Book review-"A Constitutional History of Secession"

[Ga.windbreak]

“A Constitutional History of Secession” – A review


The Book “A Constitutional History of Secession” by John Remington Graham. Mr. Graham is a lawyer by trade but he has written this book so that it is very easy to understand by non-lawyers; such as I.

Mr. Graham takes us from the earliest days of the growth of freedom in England and its effect on our own Declaration of Independence, The Treaty of Paris, The Confederation of States, The Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution. His notes, at the end of each chapter, are easy to follow and numerous.

From Chapter two onward we are guided thru The American Union, The Northern Secessionists, Southern Abolitionists, The Nullification Crisis, The Missouri Compromise, The Southern Confederacy, War Between the States, and The Reconstruction Acts.

                                           Preamble by Mr. Graham

                    Sacred to the memory of the Army of Northern Virginia
                    and the Army of Tennessee. They fought for all of us, of
                    every race and nation, in North and South America, in
                    Europe, Africa, and Asia, in their time, and in the time since
                              passing, and in the future now approaching.

Let me first say that there is no way that I can do justice to this book. If you have any interest in Constitutional law, which I do even though I’m a layman, you surely must read this book.

I will point out several things which, I feel, we who believe already feel is right but it is always good to know that what you feel is true is also legally proper and right. We were NOT misled by our ancestors so don’t ever stop believing in the truth of our Liberty no matter how loud and often the other side may shout the lie or call us traitors   

Points to ponder:
1.   The Constitution is nothing more than a compact between the several states to join forces for the EQUAL protection of all. Some will use the wording “made perpetual” because of the use of it in the Articles of Confederation. That in and of its self may be true but in those very same Articles it called for amending only if ALL 13 states voted yea and such was not the case when, 6 years later we revoked that compact and voted on the U.S. Constitution and not all 13 states ratified that as two states continued to exist as independent states for a couple of years before joining this third union.
2.   In any legal contract the use of the word “perpetual” is there only to assert that the contract is not limited to a certain number of years. It does not mean that you are not allowed to “Break” said contract if the other party doesn’t live up to his part of the bargain. Lincoln was wrong and Jeff Davis and the Southern States were/are right.
3.   

“The Union of 1789 was, in undeniable historical fact, designed as a compact among the several States, each acting by her people in convention as a sovereign power. In so acting, the people of each State in convention retained its sovereign attributes, including the right to adjudge material infractions of the compact of the Union by supreme and final authority, beyond the jurisdiction of any temporal court of justice.” By John Remington Graham

4.   And last but not least twice, on the floor, during the debate over our Constitution it was brought up about using federal forces in the individual states and that was voted down. It should be noted that Federal forces can only be “INVITED” to inter a State by said State it is otherwise against the law. Or it was up until the “Patriot Act” and the advent of Homeland Security. (Is that lawful?)

If there is any desire in you to better understand our Constitution and what has been done to it and our civil liberties I can only recommend that you read this book. It will truly open your eyes.

Note: I had to come back and add one small point: When our Constitution was ratified, by floor rules, it only took 9 States to ratify, the approving States were ready and willing to allow the others to go it on their own.

[SouthernByGrace]

VERY GOOD BOOK, GW.

I feel that in order for any American to understand the Constitution as it relates to The War for Southern Independence, they NEED to read this book. What more proof can anybody Need that what the South did, it did in the EXACT manner prescribed by the Constitution. They went through their respective State legislatures and voted FOR secession. How much more LEGAL do you want it?
Most people (North & South) have never even looked at the Constitution to try to understand what has happened to our system of government today, and how it was completely changed in the 1860's.
Most people don't CARE that the Constitution actually FORBIDS such laws as "The Patriot Act." That nice, neat little peace of legislation actually NULLIFIES the ENTIRE Constitution!!!
No more are the days when you have ANY rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution, for all that is needed to put you in your place is for some member of the gov't. to claim you are under investigation as a terrorist and your Every right is stripped away as if it were no more than the used up layer of dead skin on a snake.
But if we look back, we clearly see who they learned from; Lincoln, who butchered the Constitution and was made a saint for it! Bush will be treated by history the same way. 
People don't see it because they don't Want to see it.

[Ga.windbreak]

VERY GOOD BOOK, GW.

I feel that in order for any American to understand the Constitution as it relates to The War for Southern Independence, they NEED to read this book. What more proof can anybody Need that what the South did, it did in the EXACT manner prescribed by the Constitution. They went through their respective State legislatures and voted FOR secession. How much more LEGAL do you want it?
Most people (North & South) have never even looked at the Constitution to try to understand what has happened to our system of government today, and how it was completely changed in the 1860's.
Most people don't CARE that the Constitution actually FORBIDS such laws as "The Patriot Act." That nice, neat little peace of legislation actually NULLIFIES the ENTIRE Constitution!!!
No more are the days when you have ANY rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution, for all that is needed to put you in your place is for some member of the gov't. to claim you are under investigation as a terrorist and your Every right is stripped away as if it were no more than the used up layer of dead skin on a snake.
But if we look back, we clearly see who they learned from; Lincoln, who butchered the Constitution and was made a saint for it! Bush will be treated by history the same way. 
People don't see it because they don't Want to see it.

Amen, Brother! That's why we need to keep the faith and talk it up, don't you agree? The moment we give up we are defiling the very memory of our fallen Confederate dead and what our forefathers fought and died for in the beginning.

[williamlayton]

Mr Graham disagrees with constitional law a s defined by the supreme court.
That is OK.
Now if you proclaim the right too secede, what form of government do you espouse?
How do you elect?
How do you defend?
What if one of the secessionist wants too enter into treaty with another nation that other secessionist feel would be detrimental too the confederation.
These are logical but complex issues which have too be decided on before hand.
It is logical, I would even say "logically understood by the founding fathers", that this was not an assumtion but, in fact the predetermined direction designed in both the constitution and Bill of Rights, too have a perpetual Nation.
That aside. Do you honestly have an answer too a government that would satisfy everyone or is it just that you are pointing out the flaws in this one and have no clue as too what you want?
Please don't say freedom and Liberty. that is loose and unmanagable.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Most people don't CARE that the Constitution actually FORBIDS such laws as "The Patriot Act." That nice, neat little peace of legislation actually NULLIFIES the ENTIRE Constitution!!!

Yes and it all started with the killing of the Sixth and Tenth by the illegal Fourteenth. None of these illegal acts would/could have happened without Lincoln's war. That fact alone and us losing that war has caused us to be where we are today. The government hasn't changed its only gotten worse. Look at our History, FDR  and the Pearl Harbor fiasco, LBJ and the so called Gulf of Tonken fiasco, Waco and Ruby Ridge, 9-11 and the resulting mess in the MiddleEast. One could go on and on about the misuse of American Boys and the death of Liberty. That is the very reason I had to post the preamble, it says it all IMHO.

[williamlayton]

How can you proclaim illegal when it was passed in accordance too the constitution?
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

SBG I see you are onboard. Answer me this, if you will, do you feel as I do that the 14th is an illegal amendment? In your mind is it because of the fact that the Southern states were forced into approving it or that it kills the 9th and 10th by its passage?

Guess I missed you. For me the answer lies in the fact that the 14th was passed while the Southern states were under Military rule and had NO rights, could not vote in their own representives to vote for them. There by making it easy to kill the tenth Amendment thus states rights went by the wayside.

[williamlayton]

I think all can agree that the constitution was designed by the creators too be a fluid instrument. The amendment process is the great example.
Now I have been told that if I don't agree that I am to just go away.
That is just the opposite of what the amendment process proclaims.
There are times in history when change must happen. It is sad, but unavoidable, that some cannot accommodate change. They seem too get trampled because of this inability.
Where do those folks go for relief ? Are you suggesting that the majority go somewhere else? I find this too be an illogical thought.
Perhaps the Holocaust IS the answer. That is a tongue in cheek thought.
Root hog, or die is not a tongue in cheek thought.
Change happens---at light speed.
Blessings

[Gary G]

SBG I see you are onboard. Answer me this, if you will, do you feel as I do that the 14th is an illegal amendment? In your mind is it because of the fact that the Southern states were forced into approving it or that it kills the 9th and 10th by its passage?

Guess I missed you. For me the answer lies in the fact that the 14th was passed while the Southern states were under Military rule and had NO rights, could not vote in their own reprecentives to vote for them. There by making it easy to kill the tenth Amendment thus states rights went by the wayside.

You are right!
Congress required the Southern states to ratify the Amendment as a condition for readmission to the Union. But this was illegal: if the legislatures who "ratified" under duress were not already valid representatives of existing state governments, their votes had no legal effect.

If pro is the opposite of con,
what is the opposite of progress? lol

[Gary G]

I think all can agree that the constitution was designed by the creators too be a fluid instrument. The amendment process is the great example.
Now I have been told that if I don't agree that I am to just go away.
That is just the opposite of what the amendment process proclaims.
There are times in history when change must happen. It is sad, but unavoidable, that some cannot accommodate change. They seem too get trampled because of this inability.
Where do those folks go for relief ? Are you suggesting that the majority go somewhere else? I find this too be an illogical thought.
Perhaps the Holocaust IS the answer. That is a tongue in cheek thought.
Root hog, or die is not a tongue in cheek thought.
Change happens---at light speed.

Blessings

I think Jefferson would disagree with you. He foresaw what would happen. I think the immorality and much of the misery that we see today is a result of statism (or loss of the liberty that the original constitution conveyed ). The government can't see past the next election, and can in  no way see the unseen consequences of their actions. (Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy, http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp).

Why should I be responsible when the government will take care of me, feed me, educate me, send me a check, take care of my medical bills, and give me more money for having more illegitimate children? another form of slavery?

[SouthernByGrace]

Gw, dang-it Gary beat me to the answer, so I'll answer you anyway.

First, let me point out that it doesn't matter if we believe the 14th Amendment is illegal, because it IS. That's not my opinion, it's FACT.

Second, Gary is exactly right. I detailed this in an earlier thread, but in the interest of not wanting to confuse everybody, I'll just do it again.

Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3:

No bill of attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed.

A bill of attainder is a legislative act condemning a person to punishment WITHOUT a trial.

An ex post facto law imposes a penalty for some act that was declared unlawful AFTER the act was committed.


Amendment 14, Section 3:

No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold ANY office, civil or military, under the United States, or under ANY state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of ANY state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.

Under this section more than 200,000 people who served the Confederacy were barred from holding office. More than that, according to the wording of this section, NOBODY in the South could hold office, not even so much as to be dog catcher in their own state, because the general population "gave aid and comfort to the enemies thereof," thereby FORBIDDING there rights GUARANTEED to them in the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 2 GUARANTEES the right of representative government.
This fact alone is enough to have the whole Amendment thrown out because it's as worthless as the paper it was written on.

Not to mention the FACT that the North NEVER proved secession ILLEGAL, (why do you think they had to release Jefferson Davis, without EVER charging him with a crime?) thereby making this an EX POST FACTO law!
Secession was not an illegal act when it was committed (and STILL is NOT illegal - Nowhere in the Constitution) and has NEVER been made an illegal act, so it punished the Confederate States for breaking a NON law!!

Remember, this amendment actually came back to bite the North in the Butt. And it was a FEDERAL judge in New York that ruled that Jefferson Davis could not be punished for the "rebellion" because this amendment had ALREADY punished him, and he couldn't be punished twice for the same offense. The judge was extremely careful NOT to use the word "crime" because he didn't think a crime was ever committed by the South seceding !!!

ALL of this is even MORE proof of the illegality of this amendment. But wait, I'm not through, YET. It gets BETTER.
I hope y'all like brainteasers, 'cause this one's a doozy !!!

If we are to assume that, by the South losing the war, and once the war was over, the Southern States were "automatically" considered to be once again a part of the United States, anyway, let's assume they were, for argument's sake...
   A study of the death of the American Constitutional Republic would not be complete without a review of the arrogant methods used by the Northern Congress and its TOTAL disdain for constitutional law in its efforts to secure "enactment" of the 14th Amendment. I use the term "enactment" as apposed to the legal and constitutional term "ratified." This review will further serve to establish the ILLEGITIMACY of the present centralistic federal government.
   At the time of the introduction of the 14th Amendment, there were 37 states in the Union (assuming we were already back in, oh wait, they said we never left, remember?) By mid-1867, the federal Secretary of State had received official documents from the legislatures of 33 of the 37 states giving the states' answer to the proposed Amendment(s). The result was a rejection of the radical amendment. The results were as follows:

States in the Union.....................37
    Needed to RATIFY........................28
        States voting YES...........................22
            States voting NO...............................12
                States NOT Voting...............................3

   Mississippi's rejection resolution did not reach Washington, and therefor it was numbered with the non-voting states. Even if the 3 non-voting states were added to the states voting For ratification, the amendment would still fall short of the number needed to pass.
   The Northern Congress realized that its attempt to secure passage by legal and constitutional methods had failed. So the letter of the constitutional law survived its initial post-war assault. But the Northern Congress was determined to complete the radical change it had initiated. After all, frivolous technicalities such as constitutional limitations, ethics, and morality had proven no obstacle in the the North's war against the Southern people. Surely these barriers would prove no more difficult to overcome in the political sphere than it had been in the military sphere.

   To secure enactment of the amendment, the Northern Congress had to accomplish the following:
        1. Declare the Southern States OUTSIDE the so-called "indivisible Union."
        2. Deny majority rule in the Southern States by the disfranchisement of Large numbers of the white population.
        3. Require the Southern States to Ratify the amendment as the price to get back into the Union from which they   had been denied the right to secede.

Are you still with me? I hope so because here's where the brainteaser Really starts...

   The North, in 1866, "removed" the Southern states from the Union. This was the SAME North that in 1861 refused to allow the South to secede from the Union. This same North now declared the Southern States to be Non-States. To get back into the Union ( that originally they South didn't want to be a part of anyway, and from which it had previously been denied the right to secede), it was required to perform a function of a state in that Union, while STILL officially no longer  a part of the UNION, by Ratifying an amendment that previously as states in the Union it had LEGALLY rejected !!!!

Words alone fail to meet the challenge of such pure Yankee logic...

Remember, every bit of this was FORBIDDEN by the Constitution !!! So, opinions be damned, anybody who can't see this as ABSOLUTELY Illegal, just ain't lookin'.

Here I'm reminded of the phrase, Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. I hope I got it right... 

Gw, I hope I answered your question without boring you to death.
Like I always say, If you don't wanna know, don't ask...  LOL

[Ga.windbreak]

Lordy, lordy, SBG that was wonderful. You can bore me anytime you want when talking about the Constitution. I'd not researched this as well as you have and I thank you for your answer. Would you mind if I copy and use it as a basis for another thread in another forum, I'll give you credit, of course? I would post the forum link here but I feel that is an unexceptable thing to do. Can PM you when its posted so that you can see your work in another thread if you like?.  Thanks Ron

[Ga.windbreak]

I think Jefferson would disagree with you. He foresaw what would happen. I think the immorality and much of the misery that we see today is a result of statism (or loss of the liberty that the original constitution conveyed ). The government can't see past the next election, and can in  no way see the unseen consequences of their actions. (Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy, http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp).

Why should I be responsible when the government will take care of me, feed me, educate me, send me a check, take care of my medical bills, and give me more money for having more illegitimate children? another form of slavery?

You are so right Gary G. Our Constitution is not fluid and was never meant to be, there is only one proper way to change the Constitution and that is by amendment. There is no better way to illustrate this than the illegal 14th killing the 10th. The Northern congress wanted so badly to eliminate the States right problem they said to hell with the Constitution and just did it.

I also believe that this is what Jefferson Davis was referring to when he made the following statement:

''...the contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena.''President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A., address to the Mississippi legislature in 1881.

The very next question is just who will be courageous enough to get the 14th thrown out?

[Gary G]

That was a great post SBG. You have explained it as clear as I have seen anywhere.
By the way, that was a Lord Acton quote and you were spot on.


Do you know the major difference in third world countries and more prosperous countries?        The answer is "private property rights".

Think about that. True communist countries have no private property rights. They have been a failure. China has been successful only after it moved to private ownership. Russia, after it's collapse began allowing a private property concept.
The framers of the constitution believed that citizens should be able to keep the "fruits of their labor" and dispose of it however they wished (private property concept). The southern succession was an attempt to return to that very ideal. Lincoln represented a move in the wrong direction. Today, we are extracted 40-60% of the fruits of our labors in the form of taxes and it still is not enough to pay for what big government spends. Populations have rebelled against kings when such extraction exceeded 10%. Didn't the colonies rebel against King George?


---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln was the father of "big government". FDR was the father of socialism which is now called liberalism.

[SouthernByGrace]

Gw, you do have my permission to quote anything I post on GBO. Besides, you don't need my permission to quote History. The Yankees DID this, All I did was write it in such a way that people could understand it better...

[Ga.windbreak]

Thank you my friend, Ron

[williamlayton]

HUMMM.
When passed, the southern states were not back in the Union. They had appointed overseers.
When passed this amendment touches more than just those who may be qualified too hold office.
The reasons for disbarring some is very evident. Just as Nazis were kept from government after WWII. It makes a great deal of sense, too me, that there were those who disqualified theirownselves or at least, as intelligent or supposedly intelligent, by what most called an act of treason.
I think that is carrying that a little far, however; there had too be consequences for these acts. In most places in the world today they would have been hung.
I understand your fevor, just try and see it as it is not as you wish it too be.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

HUMMM.
When passed, the southern states were not back in the Union. They had appointed overseers.
When passed this amendment touches more than just those who may be qualified too hold office.

I think that is carrying that a little far, however; there had too be consequences for these acts. In most places in the world today they would have been hung.
I understand your fevor, just try and see it as it is not as you wish it too be.
Blessings

wl you aren't reading other people's post or you don't want to understand. After the war the Southern states were treated as if they never left, to a degree. The people voted for and installed their Representatives to Congress. Congress then passed the 13th Amendment, freeing the slaves. Then came a Congressman from Penn. by the name of Thaddeus Stevens and the rule of law flew out the door. Two things happened: 12/13/1865 the committee of 15, with Stevens as its leader took control of the Congress and thus the country and on 04/09/1866 The Act of April 09th was voted into law. The Southern representatives were kicked out and the legally voted state governments were replaced with a Military dictatorship. During the time those states were NOT represented the 14th was voted on in congress and DID NOT pass twice. Short by two votes. The Northern fanatics then took the law into their own hands and declared that it was only necessary to count those seated to actually get the required 3/4ths count. It was then sent to the states where the Southern states voted it down. They were then replaced and then told that unless they (the Military appointed rulers) approved the Amendment they could not return to the Congress. Yes, the 14th Amendment is illegal.
By the way John Remington Graham is a qualifed Constitutional lawyer! I trust his word WAY more than yours, with all due respect. You just might want to read this book.

Think of Thaddeus Stevens as the Joe McCarthy of the 1860's. It was Stevens and his crew that got Andrew Johnson thrown out of office.

[williamlayton]

Has the 14th ammendment been before the  Supreme Court?
Blessings

[williamlayton]

I am aware of Mr Graham and have respect for him.
My point was that this was the same argument used too defend secession and it was not upheld.
Some would say that it was not for other reasons.
The point is, if you wish--as they did--too secede, then secede. If the other side wishes too contest it--legally or illegally--then defend it. If you win, you win. If you loose you end up loosing and having cartoons drawn of you.
Now, what is the point?
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Has the 14th ammendment been before the  Supreme Court?
Blessings

No but I sure wish it had been. You know, of course, someone has to get it before them and then they have to agree to hear the case. Chase and his court were to scared to do anything in 67-68. Do you think today's court would be different?

P.S. Don't you think this is OT, why not start another thread.?

[Ga.windbreak]

I am aware of Mr Graham and have respect for him.
My point was that this was the same argument used too defend secession and it was not upheld.
Some would say that it was not for other reasons.
The point is, if you wish--as they did--too secede, then secede. If the other side wishes too contest it--legally or illegally--then defend it. If you win, you win. If you loose you end up loosing and having cartoons drawn of you.
Now, what is the point?
Blessings

There are 2 or 3 that I can name. The very first is that with all the yelling about hanging all the rebels the legality of Secession has never been tried in a court of law. Your side won the war, why not? Being beaten in war only proves that the winner is stronger/more brutal and bigger, it doesn't mean that the winner is right. And last but not least when have I ever said I want to secede. Just because one has this option it doesn't mean that it should be used save as a last resort.

[williamlayton]

Let's take the first one.
It is my opinion that when the articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution it was because of the unstable nature of a confederation.
Coup's, rebellion, civil disobedience are by nature, illegal. You are correct, right does not always win. The real question is the definition of right. Right in whose eyes and why does your definition of right mean that it is right. A more complex issue that the simple statement.
My side? I am from the deep side of the South. I just have a different opinion.
Stronger, more brutal, bigger?? What is your point?
By all logic, of the aftermath of a civilion attempt at overthow of the Constitution was less than brutal.
War is brutal, it is not chivalry, not clean. It is one side trying too impose their will on the other side because both sides think they are right.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Let's take the first one.
It is my opinion that when the articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution it was because of the unstable nature of a confederation.
Coup's, rebellion, civil disobedience are by nature, illegal. You are correct, right does not always win. The real question is the definition of right. Right in whose eyes and why does your definition of right mean that it is right. A more complex issue that the simple statement.
My side? I am from the deep side of the South. I just have a different opinion.
Stronger, more brutal, bigger?? What is your point?
By all logic, of the aftermath of a civilion attempt at overthow of the Constitution was less than brutal.
War is brutal, it is not chivalry, not clean. It is one side trying too impose their will on the other side because both sides think they are right.
Blessings

Ok, one point at a time:

1. "Unstable nature" is only true if you are looking for a strong central government and believe in a Manifest Destiny. The Republican form of government which was originally set up was meant to be a strong States Rights government; therefore making it even harder and slower for change to take place.

2. "Coup's, rebellion, civil disobedience are by nature, illegal." I would not include civil disobedience but that is just MHO. The Southern secession was never about the overthrow of the US government except in the minds of those who wanted to keep control of the taxes paid by the Southern states. And I will state again the legality of secession has not been proven, in a court of law, to be an illegal act; ever!

3. "My side?" You're on the Union side, are you not? I didn't say you were a Yankee, blue belly or call you any names did I?

4. See  point #2, you have yet to show me, or anyone else here, any proof (other than your opinion) that the Southern States were going to overthrow the Northern Government or the Constitution. In point of fact the very way that secession was followed was Constitutionally correct. Which is why I maintain it is legal to do so, IMHO.

5. War is HELL, well you and I do agree on this one thing.

[williamlayton]

My contention is that "I" have never imposed the thought that there was "any" attempt too overthrow.
It was their attempt to secede. It was the union, Mr Lincoln and others, attempt too keep  the United Satates "one" union.
That was the sole attempt, not a strong Central, "big" government but a fluid, strong Union. In Union is strength.
The Confederacy was a weak form of government, it could not be strong because within the treaty of Confederation there is no Union. The States are Sovereign and without allegiance, if they choose, too any at any time if it fits their agenda.
The BIG government then becomes the all powerful Sovereign State government and it will impose its will by taxes, relaxation of free trade or imposing embargo. In effect and by affect it becomes the controlling government---the same as you would see the Elected US gov.
It just boils down too who is in control. I believe that these sovereign nations would have been at the mercy of stronger nations across the pond---and south of them.
Blessings

[SouthernByGrace]

Has the 14th ammendment been before the  Supreme Court?
Blessings

   How could it be taken before the Supreme Court? Remember, back then Reconstruction lasted for more than 10 years. The people of the South didn't even have representative government. How could they take this grievance to the highest court in the land when that court upheld the very treatment being inflicted upon Southerners? Almost all of the Southern aristocracy was either in poor health or dead by the turn of the century. The damage had already been done and the U.S. gov't. made sure they held tight reigns on us until that damage was complete.
   The only thing Southerners could hope for today is for the federal government to go back and admit to the South, the whole country, and to the world, that this amendment was and is illegal. They cannot pardon the South for anything because the South broke no laws regarding secession. 
   You would think the Fed, believing secession to be wrong and illegal, would have included some sort of wording in the 14th amendment officially making secession illegal. Could it be because the knew it really Wasn't illegal, and actually a right granted to the states by the wording of the 10th Amendment?

DEO VINDICE

[Graybeard]

WL if you hate the south and all it has stood for and does stand for why don't you move north?

[SouthernByGrace]

Kudos Graybeard!  My sentiments exactly... I believe WL's reconstruction is complete and absolute.

[Ga.windbreak]

My contention is that "I" have never imposed the thought that there was "any" attempt too overthrow.It was their attempt to secede.
Blessings

wl they didn't "attempt" to; they did secede.

Coup's, rebellion, civil disobedience are by nature, illegal.

You may not call this statement "imposed" but your implication by the very words you use, esp. the first one, is misleading if its not what you "imposed".

[williamlayton]

Hate the South. Heavens no. It is the part of America I love the best.
It is also the most, if I use the statement hardheaded buch I have ever know, please do know that there is respect in that statement.
I know folks who, literally, saved their Confederate money.
I know folks, some are kin, who went too their grave still being Confederate and not Americans.
I am enthralled by it, entertained by it. I would hardly know what too do if it ceased too exist in spirit.
I don't agree with the whole of the concept ad think that, as Germany was led down the primrose path, so went the South.
This is a fun place too be.
It is top drawer entertainment. I enjoy it.
Now I don't understand why you boys don't get it just as you do of me.
Well, I do know why you don't get it.
I do know that the Union was the right answer.
Blessings
Blessings