Southern Secession

Through history we've had various assaults from militia-like groups on federal assets.

The difference with the Jan 6 insurrection is that they targeted our very democracy with the intent of leaving us without a president-elect. That's far more than an assault on a federal placement.

I think it's far better to leave the Harper's Ferry incident to be analyzed as it is in history. We're not improving any understanding nor are we making effective excuses for illegal behavior by trying to assign names for the action.

 

The riot on January 6th, 2021, is in history, too. So, your conclusion as to why we cannot characterize and classify the attack at Harpers Ferry is based on a silly premise.

You and the rest of the Democrats on this forum have decided to not call the riot on January 6th, 2021, simply what is was: a riot. Instead, you have hyperbolized it, referring to it as an insurrection. You use that word specifically, and you continue to use that word repeatably. But you have not used that word to describe the violent overthrow of Harpers Ferry one time. Not one time have you referred to the attack on Harpers Ferry as an insurrection. I'll ask these questions one at a time in future posts.

 

Are you against physical force to free slaves? How is that less justified than our own revolution to free the US from Britain?

 

@yardmeat and @WillReadmore , was the violent overthrow at Harpers Ferry an insurrection?

 

Happy to answer that question if someone else asks or if you address the questions that I posed to you first. Simple concept. Why did you falsely claim that Brown killed women and children?

 

I'll ask the question one more time.

Was the violent overthrow at Harpers Ferry an insurrection?

 

I only answer questions from honest actors. You refused to address questions that I posed to you. Until you do so, I won't address yours. Because that's fundamentally dishonest. If an honest actor asks me the same question, I will gladly answer. You still owe me an apology for falsely claiming that Brown killed children and women and that I supported that. Is the concept of honesty really that painful?

 

Let the record show that the poster refused to answer the question. I think the American people see the clear hypocrisy from our friends on the other side of the aisle who refuse to answer basic questions to elucidate their actual principles. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to whoever wants to waste it.

Thank you.

 

Let the record show I had asked you questions first that you refused to answer. Let the record show I'm PERFECTLY willing to answer your questions if you answer the ones I asked you first. Let the record show I'm PERFECTLY willing to answer these same questions if asked by an honest actor.

Your posts are an anthem to hypocrisy.

 

That is total nonsense.

We KNOW what Jan 6 was. We have that documented in the words of those who directly assaulted our democracy.

No matter what happened at Harper's Ferry would have changed our government - which is EXACTLY what the insurgents on Jan 6 nearly succeeded in doing.

 

Xyce thinks that using force to try to end slavery and using force to try to end democracy are morally equivalent. By his own admission.

 

Was the violent overthrow at Harpers Ferry an insurrection?

 

What children or women did Brown kill? I asked you that first. You refuse to answer. Why should we answer your question when you refuse to answer questions you had been asked first? Why are you unwilling to be honest?

 

So, as I intitally stated there is no language in the constitution that prohibits any of the states from quitting the union.

My statement was never about SCOTUS.

 

Brown was tried and executed for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia and of trying to instigate an insurrection among slaves against their masters.

 

The constitution is as the USSC says it is.

You can try various arguments of your own, but it is the USSC that counts.

Here's a fun hypothetical that is absolutely falsely based: If a state were to become part of the USA, it would need 3/4 of the existing states to ratify that decision. One would have to assume that if there were a way to leave (which there NEVER has been), it would surely have also required 3/4 ratification. That would mean that the 11 secessionist states would need 27 states to ratify their departure. There is ZERO chance they would have managed that.

Of course, this is totally hypothetical, as there was (and is) NO METHOD for secession.

Also, they wanted to form a new country. They didn't give a crap what our constitution said.

 

That's not what I asked you.

I'll repeat the question one more time.

Was the violent overthrow at Harpers Ferry an insurrection?

 

Yes, I know about the SCOTUS. But that was not my assertion. My assertion, which noboby has yet disproven, is that the constitution contains no prohibition on any state quitting the union.

 

Because in your argument, that Lincoln should have gone to the courts is not the right argument at that time. People, the President, politicians, or even ordinary citizens did not go to the courts if they disagreed on policy or a political decision such as seceding from the Union. That is done today, on both sides, and something the founding fathers are rolling in their graves right now shaking their heads.

Second, nothing in the US Constitution states explicitly or implicitly about secession. It was the political theory of Compact Theory that the Southerners believed was their basis and foundation on secession. They seceded because they were fed up with compromises, and had an unfounded fear that the north will take their land and property, aka slaves, and force the South to pay for its labor. There was a strong abolitionist movement in the North, but the group did not have the political moxie to force that issue. Lincoln was trying for a compromise of sorts. One compromise was to limit the spread of slavery to future states. Another example was to not bring in new slaves or to allow freed black man no to become slaves. Those were his options and he would need northern democrats and a few southern democrats to be on board to achieve those goalscorer. But that takes time.

Furthermore, I have always argued that the South, if they wanted to succeed in their secession, should have never fired on Fort Sumpter. That was a strategic mistake on the South's part. When several southern states seceded, many in the north were ambivalent at best to go to war when the Southern States seceded. That attitude changed real quickly when the South fired on Fort Sumpter in an unprovoked attack. And the rest is history. Both sides thought that one battle would have been enough, but it took over four very bloody years to resolve the conflict. The argument you have made is hypothetical at best. Mine is based on history, analysis of historical events, and the practicality of what people on the North and South would have, in all likelihood followed through on certain policies, but none of that would have been through the courts, just the legislative body. The EO's were not even in existence then, and proclamations is not necessarily an order or declaration.

Finally, in Yardmeat's OP post, conservatives are minimizing, some say "whitewashing" our past, especially slavery in the South. Texas, the SBOE, attempted to state or educate kids that Southern slavery is good. Florida recentty, through the Florida's Department of Education, wants kids to learn that the blacks who were slaves learned valuable skills while they were slaves. In both instances, the conservatives are minimizing and normalizing Southern Slavery and even suggest, through inference, that slavery has positive aspects. I know of no positive aspects in slavery, even modern slavery in Africa or other places. And no, I am not arguing or debating that "wages make you slaves" or "taxes makes you a slave."

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/30/texas-slavery-involuntary-relocation/
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/pol...a State Board of,by the Florida Department of
https://www.salon.com/2021/05/05/re...-country-keep-trying-to-whitewash-us-slavery/

 

So you don't understand how different things are different. Got it.

 

Nope.

 

In the interest of avoiding overly long posts, which some find daunting to read-- not you, I do not mean to imply; but I have rec'd more than one "TLDR," since I've been here-- before we move on to your "second," "furthermore," or "finally" paragraphs, let us address your first (so I would guess, your #1) argument: that people are far more litigious today, than they were, in the mid 19th century. I am somewhat skeptical of this assertion, as it has been my understanding that, from the first, American colonists were always a litigious lot. Since you offered nothing to substantiate your statement, it seems fair for me to challenge this point. If it is grounded in established fact, we can proceed quickly to your next point, by your simply sharing the source which had allowed you to, so confidently, put forth your initial claim.

 

No one can disprove it, as it is a statement of fact.

Before giving a go to the little game, you propose, in the rest of your post, I have my own, "fun" thing to do-- though there is nothing "hypothetical," about it. In your initial sentence, at top, to what does the word "it," refer? In proper language, it should mean, not "the law," or anything along those lines, but rather, "the Constitution." Had that been what you'd meant? IOW, are you conceding to the plain & clearest meaning of the document, or to whatever is the view of the current roster of the Supreme Court, primacy in what is accurate, correct, true, and/or important?
Because your equating of the two as identical, is patently false.

What I am asking you is if, to even your own inexpert eyes, it is clear that a SCOTUS decision is not based on anything in the Constitution, would you think of the decision, in your own mind, as every bit as valid, as any other Court opinion? I am not asking if, legally, it would have the same force because, obviously, it would. I am asking if you would just as strongly support a decision of the High Court that was clearly divorced from our documentary template, as you would, one that appeared to be drawn directly from the Constitution?

I ask, because my post to you yesterday, quoted the beginning of the line of thought, which the SCOTUS had used, in arriving at its Texas v. White decision.


<Snip>
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual"*. And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union".** It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words.
What can be indissoluble, if a *perpetual Union, made **more perfect, is not?[8]
<End Snip>

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White


Please note that the colors I employ, are not for decorative effect, but are intended to aid readers, in following the decision's rationale.
What it says, is that our original "Constitution," the Articles of Confederation of the 13 American colonies, was the document in which representatives of the people of every colony, agreed to be bound in a "perpetual" union, of which our current Constitution was just an updating, in order to make that union, "more perfect." So, goes the logic, if we were already bound in an inseparable union, then the national contract 2.0, would not need say more than the words "to form a more perfect union," to be as clear as day, in Chief Justice Chase's mind, it was plainly forbidding, negating the possibility of, any state ever leaving the Union.

First of all, even had the characterization of the colony's Articles of Confederation, been accurate, that is a huge stretch, to say that the words, "in order to form a more perfect union," translate to mean, on their face, that no colony which joins this compact or confederation, can ever depart it. But does Chase's description of the Articles of Confederation, describe truth, or fantasy?

<Snip>
This "first constitution of the United States" established a "league of friendship" for the 13 sovereign and independent states. Each state retained "every Power...which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States.* The Articles of Confederation also outlined a Congress with representation not based on population – each state would have one vote in Congress.

Ratification by all 13 states was necessary to set the Confederation into motion. Because of disputes over representation, voting, and the western lands claimed by some states, ratification was delayed. When Maryland ratified it on March 1, 1781, the Congress of the Confederation came into being.

Just a few years after the Revolutionary War, however, James Madison and George Washington were among those who feared their young country was on the brink of collapse. With the states retaining considerable power, the central government had insufficient power to regulate commerce. It could not tax and was generally impotent in setting commercial policy. Nor could it effectively support a war effort. Congress was attempting to function with a depleted treasury; and paper money was flooding the country, creating extraordinary inflation.
<End Snip>

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/articles-of-confederation#:~:text=The Articles of Confederation were,day Constitution went into effect.

That article-- from our U.S. government archives-- does not paint the Articles to be, at all, what Chase contended, it had been. A "league of friendship," is not an unbreakable commitment. It brings to mind the stereotypical relationship in which one dater has convinced themself, that their relationship is ultra-serious, w/out the other member having actually said anything, conformational of that idea; who, in fact, firmly believes their relationship is strictly casual, and that they are free to see other people.

From this groundwork, the line, "to form a more perfect union," certainly cannot be expected to have ever meant, that all who joined were forever waiving their right to leave. *From the text of the Articles, in fact, unless the federal government was "expressly delegated" the power to prevent states from leaving, then states had that power and right. And that is from a straight reading of the crystal clear text.

So, again, the rational for the USSC decision, had not been based on the wording of the Constitution. If one is of the notion that the purpose and mandate of the Court, was only to interpret the Constitution, this would give that person good reason to see the Texas v. White decision, as invalid.



P.S.-- Considerations of both length and cohesiveness, lead me to put off addressing your post's other proposition, until my next reply.

 

Returning to the topic of this thread; southern secession:

I'm old enough to have witnessed the lingering effects of the Jim Crow laws in a small town in Georgia some years ago. Attitudes and beliefs die hard. They are passed on through families, generation after generation. The mindsets of some in the south have made them fair game for whichever of our two political parties was willing to hold its nose at any particular time. This has not changed.

The vision of Dr. Martin Luther King is not yet.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

I applaud your sentiment but I could not help but take the way you'd started-- "Returning to the topic of this thread; southern secession,"-- except as a reference to my own post, which had preceded your own. Clearly, this was your subtle form of expressing a frowny face, your disapproval with, the direction in which I was going-- which had been, strictly in keeping with the thread, if you'd read past the false advertising of the OP. "Secession," had been quickly equated with the cause of the war, and so then received blame for the war. And my point is not that they don't deserve the blame, but that the historical chain of events, had not been the only possible way things could have gone. My saying that, is not a prediction that war could have been avoided; it is saying that it did not have to be so invited, by Lincoln, as is manifest, in a retrospective view.

That's just an FYI, since your opening would suggest, if I was to draw judgements as superficially as yourself, either a total lack of the appreciation for any ideological subtlety, or else a quick pre-judging reflex, on your part. So, just so you'll know, I am not sad that there is no longer slavery. I wish that there never had been slavery. But I am not pretending to live in Candy Land. I am discussing, and basing alternate narratives on, actual history.

To my main point, though. Had you done, in your post, what you had announced as your intention, I never would have written this reply. But a minor slight, becomes more insulting, when you say that you are going to speak more directly to the primary topic, and then your comments are not half as close, as the other person's, to the secession topic. Even just on their face, you had to know I was discussing the Union's (that is, Lincoln's) response to secession. Not exactly, way out in left field. And then you talk about the "lingering effects of Jim Crow?" How the F. is that a "return to the topic thread," of secession-- from a "departure," of someone assessing Lincoln's reaction to secession?