Well seems hollyweird be at it again ? ? ? or maybe it is simpler to look at the whole thing n say... there are different views of what was... ? ? ? opinions? my opinion is Lincoln did at times IGNORE the Constitution... and violate or even suspend it... was it for the better? hmmm... are we having a similar situation happening now? again... opinions? Free State of Jones Actor Matthew McConaughey: Confederate Soldier’s “DNA was written in the Bible and the Declaration of Independence” - Freedom Outpost
"However, what most concerns me is that Director Ross thinks the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery. It wasn't. That was an afterthought to justify Lincoln's illegal and unconstitutional actions. Ross is just wrong on this issue, and all the historical documentation, when it comes to Lincoln, will set the record straight. In fact, I would highly recommend The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis." Truer words were never spoken.. Lincoln was one of the worst presidents we've ever had. Next was FDR. The War of Northern Aggression had nothing to do with slavery and everything about insuring the dominance of the north by crushing states rights, the results which are still being felt to this day.
The root cause of the South seceding was slavery...the root cause of the war was Lincoln's invasion of the seceding states after he had Sumter as an excuse (The issue of federal installations on confederate land could have easily been negotiated, even after Sumter was fired upon). Lincoln had no right to use force to keep the Union together, nor did he have the right to trample the Constitution in the process. How free can a country be when it must be held together by force? How free can a country stay when its leaders have no respect for the rule of law?
The Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln is well worth reading. Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989 Notice the following statement, referring to the People: "Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Revolution as a right? As in a right that cannot be lawfully infringed? Interesting question. Right now it's a Federal crime merely to advocate violent Revolution--as if there could be any other kind--and that despite the fact that ALL political speech is supposedly free speech in accordance with the Constutution. I guess the Law isn't what it is, but only what they say it is.
Lincoln is also quoted saying that if he could win the war without abolishing slavery, he would. In fact, his post -Emancipation plan was to ship them all back to Africa, and be done wit the issue all together. THe only Reason Lincoln freed Southern Slaves is because England was about to publicly declare it's support for the South, and recognize them as a sovereign country...the Emancipation Proclaimation was a direct play against the damage that would do to the Union in the global setting. As a matter fo fact, the Prime Minster had to be caught up to and informed of the move ON HIS WAY IN PARLAIMENT TO ANNOUNCE THEIR PLAN TO ALLY WITH THE CONFEDERACY. Britain had recently freed all of their slaves, and with the Unioin oing the same to the whole of the U.S., the Brits were too afraid of rioting and politcal backlash to continue with their plan to pitch in. Lincoln was a bastard, but an effective one.
There is quite a lot of documentation stating Lincoln's thoughts on slavery and the splitting of the Union. He was against slavery but like most he knew that slavery was a dying out and wouldn't last but a few decades at the most. He definitely would have left slavery in place if it would have ended the war or kept the Union intact - that is documente. And, @AxesAreBetter is correct, that the Emancipation of the Slaves was a direct result of politics to ensure England's mighty fleet didn't join the Confederacy - quite brilliant actually. Also, the announcement was right after Gettysburg (IIRC) so politically it was a perfect time to do so given the victory, the huge body count of that battle and the desire and need to bring the religious abolitionists to his side and turn the war to something more worthy of the huge loss of life. Lincoln was a pretty amazing guy in my opinion, most likely a true genius. I have always enjoyed how he got around the bankers to pay for the war - greenbacks - and that is probably the true reason that got him killed.
My opinion is that Lincoln was in the wrong and the South had a clear Constitutional right to secede. My opinion is colored by my study of the Constitution and my ancestors who served in the Confederate Forces during the war, 10th Alabama - POW at Gettysburg, 47th GA - KIA at Missionary Ridge, 2nd TN Cavalry - POW at Nashville, 1st TN - deserted after Nashville. The survivors had a belly full of war, and were glad it was over with. They fought and bled for their beliefs but could not overcome Northern industrialization and freed slave and immigrant enlistment as Yankee cannon fodder in a war of attrition. Old Southerners are still bitter, and it might be a few more generations before that emotion is fully abandoned. We were wronged, invaded, and pillaged, and it won't be forgot.
and many "middle-aged" southerners as well In this area you bring up the "Civil" war and you will be IMMEDIATELY corrected-even by little 'ol ladies. It was the War of Northern Aggression. You get my wife and her uncle started on this topic and you'd best be ready for a long history lesson. I was not born here, but I am of Southern lineage and like you have several ancestors that served the Confederacy (and two that served the Union) as does my wife. The JBT's of today can trace their roots back to and should give thanks to Lincoln for the "power" they wield today. Their weaponry may be modern but many of their ideals come from him.
But, there isn't anything in the Constitution stating the right to secede, is there? On there other hand, there is nothing in there that says you can't. I wonder if this was done on purpose...? The freed slave regiments were few in number IIRC and doubtful they played that great an impact but certainly there were many hungry immigrants and, of course, the population numbers were terribly against the South from the beginning, actually everything was against them. Nevertheless, if they could have got the British fleet on their side to open the port to resume trade things could have been very, very different. You are lucky to be able to trace such an amazing heritage. Do you have letters and/or artifacts from these soldiers?
I believe that in the 1930's, the U>S> officially changed the "Civil War" to the War for Southern Independence as a belated peace offering. There is, technically, no U.S. Civil War, that name is just, and always has been, filthy Yankee propaganda.
No, the right to secede is one of those unalienable rights that predate government...as proclaimed in our original founding document: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " The civil war was a direct result of our founders inability to resolve the high principles stated in our Declaration of Independence with the issue of slavery when they drafted and ratified the Constitution. Had the slavery question been settled in the Constitution, there would have been no Civil War...but there also may not have been a United States of America at all because the Constitution would not have been ratified in the first place had they tried to prohibit slavery. Lotta shoulda, woulda, couldas I know....history is full of them. The sad truth is that neither side was in the right because neither side practiced what was preached in the Declaration of Independence. The Federal government tried...and succeeded...to prevent States from leaving via force, while the Confederacy insisted on keeping slavery alive, leading to their destruction and forced imprisonment in the Union.
You are correct in that the U.S. Constitution does not in itself support the right to secede from the Union, but it is alluded to in supporting documents. The Articles of Confederation of 1777 were for 13 sovereign states that formed an alliance to overthrow the government. The armed revolt had begun 2 years prior to this, the first serious document to emerge from the conflict was the Declaration of Independence drawn up in 1776, it states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government", and that's what we did, for 5 years anyways. Some pictures and letters are scattered about the family of these soldiers. There was a cigar box of old Confederate paper money at my Grand's house, and when the family got together we grandkids used it to play store with back in the 50's, don't know what happened to it. I have a gravy bowl from a set that was buried along with the other house china and silverware in the barnyard to hide it from Yankee raiders during the chaotic war years around Columbia, TN, where two of those soldiers were from, but most everything from that period is gone with the wind.
Actually, there is (in a non-specific way): Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers. 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.
@Oltymer "...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" Yeah, I think that very sentence nails it. Sort of hard to refute or even rebut those words...you can't so...So, one must then say the South did have ever right to secede even under the same document that the North lived... So, what justification or legal right had the North to not allow it? Interesting... @chimo Clear and concise and spot on as always. Well said, "...unalienable rights that predate government..." @techsar "...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." It's a stretch but I see where you are coming from being the Federals didn't have the right to NOT stop the South because it is not in the Constitution so this give that right, to secede or not to secede to the States/People and they chose secession. So while it seems that even though they were born with the unalienable right and even had it laid out in our most precious of documents plus given the 10th amendment...it boiled down to 'might makes right.' Interesting history lesson...and brings us back to our famous @UncleMorgan earlier statement "I guess the Law isn't what it is, but only what they say it is." This is something to remember given we have a criminal running for President... "the Law isn't what it is, but only what they say it is." We all need to remember this in the coming days.
Not to split hairs here. But, President Lincoln did not free the slaves. That was the Thirteenth Amendment, if memory serves?
Not since the 16th Amendment was created when the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur were we sovereign. The 17th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to where both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. So looking back at at the civil war the states were at the time more like nations then states. The Confederate flags which there are several have 13 stars these are not to represent the colonies, but to represent the eventual uniting of the southern states. The Confederacy was first looking to be removed from the united states, due to trade not slavery. The north was comprised of Government forces, the south was comprised of several states, that were acting as their own nations. To verify this fact several " nations " of the south had there own Constitutions while short lived they did exist more proof of their sovereignty. At the time, the south had the right to challenge the north as for the most part the North looked at the south as territory and not states. This is where it all began, as the south did not see themselves as territories but separate nations, even up to the war of 1812 the south was disorganized in a wide scale view of the nation what was a state and what was territory. In the south when the 13 nations surrendered would be similar in think how the USA in world war two was of the group of allies all as one but separate. To this day the south historians look at it not as the south looking to succeed but the north declared war on sovereign nations. Succeeding is how the North and Lincoln justified in the Souths view terrorist activities. While slavery eventually became part of the cause it truly was not an issue for the North to fight for freedom any more then allies fought for the Jews. It was just an after thought helped gain support. After world war two as news hit America about freeing captive Jews the whole view on us and Russia by the rest of the world changed because we were saviors. Right and wrong why often in the politics of land grabs is often if not always not the reason ! In the USA we hear we stole the land from the Indians, in reality Europe today and its territory most lines did not exist 150 years ago yet its accepted. The point being is politics, is often the cover for the reality of things.. But thats just my opinion.
Yup...Lincoln's Emancipation Proclaimation only freed those slaves that were not under Union control and did nothing for those that were. Tactically ineffective, but history has made it political genius.
