_ for this interpretation in full.)

      Why did they do this? Because the Founders did not want the national government to be a creature of the states. They had had one of those in the Articles of Confederation, and it didn’t work for them. That’s why the Constitution is very clear in Article VI that it supersedes the states; that’s why all federal and state officials MUST swear or affirm their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution (look it up).

      The nature of the American Union, then, is based on popular sovereignty: the idea that the people have the right to rule. The American people spoke during ratification and created a new federal government in which they vested their sovereignty. The federal government is not merely an agent of the states, as John C. Calhoun asserted; it was not (and is not) a compact between states—the Founders specifically avoided that. So, if a state wants to leave the Union, the only possible way is for We the People to agree to let it go. But there is no specific mechanism for secession in the Constitution as it stands. And really, there is no way to read a right of secession into its text. It isn’t there, and that’s because the Founders never intended for states to break away. Therefore, secession–which would effectively destroy the Constitution–was and is illegal. And Lincoln was simply carrying out his oath of office to “preserve, protect, and defend” it.

  115. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:49 am

    I am right. You are wrong. It is that simple.

    My quote just like” no law has ver been passed.

    Prove me wrong.

  116. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 10:50 am

    So you are back to the willful ignorance tactic again???

  117. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 11:08 am

    Well I don’tsee the article about the Coke article in your archives Perhaps it is the ne domain?. If you deleted the page it means you can’t prove I made a supposed racist statement.

  118. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 11:10 am

    Gee I don’t know. How about the law we have been discussing????

  119. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 11:12 am

    Not my problem. go ahead continue to act ignorant

  120. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 11:20 am

    Regardless of how you want to word your response, slavery was leagl under the Constitution. If it were not there wiould not have been a need for the 13rh Adm.

    Now for the tody little sum of 10 bucks a person could import slaves. It is right there in balck and white

  121. gpthelastrebel February 19, 2014 / 11:27 am

    Playing word twister. Regardless it amount to the same thing.

    My last posts for the day. I am spending to much time at the computer so in the future I will not answer all the stupid comments by Baker and Dick. Frankly Thad has trampled them with so many facts and I see no need for more dicussion on the leagl aspect of secession unless someone can post a specfic law. If you have something real to say i will be more than happy to respond.

    SLAVERY WAS NOT A CAUSE OF THE WAR. Anyone have any facts proving me wrong.

  122. Brooks D. Simpson February 19, 2014 / 3:08 pm

    I think everyone’s had their say (one posting from multiple identities), so understand that this line of “discussion” is closed. Thanks.

  123. gpthelastrebel February 20, 2014 / 6:25 am

    It’s a Southern thang, you won’t understand.

  124. gpthelastrebel February 20, 2014 / 6:30 am

    Isn’t that what you folks do, troll the internet?I man look at the blogs of hall, Myers, Simpson, Mackey and yours. All you do is troll the net looking for issues to attack Southerners on. The fact that whoever this personis or what name they use should not be a concern to a REAL historian like you. You should be able to defend your position with historical facts.

  125. gpthelastrebel February 20, 2014 / 6:36 am

    Right That ius why I am constantly under attackon your blog. Like I said call the game fair. I don’t care that you banned me, I think I have found a home here. Brooks let’s us give as well as take, as long as it doen’t get out of hand. I notice the complete absence of Hall and Mackey. Figures since theplaying field is level now.

    • Brooks D. Simpson February 20, 2014 / 8:56 am

      Somehow I don’t think anyone feels sorry for you. Now you are whining that I don’t call the game fair. All I did was say that the discussion was over. That’s for everyone. No one was singled out. Why do you have such a persecution complex?

      Again, George, start your own blog and continue the discussion there. If you don’t, then it is you who are bringing the discussion to a close. Or travel to Backsass!, where your contributions would actually raise the level of discussion.

  126. gpthelastrebel February 20, 2014 / 6:40 am


    Don’t you understand. I don’t care about the name. They can use Santa Claus or Saint Nick for all I care.Whoever this person is posted factual information in a civil manner, that is what manners. The fact you disagree with the facts is to be expected.

    • Rob Baker February 20, 2014 / 10:01 am

      What factual information? The logical fallacy of arguing from omission? Or the ignoring of Supreme Court rulings that deal with secession?

  127. gpthelastrebel February 20, 2014 / 6:45 am

    In this diccussion the S. Courthas no bearing on the issue. Looks like the joke is omn you fellows.


    • Rob Baker February 20, 2014 / 10:02 am

      That would be a slap in the face to the founders George. It is SCOTUS’s duty to render verdict on the Constitutionality to laws and actions.

      • Andy Hall February 20, 2014 / 2:12 pm

        Minor quibble, but it was Chief Justice John Marshall who firmly established the role of judicial review in determining the constitutionality of laws in Marbury, in 1803. A few years after the Founders, but not many.

        For bonus points, Marshall was a Virginian.

        • Jimmy Dick February 20, 2014 / 7:03 pm

          Of course for even great bonus points we need to look at the way state courts addressed the issue of judicial review regarding state constitutions prior to the creation of the US Constitution. Those state courts believed and utilized the principle of judicial review. The concept was also brought up during the ratification process which shows the Founders were aware of it. In fact, all of the evidence we have from that process shows that the Founders thought that the federal courts would have judicial review powers. There is absolutely no evidence that exists showing anyone disagreed with that idea.

          Finally, the Federalist No. 78 written by Alexander Hamilton states that the federal courts would have judicial review powers. For anyone to even think that the Constitution was written in such a way as to prevent the federal courts from having judicial review powers is outright laughable. We hear the words original intent. It is crystal clear that the Founders considered judicial review to be the domain of the federal courts.

    • Brooks D. Simpson February 20, 2014 / 8:52 am

      Not any more … at least on this subject. You are free to establish your own blog, and you can have Thad, Melbourne, Austin, and Caldwell join you there.

  128. gpthelastrebel February 20, 2014 / 7:00 am

    Ah yes thank you that is where isabella came right out with race. I am a from Pureto Rico. Like race really matters. and my so called racial rant.

    Of course we have this link where you say my heritage is good for nothing but insulting.

    Here is where Dick, who made A’s in Con law is telling me to shut up.

    I could probally find more in Cold Southern Steel but these make my point.

    • Rob Baker February 20, 2014 / 10:09 am

      Her race is relevant when the post is about a video which focuses on diversity within America.

      Please point out where I say your “heritage is good for nothing but insulting”

      If you’ll notice on that particular post, I highlighted that I will no longer approve off topic and/or insults to character. So you’ve used a post before that policy as your example.

      Those make your point? Hardly.

  129. gpthelastrebel February 20, 2014 / 7:04 am

    So Brooks I am couruiou why ban Thad and not Dick,BakerMackey or Mike. I mean they started with the insults and continued throughout the whole discussion. Seems a bit unfair to me.

    • Brooks D. Simpson February 20, 2014 / 8:50 am

      Because Thad is just one of several screen names for someone whose behavior here and elsewhere simply is unacceptable. I let you continue to post, despite your track record of being insulting to me. Anyone can start a blog and continue the conversation there, and so it’s rather poor form for someone to complain I’m shutting them up when they have an opportunity to express themselves elsewhere.

      Stop whining. The discussion reached a point of diminishing returns, and I simply stopped the discussion. Now I’m going to stop the discussion about stopping the discussion.

  130. gpthelastrebel February 20, 2014 / 7:13 am

    Well by closing the discussion just hampers the truth from coming out. I note not one of these “historians’ on this forum took on the actual facts i presented last from Buchanan’s book. Why should they it proves all their arguments so far are nothing but a bunch of hooey. It’s a shame that any discussions have to come down to insults and that peopleare attcked with insults and banned because they stand up for themselves. And this is from educated people!!!!!!!!!!

    • Brooks D. Simpson February 20, 2014 / 8:45 am

      I believe I’ve allowed this discussion to go on long enough, and I now see far more heat than light. You can bring forth what you believe as the truth on your own blog.

  131. Rob Baker February 20, 2014 / 10:10 am

    I say limit George’s comments until he knows how to use the “Reply” button.

    • Andy Hall February 21, 2014 / 12:59 pm

      No, no. It’s easier to find if it’s all in one clump at the bottom.

  132. gpthelastrebel February 21, 2014 / 8:05 am


    Thanks for the explanation.

    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

  133. gpthelastrebel February 21, 2014 / 8:10 am

    Seems I recall you being quite insulting to me also. If you were not then before as now you allowed others to insult.

    I am not whining, it just seems odd to me that you, as a historian, would want to see all sides presented in a factual civil manner regarless from where or from whom the information came. I see that I was mistaken.

    • Brooks D. Simpson February 21, 2014 / 12:07 pm

      Now, George … I have given everyone an ample chance to express their views. Even you admit that elsewhere.

  134. gpthelastrebel February 21, 2014 / 8:17 am


    Actually I am giving you credit for leveling the playing field. Not whining just stating facts. Mackey,Hall and Baker love to hide behind the admin tools and let anyone against me cast about all sorts of insults. You allowed me to hit back if I chose to do so. I appreciate that.

  135. gpthelastrebel February 21, 2014 / 8:19 am

    I say limit your responses until you pass 6th grade history

  136. gpthelastrebel February 21, 2014 / 8:21 am

    You are the only two who care about a persons race.

    I did.

    That was supposed to be yourpilicy all along. That is unless you wanted to insult

  137. gpthelastrebel February 21, 2014 / 8:36 am

    Again just for you. South Carolina was going through the legal channels as Buchanan pointed out. The issue never reached the SCOTUS for them to take action. Lincoln started his war and the last of what would become the Confederate states left the Union.

    Still thereisno proof that the SCOTUS needed to hear a case of secession since the states still held that right and “no law had ever been passed—–.”

    Now Brooks has closed down this subject, and I do not wish to be banned for breaking his rules.If you wish to continue this discussion in a CIVIL manner with NO insults you can either go to
    Cold Southern Steel at
    which I have just set up


    you can go to Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education at

    and join that group. either way i will promise you that you will not receive the same treatment i received on your blog.

    I will be waiting.

  138. gpthelastrebel February 21, 2014 / 8:38 am

    Show up to the sites I posted that is all you have to do.

  139. gpthelastrebel February 21, 2014 / 8:42 am

    Nice try. Since there was no law against secession, how does this relate to this discussion?

  140. gpthelastrebel February 23, 2014 / 7:28 am

    I do. Exactly right. This time around I give you two “attaboys” and one “job well done” for providing a level playing field.

  141. gpthelastrebel February 23, 2014 / 7:30 am

    anything to help you Andy. I click the reply button on the email notification button where the reply falls I do not know.

  142. gpthelastrebel March 1, 2014 / 7:35 am

    To all those neo- yankees who tell who call for the removal and outright ban of everything Confederate, how do you feel now. To all those people arguing for immigration and amnesty how do you feel now? This may only be the beginning!!!!!!!

    A federal court ruled Thursday that a northern California high school did not violate the constitutional rights of its students when school officials made them turn their American flag T-shirts inside out on Cinco de Mayo or be sent home due to fears of racial violence.

    The three-judge panel unanimously decided the officials’ need to protect the safety of their students outweighed the students’ freedom of expression rights.

    Administrators at Live Oak High School, in the San Jose suburb of Morgan Hill, feared the American-flag shirts would enflame Latino students celebrating the Mexican holiday, and ordered the students to either turn the shirts inside out or go home for the day.

    The school had a history of problems between white and Latino students on that day, and also had a documented history of violence between gang members and between racial groups. The court said these past problems gave school officials sufficient and justifiable reasons for their actions and that schools have wide latitude in curbing certain civil rights to ensure campus safety.

    “Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the panel. The past events “made it reasonable for school officials to proceed as though the threat of a potentially violent disturbance was real,” she wrote.

    The San Jose Mercury News reports the parents of the students represented in the lawsuit claim their children’s First Amendment rights were violated. The Ann Arbor, Mich.-based American Freedom Law Center, a politically conservative legal aid foundation, and other similar organizations took up the students’ case and sued the high school and the school district.

    “This is the United States of America,” the mother of one of the students Kendall Jones told the San Jose Mercury News. “The idea that it’s offensive to wear patriotic clothing … regardless of what day it is, is unconscionable to me.”

    The parents have said in previous interviews with several publications that their children were only trying to be patriotic, not start a fight with Latino students.

    William Becker, one of the lawyers representing the students, said he plans to ask a special 11-judge panel of the appeals court to rehear the case. Becker said he and the parents of the children are prepared to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

  143. khepera420 March 5, 2014 / 2:38 pm

    “To all those neo- yankees who tell who call for the removal and outright ban of everything Confederate, how do you feel now. To all those people arguing for immigration and amnesty how do you feel now? This may only be the beginning!!!!!!!”

    What is your actual point, aside from the red herring histrionics?

  144. Tony June 5, 2014 / 11:13 am

    Brooks … noticed on Facebook you said you were digging around in Port Gibson. What were you looking for there? Just curious. No stop in Raymond, btw?? 😉

      • Tony June 5, 2014 / 2:56 pm

        But why Port Gibson? That’s a good half day out of your way no matter which way you’re traveling. What stops did you make, Windsor, Schaefer House?

  145. New York Giant July 7, 2014 / 10:35 am

    Nice site, this is my first post. Looking forward to some interesting discussions

  146. chancery October 17, 2014 / 7:43 pm

    Changing subject.

    I had understood the (relatively) new chat room feature was to give readers a limited ability to introduce topics of interest to them.

    I do so now. A couple with whom I have a slight acquaintance are planning a trip to Charleston, South Carolina, and would like a short history reading list.

    The request false-foots me; I’ve read a good bit about the civil war in the last few years, but don’t have references at the tip of my tongue.

    So far I’ve come up with “Confederates in the Attic,” obviously only several chapters on Charleston, but those memorable;, and “The March,” by Doctorow, again more about Georgia that South Carolina.

    Anything else?

  147. Dave December 3, 2014 / 1:48 pm

    HI Brooks,

    Any idea when your book, Gettysburg 1863 will be published? We are anxiously awaiting it so we can read it!

  148. Peter March 23, 2018 / 4:03 pm

    I have a question about the Cold War, why were the majority of countries becoming communist and sympathized more with the Soviet Union than say the democratic nations during the Cold War?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s