On Preservation of the Union at Any Cost

[wadcutter]

The Confederate States of America did no such thing. The CSA made war on the United States of America. That is Treason. That is an act of insurgency.

Mr. Freeman:

On October 24, 2013, you wrote a post from which the following excerpts are drawn:

Yes, there will be an investigation. We shall see if there is evidence to the contrary. HOWEVER, everything that I have read has screamed clean shoot.

I cannot imagine holding the police, or armed DNHB to that standard.

If someone is pointing a gun at you, you don't have a second.

The police, or anyone else, do not have to wait until the shooting starts in order to exercise lawful self-defense.

Police work? No, this is self-defense which applies regardless of the job that they are doing.

One does not need to "hold his fire" if someone is pointing or about to point a gun at another. Where are these Martian rules of self-defense being grafted on to the law???

On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded from the United States of America.

On February 8, 1861, South Carolina joined the Confederate States of America.

Fort Sumter resides within the state boundaries of South Carolina and thus became within the borders of the Confederate States of America on February 8, 1861.

On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln included the below passages in his inauguration speech:

"I hold that, in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the union of these States is perpetual....It follows....that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I, therefore, consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken."

[Note Lincoln's autocratic "I hold that" So much of Lincoln was the naked exercise of the Rule of Man]

On April 6, 1861, Lincoln made good the threat in his inauguration and began to resupply a foreign fort, operated in violation of the foreign country's laws and without the foreign country's permission.

On April 12, 1861, the foreign country stopped the illegal supply of the trespassing fort, and not a single trespasser was killed in stopping the attempted illegal resupply.

Mr. Freeman:

Using your own statements as a means for analyzing the dispute, the question for you is: If it does not offend you for a police officer to kill one of his fellow citizens for merely having an imagined threat of force, why do you deny a country the ability to resist actual force presented by an invading foreign country?

Your positions are inconsistent.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But, what if we just wanted to discuss the war crimes of General Sherman during the civil war?

What if freeing slaves had absolutely nothing to do with this topic?

Because slavery is the be all and end all of the Civil War.

Attacking Sherman was the mechanism for the Lost Causers post-Civil War to convert themselves into victims and thus justify slavery and the Klan.

A union of choice was suspended in favor of a union by force.

Who is telling you this? Where do you get this idea? Is this something you have read in some Libertarian fiction novel?

Even the Articles of Confederation were perpetual.

Why couldn't anyone leave the CSA? Better yet, tell me about the Free State of Jones. Why could a county not leave a state in the CSA?

Why couldn't persons in the CSA reject slavery and seceed from the CSA? Tell what you know about the Treue der Union monument in Comfort, Texas.

Why did the CSA stand against secession when the secessionists rejected slavery? Tell us what you know about what happened to Samuel Houston when he refused to pledge allegiance to the CSA.

I have yet to see anybody speaking in defense of slavery.

A defense of the CSA is a defense of what exactly?

What is the Cornerstone of the CSA?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If it does not offend you for a police officer to kill one of his fellow citizens for merely having an imagined threat of force, why do you deny a country the ability to resist actual force presented by an invading foreign country?

The CSA was not a country. It was a group of bandits who wanted to steal off with their beloved slaves.

 

[rob63]

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, whichcan only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virginia statesmen. What can it be now?"

- Robert E. Lee, January 29, 1861


"The South contends that a state has a constitutional right to secede from the Union formed with her sister states. In this I submit the South errs. No power or right is constitutional but what can be exercised in a form or mode provided in the constitution for its exercise. Secession is therefore not constitutional, but revolutionary; and is only morally competent, like war, upon failure of justice."

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, Janurary 26 - February 1, 1861.
(Taney was author of the infamous Dred Scott decision; he was hardly an enemy of the South.)


"... What will be the result to the institution of slavery, which will follow submission to the inauguration and administration of Mr. Lincoln as the President of one section of the Union? My candid opinion is, that it will be the total abolition of slavery, and the utter ruin of the South, in less than twenty-five years. If we submit now, we satisfy the Northern people that, come what may, we will never resist. If Mr. Lincoln places among us his Judges, District Attorneys, Marshals, Post Masters, Custom House officers, etc., etc., by the end of his administration, with the control of these men, and the distribution of public patronage, he will have succeeded in dividing us to an extent that will destroy all our moral powers, and prepare us to tolerate the running of a Republican ticket, in most of the States of the South, in 1864. If this ticket only secured five or ten thousand votes in each of the Southern States, it would be as large as the abolition party was in the North a few years since. It would hold a ballance of power between any two political parties into which the people of the South may hereafter be divided. This would soon give it the control of our elections. We would then be powerless, and the abolitionists would press forward, with a steady step, to the accomplishment of their object.They would refuse to admit any other slave States to the Union. They would abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and at the Forts, Arsenals and Dock Yards, within the Southern States, which belong to the United States. They would then abolish the internal slave trade between the States, and prohibit a slave owner in Georgia from carrying his slaves into Alabama or South Carolina, and there selling them. These steps would be taken one at a time, cautiously, and our people would submit. Finally, when we were sufficiently humiliated, and sufficiently in their power, they would abolish slavery in the States. It will not be many years before enough of free States may be formed out of the present territories of the United States, and admitted into the Union, to give them sufficient strength to change the Constitution, and remove all Constitutional barriers which now deny to Congress this power. I do not doubt, therefore, that submission to the administration of Mr. Lincoln will result in the final abolition of slavery. If we fail to resist now, we will never again have the strength to resist."

- Georgia Governor Joe Brown, December 7, 1860


The problem that some people seem to have is that they don't understand that when you are contemplating revolution the cause you support makes a difference in how history views you. The revolutionaries of 1776 were seeking liberty for everyone, the revolutionaries of 1861 wanted to continue to own other human beings. It matters.

 

[wadcutter]

Because slavery is the be all and end all of the Civil War.

Earlier in this discussion, you said:

Please cite what you construe as my "claim that the North fought the CSA to liberate slaves".

You cannot do it because it is ahistorical.

Mr. Freeman:

Respectfully, Sir, which is it? You're contradicting yourself.

 

[rambone]

[Note Lincoln's autocratic "I hold that" So much of Lincoln was the naked exercise of the Rule of Man]

Oh, zing. You're making Kirk's god bleed. Definitely don't bring up Lincoln's suspension of the constitution, the gun confiscation, the censorship, the Northern political prisoners, or the dozens of other crimes against the American people. He gets testy and uses twice the straw in his mannequin targets.

 

[wadcutter]

Mr. Freeman:

I finally got a straight admission from you, but not in this forum.

On December 27, 2003, 03:55 PM at thehighroad.org, posting as "El Tejon," you said:

"The South started a war to preserve slavery; the North ended it to preserve the Union."

There are two clauses in your sentence. Let's discuss the second.

With all due respect, Sir, please explain where in the United States Constitution as existing in 1861 is the United States government allowed to use the United States military, arms, force and the public treasury to return forcibly and without consent a state to the United States? What Article or any of the 12 Amendments specifically permitted such action?

 

[Dead Duck]

Mr. Freeman:

I finally got a straight admission from you, but not in this forum.

On December 27, 2003, 03:55 PM at thehighroad.org, posting as "El Tejon," you said:

"The South started a war to preserve slavery; the North ended it to preserve the Union."

There are two clauses in your sentence. Let's discuss the second.

Where in the United States Constitution as existing in 1861 is the United States government allowed to use the United States military, arms, force and the public treasury to return forcibly and without consent a state to the United States? What Article or any of the 12 Amendments specifically permitted such action?

What is your damage.......Wad?

 

[firehawk1]

Mr. Freeman:

I finally got a straight admission from you, but not in this forum.

On December 27, 2003, 03:55 PM at thehighroad.org, posting as "El Tejon," you said:



"The South started a war to preserve slavery; the North ended it to preserve the Union."

There are two clauses in your sentence. Let's discuss the second.

Where in the United States Constitution as existing in 1861 is the United States government allowed to use the United States military, arms, force and the public treasury to return forcibly and without consent a state to the United States? What Article or any of the 12 Amendments specifically permitted such action?

Damn dude, instead of trying for pages and pages to 'set someone up' in order to form your rebuttal just spit it out already... Jesus... Say what 'ya got to say and move on.

BTW, you bothered to track down Kirk on another forum clear back to '03 just to grace everyone here on INGO with your still unknown OPINION about the Civil War? Dude that's scarey...

 

[HoughMade]

What you people don't seem to understand is what a libertarian paradise the antebellum south was with it's freedom for all and lack of government intrusion in personal lives and such.

 

[rob63]

Mr. Freeman:

I finally got a straight admission from you, but not in this forum.

On December 27, 2003, 03:55 PM at thehighroad.org, posting as "El Tejon," you said:

"The South started a war to preserve slavery; the North ended it to preserve the Union."

There are two clauses in your sentence. Let's discuss the second.

With all due respect, Sir, please explain where in the United States Constitution as existing in 1861 is the United States government allowed to use the United States military, arms, force and the public treasury to return forcibly and without consent a state to the United States? What Article or any of the 12 Amendments specifically permitted such action?

That would be Article I, Section 8:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

 

[rob63]

Mr. Freeman,

In support of your claim, please reference any designs the Confederate States of America had to topple the government in Washington and replace the US government with the CS government.

Please also reference any designs the Confederate States of America had to force northern states into the CSA.

“No man could tell where the war this day commenced would end, but he would prophesy that the flag which now flaunts the breeze here would float over the old Capitol, at Washington, before the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] of May. Let them try Southern chivalry and test the extent of Southern resources, and it might float eventually over Faneuil Hall itself.”

CSA Secretary of War Leroy Walker, Exchange Hotel, Montgomery, AL, April 12, 1861

Note that this speech was made 3 days before Lincoln asked for volunteers.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Respectfully, Sir, which is it? You're contradicting yourself.

What? We have been over this.

Slavery was everything to the South. It was the cornerstone of the CSA.

To the North, it was everything to only a minority.

BTW, you bothered to track down Kirk on another forum clear back to '03 just to grace everyone here on INGO with your still unknown OPINION about the Civil War? Dude that's scarey...

His opinion is not unknown. It is pro-slavery. I'm kicking the stuffing out of them. It always triggers the stalker response in them.

On December 27, 2003,

That is f***ing terrifying.

With all due respect, Sir, please explain where in the United States Constitution as existing in 1861 is the United States government allowed to use the United States military, arms, force and the public treasury to return forcibly and without consent a state to the United States? What Article or any of the 12 Amendments specifically permitted such action?

You cannot find Article I, § 8, cl. 15 on your own? Are you reading an L. Neil Smith edited copy of the Constitution?

How about I quote INGO hero Andrew Jackson about how he would do it?

Still not going to tell me about the Free State of Jones or the True to the Union monument, huh? Figures.

What you people don't seem to understand is what a libertarian paradise the antebellum south was with it's freedom for all and lack of government intrusion in personal lives and such.

And they tell me that Libertarians support freedom. Just for the right people it appears.

Libertarians support the bondage of the South so they can tell us that the federal government oversteps its bounds.

 

[wadcutter]

You cannot find Article I, § 8, cl. 15 on your own?

Mr. Freeman:

I must say, I'm surprised you accepted that help [bait?]. I know you're a lawyer, but you also style yourself a "constitutionalist," and it does not do for one so purportedly devoted to the document to claim it to be made of rubber.

Article 1, Section 8 calls for drawing out the militia in three categories, none of which is applicable to secession.

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

to execute the laws of the union

The laws of the Union were not threatened by the secession.

suppress insurrections

As a lawyer, you know that a secession, by very definition, is not an insurrection. The Whiskey Rebellion was an insurrection.

Noah Webster makes the point clear:

"INSURREC'TION, n. [L. insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.] 1. A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. Insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.

repel invasions

Thirdly, the South did not invade the North, much the opposite.

You and I both know that if Article 1, Section 8 had included a passage explicitly permitting armed force against seceding states that the Constitution would have faced a far more difficult path to ratification.

This page contains some useful historical reference; though while I find it to be thoroughly engaging, it may be a bit dry to non-History geeks.

"The Right of Secession" by Gene H. Kizer, Jr., Bonnie Blue Publishing, Southern History, Southern Literature

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As a lawyer, you know that a secession, by very definition, is not an insurrection.

This is delusional. I cannot help you.

 

[Darral27]

I either need a higher IQ or a lower IQ to keep reading this. I'm still not sure which.

 

[Trigger Time]

Absolutely incorrect.

The South said it loud and proud, they went to war to defend slavery. No other reason.

Even I that's true so what? It wasn't illegal or wrong by their standards back then. The north wanted to financially rape the south and they had enough.
oh and the civil war is referred to by my family down south as the war of northern agression. I had family on both sides of the conflict. I'm proud to be descended from them all.

 

[Trigger Time]

Earlier in this discussion, you said:



Mr. Freeman:

Respectfully, Sir, which is it? You're contradicting yourself.

depends who's paying as to which argument he gives I guess

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Even I that's true so what? It wasn't illegal or wrong by their standards back then.

Because the South, in defeat, claimed the Civil War was not about slavery. They ran away from their Cornerstone.

This way help: http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=473250

The Neo-Confederates attack the actions of the North to set the South up as a victim and deflect from the South's core beliefs of slavery and White Supremacy.

depends who's paying as to which argument he gives I guess

What are you having trouble tracking? Perhaps I can help.

Are you confused by the term "Lost Cause"?

Perhaps this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

Sherman is needed to the Lost Cause as a Devil in their cultural religion. (Longstreet is Judas because he became a Republican.)

 

[HoughMade]

The South based its economy on the stolen labor of slaves. Then it cried, whined and ultimately killed to try and maintain this. Every economic argument that people want to claim was the "real" reason for "secession" conveniently ignores the fact that the south's profit margin was dependent upon forced, stolen labor.