Independent States?

[Savorino]

The Constitution provides for the power of the States.
But if the South warred for State Independence and against Federalism why did it unify into Faux Republic and elect a Faux President in difference to a Republic that it had built and a President it had participated in electing. Seems kind of contradictory. But then most of this stuff is. I read as much revisionist history here as what they're teaching our kids.


Sav

[williamlayton]

I am wondering what revisionist history is. History is like Monday morning quarterbacks, well sept, we can learn a lot more from it. Each side has it's own version of tha history of any incident and says the other side has revised the way it really was.
Personally I enjoy hearing or reading different thoughts. Being a cynical person, I like hearing all sides of the question. The thought process and facts are often quiet different after the spin has been let to die.
Blessings

[El Confederado]

Savorino,
The Confederacy was legaly not a Federal Republic, it was a Confederation of States, hence the name, Confederate States of America.

[Shorty]

It has been said that the Confederacy's biggest problem was the LACK of central authority.  Jeff Davis spent most of his time trying to get the states to cooperate in a concerted effort.  That he managed as well as he did is his claim to fame!  I've heard stories of one states army having surplus shoes (NC) while another had none (VA), but would not share.  :?   The very premise of states rights was also the Confederacy's greatest weakness?  :shock:

[El Confederado]

Shorty,
This is very true, just look at the problems with Governor Brown of Georgia, however, I think given time the Confederacy would have found their sweet spot, just the same way our revolutionary forefathers did after the American Revolution.

[williamlayton]

I do not agree EL, I believe the Confederacy would have fallen into chaos and imploded.
Blessings

[El Confederado]

well Williamlayton, thats what the English thought too and well, we proved them wrong.

[nohorse]

Savorino:  You stated “The Constitution provides for the power of the States. But if the South warred for State Independence and against Federalism why did it unify into Faux Republic and elect a Faux President in difference to a Republic that it had built and a President it had participated in electing. Seems kind of contradictory. But then most of this stuff is. I read as much revisionist history here as what they're teaching our kids. “


The Constitution with regard to state secession:

Section. 10.

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

It’s obvious that when the Confederacy was formed the states that seceded they didn’t have much use for the US Constitution or its prohibitions. In this respect the US Constitution did not allocate any power to the seceding states – it only dictated power to the remaining US government and those states that remained in the union. Thus these states didn’t war for independence against federalism; they ‘warred’ to form their own sovereign nation just like the colonies did when they ‘warred’ against the British. As such the nation they formed, that was subsequently defeated at such a very high cost, was not a ‘Faux Republic’. Nor was the elected president a “Faux President’.

Williamlayton: “I am wondering what revisionist history is….. History is like Monday morning quarterbacks, well sept, we can learn a lot more from it. Each side has it's own version of tha history of any incident and says the other side has revised the way it really was.
Personally I enjoy hearing or reading different thoughts. Being a cynical person, I like hearing all sides of the question. The thought process and facts are often quiet different after the spin has been let to die.”

To me your statement pretty much defines what revisionist history is not.  As you said, when all of the facts and differing view points are presented and the spin has been ‘let to die’ indeed the perspective is in fact quite different.  When each side presents a particularly biased historical view and knowingly overlooks truth and historical fact to promote their individual agenda or perspective then history is being re-written [revised – i.e. ‘revisionist’] and corrupted unless it is clearly understood and communicated that the presentation is in fact either opinion or biased.  Of course this is easier said than done particularly during discussions and open debate but I would hope those with a responsibility of relaying our history through our schools would objectively pursue presenting the truth and that parents would actively participate by being involved in the learning process and assisting their children in determining what is fact and what is opinion and/or fiction.

Shorty: “ It has been said that the Confederacy's biggest problem was the LACK of central authority. Jeff Davis spent most of his time trying to get the states to cooperate in a concerted effort. That he managed as well as he did is his claim to fame! I've heard stories of one states army having surplus shoes (NC) while another had none (VA), but would not share.  The very premise of states rights was also the Confederacy's greatest weakness.”

That is a very interesting and valid point. I cannot predict what might have happened and I don’t know if this in fact was the Confederacy’s ‘greatest weakness’ but there was at times a considerable lack of cooperation that hurt the Confederacy’s efforts.  As you relate part of this was due in fact to the independent nature of the states and their individual attempts to hoard supplies and provisions for their own troops rather than contribute to a unified nationalized effort. Thanks for the comment…..

[williamlayton]

Don't think they will ever agree to that---it ruins the whole arguement or if you will, the onliest spin they can put on this.
Blessings

[El Confederado]

Now lets also look at Amendment 10 as it is the basis for all power in the nation and is democracy at it's best.


Amendment 10
" The powers not delegated to the United States( meaning the Federal government)by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States( wait a second, does this say what I think it just said, the Federal government is subject to the States?)are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.( oh my God, it said People, that means the Federal and States governments are to take their lead from the People , novel concept that some in this room still cant figure out)

Bottom line the South acted on the same God given rights that the Colonies acted on when they rebeled against England, but you will find folks in here that will say that is incorrect, I just cant figure their thought process out.Oh well.

[williamlayton]

An if'n we had lost we woulda have had to accept the consequences. Thank tha Lord of Host I aint drivin on tha right.
Blessings

[El Confederado]

williamlayton,
I just figured it out, you have a bit of a defeatist way at lookin at this stuff  and that is why we can never agree. You seem to think that if one has lost, well thats the will of God , move on, me, nope sorry, as long as there is a ounce of life  , a drop of blood, you never give up, your forefathers demand that you fight to the last. Freedom never comes free pard.

[williamlayton]

EL-
I was not defeated, heck I didn't even fight. I look at history and try and learn, see what happened, and if ever presented with a problem such as this, try and not make the same mistake again.
Fought enough fights to learn when to and when not to. I am not concerned with MY manhood or the manhood of my fathers, the Lord will preserve all of that he wants, which in my opinion is Zilch, Nada.,, and not even one virgin.
Blessings

[nohorse]

El Confed:  The US Constitution did not delegate the states the ‘right’ to secede or form a confederation.  In fact it stated, as I previously related, that it was a violation of the US Constitution for this to occur. As you are aware there are indeed unalienable rights, and regardless of what the ‘law’ says I agree that the Confederate States obviously believed that a precedent was set by our forefathers and they too shared the belief that they had the right to secede and form a new nation. However, that right is not granted by US law or recognized by the US Constitution and the Confederates States withdrawal from the union was in fact open rebellion and viewed by many of the northern states and leaders as traitorous.  Just like the colonies withdrawal from English rule was also viewed by those loyal to the crown and England.

[Raimford]

At last, I've read where someone(El Confederado) has it right.  The federal government, being created by the States, is inferior to them except in the areas delegated to it by the Constitution.  From what I've read and understand (which may not be much) about the Civil War (believe me I didn't learn it in the public school system) is this:

1.  An Aristocracy was set up in the southern States.  This aristocracy came from Europe during the migration to the "new land"
2.  A few thousand Aristocratic families controlled the politics and the economy of the southern States, thereby defeating the provisions of the Constitution.
3.  Of the 5 to 6 million people, including slaves, there were far more poor economically enslaved white people.
4.  Slavery was on the way out for in was not an economical viable system and would have died an uneventful death in 20 to 30 years.
5.   The abolitionists brought the issue of slavery to the forefront and incited the inevitable.
6.  In the Supreme Court case of Texas v. White in about 1867 or so it was stated that the governments of the southern States were taken over by rebels and the southern States never did secede from the Union.

just a few thoughts...

"All who meditate of the art of governing mankind are convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth."  Aristotle

[nohorse]

1.   An Aristocracy was set up in the southern States. This aristocracy came from Europe during the migration to the "new land":

 …We all came from Europe, the difference in social class and stature in this instance was related to how the Southern agriculturally based economy evolved and the impact this had upon the entire national economy.  The ‘aristocracy’ that developed was uniquely American and existed both in the North and the South.  If one is to believe this is based solely upon the utilization of slaves research the number of slaves in New York just prior to the outbreak of the war.  New York was indeed a major slave holding state as were others.  

2. A few thousand Aristocratic families controlled the politics and the economy of the southern States, thereby defeating the provisions of the Constitution:

Were there rich families?  Sure.  Did these mass political stroke and influence?  Some did, just like some do today.  Who really controlled the politics and economy prior to secession?  What eventually became the ‘Northern banks’ and the Federal government through the excise taxes.   Did this defeat the provisions of the Constitution?  Obviously many felt that the government had exceeded its bounds to the point where the Southern states ratified their own Constitution and government.

3. Of the 5 to 6 million people, including slaves, there were far more poor economically enslaved white people.

If you are saying there were many white families that did not attain a rich and influential status I would agree.  As such, many were not slave holders and couldn’t afford to feed them if they had them.  Although they may have not been dependent upon their owners for survival they also shared a lowly economic status and some were, perhaps, indentured servants to some extent and dependent upon the rich social class. I know from my own family’s history that many of my ancestors were occupied with simple economic survival and literally scratching out a living just to support their families.  You do drive home a really good point here – many of the common Southern ‘grunts’ [for lack of a better term] that crossed the fields of battle were indeed common people, with no considerable personal wealth, that sacrificed the little they owned for a dream not that far removed from their ancestors a mere generation or two before.  As I reflect upon that and note my other family members that have participated in our wars since – this seems to remain true.  The front line soldier that is putting their life on the line for us doesn’t necessarily exemplify any particular social status – it is simply the kid next door. But I digress – thanks for the thought provoking comment.

4. Slavery was on the way out for in was not an economical viable system and would have died an uneventful death in 20 to 30 years; Agreed


5. The abolitionists brought the issue of slavery to the forefront and incited the inevitable.  Agreed


6. In the Supreme Court case of Texas v. White in about 1867 or so it was stated that the governments of the southern States were taken over by rebels and the southern States never did secede from the Union:

  This is an interesting case. One of the few that sheds an interesting perspective on secession.  Basically the real case revolves around Federal money. The Feds issued bonds [$10 million dollars worth] to Texas in 1851. In 1862 Confederate Texas used the money to fund their cause, After the war was lost the reconstruction government imposed upon Texas required the state to give the money back. In order to force the issue it was taken to the Supreme Court. Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that individual states could not secede from the union and even though the state of Texas did, their state constitutions and other documents of secession were not legally recognized by the federal government and in fact null and void. Because these were null and void they were never legally recognized by the union as a separate nation and as such, the state essentially never legally left the union and in fact remained a state.   An insurgent state, but a state nonetheless.  Because Texas never really left the union from a legal perspective, the state retained the legal right to seek redress with the Supreme Court and also retain the bonds. [Ya gotta love Texas!]

[ironfoot]

El Confederado
When you quoted the 10th Amendment, and also said:
 "...oh my God, it said People, that means the Federal and States governments are to take their lead from the People , novel concept that some in this room still cant figure out...."
Did you mean to include black people?

[MOGorilla]

Seems like the same dead horse being beaten.   Iron foot, of course he didn't mean african people, because at the time that amendment was written, they did not intend it to include those people.  Now days it goes without saying that it does, but in 1865, I would hazard that less than 1% of the population felt that the african-americans were included in any part of the constitution.  The northerners did not leap to bring former slaves to the north, the didn't even leap to improve the situation, they just packed their carpet bags and treated the south worse than any country the USA had defeated in battle before and after.   For all those people on this forum who constantly berate the south for Slavery, I ask what are they doing about slavery today, it still exists, and is quite prevalent in this country.   And FYI as to my views, I am a probable descendant of slaves, in and about 1840, my great-great-great grandfather left his "home" in Maryland, taking only his father's name.  Where he came from in that family tree is anyone's guess, as he was not a son of the man's wife.  An interesting note, a female slave was freed the same year and left with a gift of $100.   Later, the man married and lived in Illinois, leading to my maternal family, he left in 1860 to fight for the south, returning to Illinois after the war.  Of my maternal family three cousins suffer cycle cell anemia. The civil war was like most wars about control of $$$$, the only good thing that came out of it was freedom for the slaves, even though they weren't treated any better by the conquering heros.