Book review-"A Constitutional History of Secession"

[williamlayton]

I do appreciate the thought that I have power too impose. I deny that as shown by the fact that the conversation still flows.
I can't and you can't impose.
We may assert/imply/encourage/cajole/persist/hope/wish but it is folly too think that impose is a resource any have.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

I do appreciate the thought that I have power too impose. I deny that as shown by the fact that the conversation still flows.
I can't and you can't impose.
We may assert/imply/encourage/cajole/persist/hope/wish but it is folly too think that impose is a resource any have.
Blessings

Dang wl I was just using your word. You wrote it, not me, I was just copying you.

Never the less, my charge still stands, a Coup is the definition of the overthrow of a government by whatever means necessary. legal or illegal is a matter of opinion to the parties involved. A legal secession is a removal from not a breaking up of a union of States. You may disagree all you want but in my eyes if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then by definition it must be a duck.

As an individual you maybe right, unless I have a gun, but as a country the Northern States imposed its will on the Southern States by force of arms. And that's a FACT!

[williamlayton]

I do not deny that. It was a coup in the sense that it attempted too withdraw from the Union.
The history of this is why there was a conflict.
The facts are that there was a conflict and the South lost. That is the simple answer.
I will tell you that my findings are far more complex, involve the Southern political and economic leaders. I simply an't find another solution than some folks in the South wanted too be bigger fish than they were in the Union.
I know that this was/has turned into a very "feelings" involved issue, but the feelings were different then than they are now. Then the feelings were about a Union or let them go. The majority wanted a Union.
This so called big government arguement is not what it was about. It was the Republicans who wanted small government and less controls and as the worm turns it is the Democrats, the party of the South, who wanted controls and devised the welfare system.
Blessings 

[Dee]

It would appear that facts are ignored here, and the argument is becoming, and will become circular. Postings without historical references, are just empty postings.
I think I will just watch for a while.

[littlecanoe]

From Wikipedia:
A coup d’état (pronounced /kuːdeɪˈtɑː/ AHD: [ko͞o"dā tä]), often simply called a coup, is the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a part — usually small — of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.

The south was constitutional in what they did and followed the exact same form as their fathers/grandfathers in withdrawing from the English government.

As to the complexity of the cause and the rational as for why the southern leaders did what they did, how can the premise that money and greed were the underlying tenants be extended when we have read quote after quote after quote of the men who chose to leave.  I have yet to see these men say that they left for the purposes that you give wl.  I do hear them saying that they saw freedom as defined by states rights as being the issue.

When I read history and see that the Historian has said something other than the historical man has said I discard the premise of the Historian as he has undermined his argument.

[Ga.windbreak]

It would appear that facts are ignored here, and the argument is becoming, and will become circular. Postings without historical references, are just empty postings.
I think I will just watch for a while.

Dee, please don't go, remember what you said to me?. I'm truly interested in your take on this subject and the relations of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Since one (the 13th) was passed by our duely elected officials and the other (the 14th) was passed by a military formed government that was not a reflection of "the people" of the southern states. How say you my friend?

[Ga.windbreak]

lc, I fear that you are wasting your breath, or in this case your fingers. I find that wl for all of his claimed education (college grad?), with all due respect wl, leaves alot to be desired as to word meaning, composition, and spelling. As Dee says it "Ring around the Mulberry bush", can you really make heads or tails of his last post?

Methinks a roll of alum. foil is necessary right about now.

[Dee]

Ga.Windbreak, I have no intention of leaving. However, I have no intention of entering into a discussion with a self-proclaimed expert on ALL matters. One whom expects me to just "take his word for it" when I have found his information "faulty at best" for the last several years.
One may claim knowledge on a subject, but one may have INCORRECT knowledge from INCORRECT sources. We are talking history here. Not THEOLOGY!
History MOST TIMES, has available "historical references", however if someone is so dense that they are incapable of absorbing proof thru references, but instead rely on college professors, whom many times are educated BEYOND their own intelligence levels, and government approved books, then I will nix the discussion for the truth, every time.
I have been to see the elephant on this matter, and it will not change, because "he" cannot change. One does not need to waste ones time in simply telling me I am wrong. One needs to show me PROOF I am wrong. Is that not the crux of the matter?

[SouthernByGrace]

Dee and Gw., and lc, Y'all have heard me say it several times now(or seen me write it  ) that william either Does Not have the Sources to preclude our arguments, or he has made them up in that tiny little head of his, or They Simply Don't Exist... and Methinks the latter is the case.

Wl, to echo Graybeard, WHY ARE YOU HERE?
To be a man born of the South, you give no indication in your posts of having any sort of compassion for the turmoil endured by your very own ancestors, much less the entire South. You have not shown an ounce of Pride in your heritage. If you sympathize with the North so profoundly, why do you stay in the South?
Dude, if I thought for one second that my ancestors were REMOTELY wrong in their efforts during the War For Southern Independence, to give me a better life, as well as YOU, I would have high-tailed it up North a hell of a long time ago. You seem to be completely ashamed of Your ancestors and heritage. What have you demonstrated here, that would ever make them proud of you?
You should be filled with SHAME and GUILT for Yourself, by dishonoring those that came before you.
Again, if you disapprove so much of what the South (and Your ancestors) did, then why don't you LEAVE?
To me, this is no different than a communist living next door to me, and trying to tell me of communism's greatness!
If you think we're wrong and they're right, MOVE! Trust me, Delta's ready when You are!! (Gw. will get that ) Hell, I'll even help you pack!

I have a serious question for you, WL.
IF you could go back to the 1860's and visit with your ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, assuming some did, HOW would you explain to them that they were wrong and immoral in their efforts, and you are right? Since you don't have any sources, other than your opinions, just how would you go about justifying your beliefs to them? 
Man, would I like to be a fly on THAT Wall ?!? 

[williamlayton]

First, take your feelings off your sleeve.
Second, I didn't call them immoral. I did say they did not think thru this, they acted on rage, pride and blindness.
If you object too the use of coup it is obvious you understood my usage. OK, I will throw coup out of the list.
Tiny little head?? Why in the hay do you get so mad, it messes up your thought processes.
My ancestry in 100% American from 1620 in Connicut on one side and Alabama and Georgia on the other. Now, I don't claim any particular bloodline purity, seems we all got mixed up during our stay here, perhaps even father back.
Now back too this putting up ibids.
A quote from one source is not reliable, a quote from the margin of a book report is less than reliable and without looking at the the whole of the question, pro and con, coming to conclusions is called one sided and dangerous.
What I state is my opinion from my looking at it, You seem too want the same right but deny another.
Post some pros from my side that show you have looked at it, I have agreed with some of your thoughts, though not the conclusions.
This NATION is great because it is a Union.  The South would have been a disaster as a Confederacy. IMO.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

This deserves an answer.
I am here because I enjoy the discussion. My life is not wrapped up in it.
In a discussion all may agree, all may disagree or some may agree and some may disagree.
The give and take is important in a conversation---not winning an arguement, which no one ever does. the give and take challenges your thought processes.
It does not bother me that any disagree.

Now, my question. Why do you get so mad? I really don't understand.
Blessings
 

[williamlayton]

Another question.
Lee said and knew that without defeating the North the South would be lost. that is the reason for the two invasions he attempted. Others tried also.
If he had conqured the Union, IF, what was he going too do with it?
Blessings

[Dee]

  He not only knows EVERYTHING, he is also a "mind reader", and KNOWS why we don't get something. He's real smart.

Think I'll put him back on ignore were he belongs.

[SouthernByGrace]

Me too, Dee, Me too. But after I say this...

WL, You have never agreed with anything I've said! How dare you sit there and say you have!
Nobody in this forum is mad, except you, and I don't mean in the sense of being angry, either.

You still don't seem to be able to understand the definition of a Union. A Union MUST be VOLUNTARY! Being held together at gunpoint DOES NOT A UNION MAKE!

Who in this forum has used a single ibid? Every other person in this forum has used direct quotes from the people being discussed. That, sir, is NOT an ibid. It is PROOF, a word obviously NOT in your vocabulary. I have NEVER quoted from the margin of a book report. I give the sources of every idea I put forth here naming that source, specifically. YOU have never quoted from ANYTHING yet you have the unmitigated gall to question ANYBODY else's sources? You still don't get the fact that your opinion is NOT a source.
Who has EVER said a word about bloodline purity, besides you?

You obviously cannot read or comprehend definitions of words, either. A coup is overthrowing a government. Show me one, just one piece of evidence the South ever tried to overthrow the North. Lee wasn't trying to conquer anybody. He was defending his State. The two times he ventured North were to draw the Union out of the South, away from Virginia, not to conquer the North.

You seem to think that just because you may have studied this a little, which would almost surely have required you to read something, that you are the only one here that knows HOW to study something. You are not dealing with a bunch of dummies here. However, we seem be dealing with a prominent one.

I did not question your ancestry. I asked you how you would justify, to them,  your "opinion" of what they did. Certainly they would want you to explain your stance of saying they were wrong. And you failed miserably to give an answer, as you have failed miserably to show any source material on this forum. I think you know it though... as do we.
As for my thought processes, they are crystal clear. Don't flatter yourself, It will take much more than you to throw that off.

I will not engage you in discussion any further on this forum, until you can bring to the table any form of reference material OTHER THAN YOUR OPINION, and that material is ON TOPIC... and somebody else can tell me you did because I won't see it.
For now, you are officially on IGNORE, where you do belong.
 
P.S.  I would think a man who went to college would know the difference in the words, "to" and "too".
       You might want to study that.  While you're at it, look up the words "union" and "coup", too.  

DEO VINDICE

[Ga.windbreak]

Another question.
Lee said and knew that without defeating the North the South would be lost. that is the reason for the two invasions he attempted. Others tried also.
If he had conqured the Union, IF, what was he going too do with it?
Blessings

If Lee said these things wl then post a link where it shows he said them #1 and # 2 I will only say this one more time, you have some good ideas for threads in this forum, so start them if you want to talk about them. Do not continue to go off topic as you have just done. This is my last warning on being OT.

[williamlayton]

*** Your first 4 points were OT; start a new post if you want to discuss those things. You were warned.


 SC  had refused too collect the yankee tariff , offering the excuse of free trade.
The tariffs were not new. They began as early as 1820 and were opposed by three factions in this nation.
The West, which was then Indiana, Ohio and such This was complicated by the need for better methods of transportaion of goods.
The tariffs were designed too allow the government funds too improve infastructure and stabilize trade within the US. The tariffs for the protection of national manufacturing were impilmented too lessen the low cost and subsidized goods from England.
The north could not compete with the slave labor of the South. There were some--old loyalist--who desired a closer contact with Eu (the motherland) and even alliance with them.
The South objected on two points. They objected their taxes going too another point of the country. They were in favor of free trade and objected too any taxes on this free trade.
The North and the West came too agreement and some in the South began this march towards secession.
Blessings 

[Dee]

As I have said. Deaf ears.

[Ga.windbreak]

Now to get back on track I'll pose a question to everyone. Knowing that the Federalist papers are brought up all the time to lay a foundation to our Constitution; what does everyone think about the Anti-Federalist papers? Should they also be applied to our constitution? And, if so, how and/or why?

It is good to have insight on both what they accepted and what they rejected.

[Graybeard]

Since the Federalist actually won out with their views over the anti-federalists I think they would be better studied as what those whose views prevailed were against. But yes I think all materials from both sides are valid studies of how our founding fathers thought processes worked.

[Ga.windbreak]

A look at the reasons for our Constitution:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/beard_constitution.html

which is adapted from The Supreme Court and the Constitution (1912), Charles Beard presents evidence that the framers of the Constitution were less interested in furthering democratic principles than in protecting private property and the interests of the wealthy class. Since this work was written over eighty years ago, there are a few anachronisms you may want to keep in mind. First, when Beard speaks of the "Confederacy," he is referring to the government that existed under the Articles of Confederation -- not to the Confederate states that seceded from the Union during the Civil War. Also, it is important to remember that the Senate was still not elected by popular vote when Beard was writing