Conservative Political Forum

General Category => War Forum => Topic started by: Shooterman on February 11, 2012, 10:58:55 AM

Title: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on February 11, 2012, 10:58:55 AM
Under the Articles of Confederation, the union was considered perpetual.

The Articles of Confederation

Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781.
Preamble

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.


We know that even though the Confederation, ( or union, if preferred ) was considered to be perpetual, a scant 10 years later, that idea of being perpetual was blown to hell, with the ratification of the Compact known as the Constitution of the United States, when nine states seceded from the Confederation and joined the present union. I would suggest, at that immediate point in time, there were two unions of States united in America; those still operating in the Confederation, and, of course, those having ratified the new Constitution. In effect, the states within the old union seceded from the Confederation ( perpetual? ) and formed the new union. It was non perpetual, in that no certification of such was ever incorporated into the new Compact ( Constitution )
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 11, 2012, 06:20:02 PM
Under the Articles of Confederation, the union was considered perpetual.

The Articles of Confederation

Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781.
Preamble

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.


We know that even though the Confederation, ( or union, if preferred ) was considered to be perpetual, a scant 10 years later, that idea of being perpetual was blown to hell, with the ratification of the Compact known as the Constitution of the United States, when nine states seceded from the Confederation and joined the present union. I would suggest, at that immediate point in time, there were two unions of States united in America; those still operating in the Confederation, and, of course, those having ratified the new Constitution. In effect, the states within the old union seceded from the Confederation ( perpetual? ) and formed the new union. It was non perpetual, in that no certification of such was ever incorporated into the new Compact ( Constitution )

Moot point, but I do not believe the framers ever considered that a state would want to secede.  Had they considered it, I think they would have most likely specified a provision for doing it rather than prohibiting it.  I believe secession probably was constitutional.  Most likely, Roger Taney, then chief justice, did, too.  But he remained silent on the issue.  Nobody brought a case before him about it because it was being settled via that bloody war.

I am a son of the south who celebrates the valor of both sides in that terrible war.  I wish it had never happened, but it did.  I am also glad, from the perspective of 150 years later, that the Union won.  I am glad the Union was preserved.  I am glad slavery was abolished. 
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on February 11, 2012, 07:57:19 PM
Moot point, but I do not believe the framers ever considered that a state would want to secede.  Had they considered it, I think they would have most likely specified a provision for doing it rather than prohibiting it.

They, themselves had seceded from the Crown at a terrible cost. They, themselves were in the process of seceding from the Confederation. The New England States thought of seceding from the States united in America, ( union ) during the War of 1812.   

Quote
I believe secession probably was constitutional.

Think on what you just said, Elmer. If it was Constitutional ( and I believe it was and is, then the Founders had considered it.

Quote
  Most likely, Roger Taney, then chief justice, did, too.  But he remained silent on the issue.  Nobody brought a case before him about it because it was being settled via that bloody war.

Taney had seen what Lincoln was capable of. He fought him on some issues and almost was arrested for it after Lincoln signed a warrant for his arrest but left it to a US Marshall as to whether he served it or not.

Quote
I am a son of the south who celebrates the valor of both sides in that terrible war.  I wish it had never happened, but it did.  I am also glad, from the perspective of 150 years later, that the Union won.  I am glad the Union was preserved.

Both sides were valiant except when Sherman turned his dogs loose on the South during his March Through Georgia. That was not valiant but criminal. As for the preservation of the union, look where it has led us.

Quote
I am glad slavery was abolished.


I am glad slavery was abolished, but the War of Northern Aggression did not abolish it. The Thirteenth Amendment did.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 12, 2012, 06:25:09 AM
They, themselves had seceded from the Crown at a terrible cost. They, themselves were in the process of seceding from the Confederation. The New England States thought of seceding from the States united in America, ( union ) during the War of 1812.   

Think on what you just said, Elmer. If it was Constitutional ( and I believe it was and is, then the Founders had considered it.

Taney had seen what Lincoln was capable of. He fought him on some issues and almost was arrested for it after Lincoln signed a warrant for his arrest but left it to a US Marshall as to whether he served it or not.

Both sides were valiant except when Sherman turned his dogs loose on the South during his March Through Georgia. That was not valiant but criminal. As for the preservation of the union, look where it has led us.
 

I am glad slavery was abolished, but the War of Northern Aggression did not abolish it. The Thirteenth Amendment did.

All I am saying is that preserving the union was the reason for the war, and the existence of slavery was the sine qua non for secession.  Not no stinking tariffs.

But the really interesting thing is people still argue about it 150 years later.  The folks in the 1850's and 1860's knew what caused secession.  The perceived threat to slavery.  And they knew what was behind the war.  The failure of both sides to address the issue any other way. 
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on February 12, 2012, 06:52:26 AM
All I am saying is that preserving the union was the reason for the war, and the existence of slavery was the sine qua non for secession.  Not no stinking tariffs.

But the really interesting thing is people still argue about it 150 years later.  The folks in the 1850's and 1860's knew what caused secession.  The perceived threat to slavery.  And they knew what was behind the war.  The failure of both sides to address the issue any other way. 

Sorry, Compadre, but that is simply not so. Tariffs were an important part of the corporatist welfare practiced by the North. Lincoln himself mused as to where he would get his tariffs if the Southerners seceded. The southerners had proposed tariff free ports, ( similar to tax free zones we have today ) Sumter included, which would have wreaked havoc on the money the union had coming in.

This has drifted afar from whether the union was perpetual.   



He was even willing to propose and pass and irrevocable amendment granting the states that that had slavery, perpetuity in keeping them ( that was not feasible, of course, as the issue would have been open to an amendment later )
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Solar on February 12, 2012, 06:57:58 AM
Slavery was used as an excuse by PC historians, the real reason was ,money and power, always follow the money.
Who was to benefit if the South won as opposed to the North?
Think about that for a moment, its always about the money and power...
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 12, 2012, 10:27:12 AM
Slavery was used as an excuse by PC historians, the real reason was ,money and power, always follow the money.
Who was to benefit if the South won as opposed to the North?
Think about that for a moment, its always about the money and power...

Slaves = money. 
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 12, 2012, 10:34:41 AM
Sorry, Compadre, but that is simply not so. Tariffs were an important part of the corporatist welfare practiced by the North. Lincoln himself mused as to where he would get his tariffs if the Southerners seceded. The southerners had proposed tariff free ports, ( similar to tax free zones we have today ) Sumter included, which would have wreaked havoc on the money the union had coming in.

This has drifted afar from whether the union was perpetual.   



He was even willing to propose and pass and irrevocable amendment granting the states that that had slavery, perpetuity in keeping them ( that was not feasible, of course, as the issue would have been open to an amendment later )

Well, podner, you and I disagree.  But it's been fun. 
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 12, 2012, 10:56:29 AM
The term "perpetual" does not necessarily mean "eternal and unbreakable."  The state has the power to create corporations.  Most states place time limits on the existence of a corporation, say 99 years.  But some may not. Also, those that do often allow non-profits to be "perpetual."  Doesn't mean they can't be abolished.  There are procedures in place for terminating even a "perpetual" corporation.  Just means there is no time limit established at the point of creation.  A "perpetual" union could have meant just that. 
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 13, 2012, 07:00:18 AM
The term "perpetual" does not necessarily mean "eternal and unbreakable."  The state has the power to create corporations.  Most states place time limits on the existence of a corporation, say 99 years.  But some may not. Also, those that do often allow non-profits to be "perpetual."  Doesn't mean they can't be abolished.  There are procedures in place for terminating even a "perpetual" corporation.  Just means there is no time limit established at the point of creation.  A "perpetual" union could have meant just that.

And here's another take on the word "perpetual" with respect to corporations. All corporations are deemed "perpetual" in the sense that they do not cease to exist when shareholders are added or withdraw.  The corporation just continues, either with fewer shareholders or more shareholders.  In fact, a corporation's shareholders can turn over 100% and the corporation still exists.  In that sense, it is deemed "perpetual" even if it has a time limit on its corporate charter.

Sounds kind of analagous to a "perpetual"  union that might have states come in and withdraw.  The union is perpetual, but that does not mean it cannot be dissolved, just as a corporation can be dissovlved. Also doesn't necessarily mean that a decision to sign on is irrevocable. 
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on June 24, 2012, 08:32:43 PM
Unless it was changed via the Amendment process.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on June 27, 2012, 10:36:05 AM
Quote
Actually, in the SCOTUS decision in White vs Texas (1869), the decision made an interesting reference that touches on states leaving the union. “The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”
HT to the comments section of PJ Media. I knew I had read that somewhere before. If the South had used the Amendment Process, and negotiations over Federal property, navigation rights on the Mississippi, and the unincorporated territories; there may have never been a Civil War. And the South would have lasted right up to the point where they joined the Nazi side in WW2.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on June 27, 2012, 12:08:57 PM
And the South would have lasted right up to the point where they joined the Nazi side in WW2.

Fok you, MD. That was totally uncalled for.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on June 27, 2012, 12:19:02 PM
Fok you, MD. That was totally uncalled for.
You do know that the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany were based on the Segregation Laws of the old South, right?
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on June 27, 2012, 03:31:14 PM
You do know that the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany were based on the Segregation Laws of the old South, right?
"Based on" is incorrect, it would be more correct to say the were inspired by the Jim Crow laws of the old South.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on June 27, 2012, 03:55:56 PM
"Based on" is incorrect, it would be more correct to say the were inspired by the Jim Crow laws of the old South.

Which were upheld by every SCOTUS until an all liberal court in 1954 gave us Brown based on 'modern authority'. Then you have the gall to compare those in the South as joining with the Nazi's. I reiterate my statement.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on June 27, 2012, 05:21:54 PM
Which were upheld by every SCOTUS until an all liberal court in 1954 gave us Brown based on 'modern authority'. Then you have the gall to compare those in the South as joining with the Nazi's. I reiterate my statement.
It was upheld until it dawned on them the Justice Harlan's dissent in the original case of Plessy vs Fergueson was correct.
Quote
"There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal ...."
But as many have pointed out, open racism was simply a fact of life in the 19th century. The Death Camps of Europe tended to give those attitudes a bad name.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 07:55:40 AM
The notion that a state could secede from the Union as a result of losing honestly in a national election is not only unconstitutional, but dangerous.  Had Lincoln allowed the south to secede, it would not only prolong slavery for god-knows-how-long, it would establish a precedent for any remaining state to secede from the Union whenever it doesn't get its way.  Soon, the United States would devolve into what we see in central and southern america.

Lincoln put it perfectly; a contract cannot be broken without mutual consent.  If we adhere to the strict constitutionalists' notion that the Constitution is a contract between the union and the states (I disagree), then this simply establishes that the states cannot leave the Union without the latter's consent, by the entire definition of a contract.


-----------------------------------------------

Which were upheld by every SCOTUS until an all liberal court in 1954 gave us Brown based on 'modern authority'. Then you have the gall to compare those in the South as joining with the Nazi's. I reiterate my statement.

Which is perhaps the most important ruling in our nation's history; why didn't any of your conservative judges ever champion civil rights?

Fok you, MD. That was totally uncalled for.

No, MD is right.  Read the confederate states' declarations of secession and the confederate constitution.  They are among the most disgusting documents ever written, and I find it difficult to believe that the confederacy would do anything other than eagerly ally with Hitler.

After all, what difference exists between the two?
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Solar on July 02, 2012, 08:18:56 AM
The notion that a state could secede from the Union as a result of losing honestly in a national election is not only unconstitutional,
Let me stop you there, show me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that secession is illegal.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 08:26:49 AM
Let me stop you there, show me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that secession is illegal.

1. The AoC decrees that the United States shall be perpetual.  The Constitution seeks to create "a more perfect union", which certainly does not connote weakening it, especially given the vast increases in federal power and decreases in relative state power that the document entails.

2. The Constitution decrees that federal law is supreme over state law; ergo, if a state votes to secede and Congress says no, the latter's word is law.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: tbone0106 on July 02, 2012, 09:04:46 AM
There is a school of thought on this subject that holds that North and South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia had the right to secede because it was more or less a given at the time of federation that if things didn't work out, it was goodbye. The same wouldn't necessarily apply to the remainder of the Confederate states, since they came along after the nation had been formed.

In any case, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not, and were never meant to be, a complete digest of the rights of the several states. You have to remember that when they were written, and until they were ratified, the several states had ALL the rights and the federal government was just an idea. In any case, any rights to secession -- and I'm not arguing that they exist, or that they don't -- would be nicely covered by the Ninth and/or Tenth Amendments. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were specifically and expressly written to put some pretty tight shackles on the new federal government, while reserving to the states the maximum freedom to govern themselves.

Also the Supremacy Clause is, I think, pretty limited to matters elsewhere specifically covered in the Constitution, such as laws governing interstate commerce, for example. To say that Congress can prohibit a state from seceding, and that's that, is a bit of a stretch. If Congress can do that, then it can also just pass a law disbanding the State of Arizona, something I think Dear Leader wouldn't mind doing right about now.  :tounge:

Oh, and the Articles of Confederation were officially supplanted by the Constitution on March 4, 1789, and didn't much matter in 1861.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Solar on July 02, 2012, 09:15:11 AM
1. The AoC decrees that the United States shall be perpetual.  The Constitution seeks to create "a more perfect union", which certainly does not connote weakening it, especially given the vast increases in federal power and decreases in relative state power that the document entails.

2. The Constitution decrees that federal law is supreme over state law; ergo, if a state votes to secede and Congress says no, the latter's word is law.
You just proved my point that secession is not unconstitutional.
Quote
The notion that a state could secede from the Union as a result of losing honestly in a national election is not only unconstitutional,
See what a little research does, it destroys preconceived ideas that were planted in your head.
This is your first venture into critical thinking.
Keep up the good work.
 Try this little experiment, play Devils advocate before you hit post, I do and it really makes you think outside the box.. :wink:
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 09:19:48 AM
You just proved my point that secession is not unconstitutional.

Nope.  The supremacy clause does not allow a state to actively renounce and nullify federal authority, which is precisely what secession entails.  Try again.

Ruling secession to be constitutional would be a death sentence for the nation, anyhow.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Solar on July 02, 2012, 10:23:30 AM
Nope.  The supremacy clause does not allow a state to actively renounce and nullify federal authority, which is precisely what secession entails.  Try again.

Ruling secession to be constitutional would be a death sentence for the nation, anyhow.
You can't have it both ways, you claimed it was unconstitutional, then proved yourself wrong in that it was Constitutional. :laugh:
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on July 02, 2012, 10:32:51 AM
You can't have it both ways, you claimed it was unconstitutional, then proved yourself wrong in that it was Constitutional. :laugh:

He IS an admitted liberal. Were you expecting caviar?
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 10:34:05 AM
You can't have it both ways, you claimed it was unconstitutional, then proved yourself wrong in that it was Constitutional. :laugh:

Does the preceding "does not allow a state" clause escape your notice, or did you willfully ignore sections of my post to avoid actually arguing the point?



Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Solar on July 02, 2012, 11:38:30 AM
Does the preceding "does not allow a state" clause escape your notice, or did you willfully ignore sections of my post to avoid actually arguing the point?
So which time were you flat ass wrong, when you claimed it wasn't Constitutional, or when you proved yourself wrong?

You see, this is why liberalism/socialism is sooo despised and can't be trusted, you claim a certain set of rules to play by, then change said rules midstream to meet your goals.
Conservatives play by the law, we all agree to follow the rules, but libs keep moving the goal posts until they claim a score, then reset the goal posts to favor them in the next play.

Just think if our social contract was set by the rules libs play by, like a red light really doesn't mean stop if you don't want it to, or drive on the left if it saves you a few cents in gas.

Face reality son, this is why the Dim party is going to become completely irrelevant in 2013, people want to go back to reality, where electricity isn't generated by Unicorn farts (HT to Giles) or the sun, but things that are proven to work.

In a nutshell, were done with your version of reality in pursuit of a fantasy Utopian dream.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Solar on July 02, 2012, 11:40:15 AM
He IS an admitted liberal. Were you expecting caviar?
Do you believe this happy horse shit? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 11:45:52 AM
The Constitution of the United States lays out the manner in which changes can be made to that document and thus the Union. I must have missed it. Can somebody point me to the debates over the South's Secession Amendment. You know neo Confederate often point to the New England States wanting to secede during the War of 1812, as a precursor to the Souths attempt. What they don't bring up, is that the War of 1812 ended just as the delegation had arrived in Washington from the New England states to offer a secession AMENDMENT. When they found the war was over they quietly went home.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
So which time were you flat ass wrong, when you claimed it wasn't Constitutional, or when you proved yourself wrong?

Does regurgitating the same absent-of-evidence claim again and again, like a trained monkey, make you feel intelligent?

Because you still haven't explained where I "proved myself wrong".

Quote
You see, this is why liberalism/socialism is sooo despised and can't be trusted, you claim a certain set of rules to play by, then change said rules midstream to meet your goals.

Yeah, the classic argument of strict constitutionalism.  We should base our policy not on what is beneficial to society, but on a set of guidelines posted by 300 year old slaveowners that are clearly to be treated as gospel.   :rolleyes:

Quote
Conservatives play by the law, we all agree to follow the rules, but libs keep moving the goal posts until they claim a score, then reset the goal posts to favor them in the next play.

You are actually close to hitting the mark, if we were to modify your rather derogatory rhetoric.  The interesting thing is that precisely this method of policy-making is what has been responsible for every advancement in human society.  What; you don't think the founders significantly changed the rules of British law when they declared independence?  You don't think Brown v Board was a dramatic reinterpretation of the Constitution?  Nah.

Explain to me why we must treat the Constitution like a fundamentalist treats the gospel.

Quote
Just think if our social contract was set by the rules libs play by, like a red light really doesn't mean stop if you don't want it to, or drive on the left if it saves you a few cents in gas.

How does any of this analogy have the slightest relation to secession?

Do you realize that your own analogy is an incitement against your very position?  Secession means that a state can secede from the Union whenever a lawful election doesn't go its way, or whenever those pesky feds try taking away their human slaves.  Ergo, it's the equivalent of violating the law whenever it's convenient to you; precisely your analogy.

Also, you don't seem to understand that a contract works both ways.

Quote

Face reality son, this is why the Dim party is going to become completely irrelevant in 2013, people want to go back to reality, where electricity isn't generated by Unicorn farts (HT to Giles) or the sun, but things that are proven to work.


Proven to work?

Quote
In a nutshell, were done with your version of reality in pursuit of a fantasy Utopian dream.

Same thing said about child labor laws and women's suffrage.  "Proven to work"?  There's one side that's proven itself throughout history, and it ain't yours.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 12:03:29 PM
Quote
Same thing said about child labor laws and women's suffrage.  "Proven to work"?  There's one side that's proven itself throughout history, and it ain't yours.
Child labor ended due to the immigration into the United States, not to mention much of the sheer muscle power required in modern Industrial labor. Children simply weren't strong enough to move things around on an assembly line. As for women's suffrage, I've always been of two minds about that. Women who are property owners or who pay taxes or who are veterans should vote. Otherwise, no. IMHO, women tend to pick security all other things being equal - which makes them much of the driving force behind Socialism/Progressivism. I think the Nanny state appeals to women.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: tbone0106 on July 02, 2012, 12:03:58 PM
Here's where you both fall on your face.

This is what the Supremacy Clause -- actually Article VI, Clause 2 -- of the Constitution says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

I highlighted the key words: "...under the authority of the United States..." because these words can only refer back to the remainder of the Constitution (there exists NO other authority), which, of course, never addresses secession, but DOES grant individual states the maximum possible latitude under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as I posted earlier. Under the Constitution, it is no more lawful, again as I argued earlier, to bar a state from seceding than it is to simply dissolve a state by act of Congress.

Any constructionist view of the Constitution has to be based on the obvious fact that it was written BY THE STATES to grant VERY LIMITED power to the federal entity, which they were creating out of whole cloth. The powers granted, limited as they were, CAME FROM THE STATES in the first place. And any powers not SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government by the Constitution -- including secession rights -- are automatically and expressly reserved to the states and to the people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

/lesson  :tounge:
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:27:03 PM
Child labor ended due to the immigration into the United States, not to mention much of the sheer muscle power required in modern Industrial labor. Children simply weren't strong enough to move things around on an assembly line.

Whatever the reason behind the law becoming economically feasible, the fact remains that the evil progressives passed it.  It's yet another list of accomplishments under the banner of liberalism.  Who says it never works?

Quote
As for women's suffrage, I've always been of two minds about that. Women who are property owners or who pay taxes or who are veterans should vote. Otherwise, no.

 :huh:

Quote
IMHO, women tend to pick security all other things being equal - which makes them much of the driving force behind Socialism/Progressivism. I think the Nanny state appeals to women.

So you oppose universal women suffrage?

What about men who neither own property, nor pay taxes, nor are veterans?  Should they vote?

------------------------------

I would point out that the entire question of the legality of secession is rather silly in context, anyhow.  If you're going to secede from a government you don't like, why would you really give a damn if it's legal under said government's laws?
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Solar on July 02, 2012, 12:29:46 PM
Here's where you both fall on your face.

This is what the Supremacy Clause -- actually Article VI, Clause 2 -- of the Constitution says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

I highlighted the key words: "...under the authority of the United States..." because these words can only refer back to the remainder of the Constitution (there exists NO other authority), which, of course, never addresses secession, but DOES grant individual states the maximum possible latitude under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as I posted earlier. Under the Constitution, it is no more lawful, again as I argued earlier, to bar a state from seceding than it is to simply dissolve a state by act of Congress.

Any constructionist view of the Constitution has to be based on the obvious fact that it was written BY THE STATES to grant VERY LIMITED power to the federal entity, which they were creating out of whole cloth. The powers granted, limited as they were, CAME FROM THE STATES in the first place. And any powers not SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government by the Constitution -- including secession rights -- are automatically and expressly reserved to the states and to the people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

/lesson  :tounge:
Once again, the point was his contradicting himself,
He claimed it was unconstitutional, then claimed it was Constitutional.
Please T, don't be as thick as he is.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: tbone0106 on July 02, 2012, 12:47:03 PM
Once again, the point was his contradicting himself,
He claimed it was unconstitutional, then claimed it was Constitutional.
Please T, don't be as thick as he is.
Well, sir, if you'll carefully read my previous post (scroll up three or four or five), I'm not claiming one way or the other for the right to secede. I'm just sorta sittin' on the sidelines watching you guys do the Rock'em-Sock'emTM thing and wondering when somebody will just read the Constitution. I agree that claiming it one way, then the other way scores you no points at all around here. But my only point is, all this Constitution arguing is moot, 'cause it ain't in there anywhere. And as for the Articles of Confederation, come on. They expired in 1789.

The real kernel of the argument is: what exactly is "federal authority?" What are the limits? Clearly, there are limits. The Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, were written for the express purpose of creating a very finely limited federal entity. To argue that the federal government can forbid a state from seceding is to leap across a VERY wide chasm without a bridge, a lifeline, or a parachute. There's nothing there at all. The fundamental principle of the document, and the thought behind it, is limitation. The entire thing, front to back, every single word, including the amendments, is designed to LIMIT the federal government, and at the same time retain the maximum latitude and freedom for the states and the people. This is the very genius of the document. This is the magnificent legacy of the founding fathers. This is the one and only seed of American greatness and uniqueness and -- yes -- exceptionalism.

I'm not trying to be thick. (I don't normally have to TRY.  :tounge:) Just pointing out some things that might clarify the argument.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Solar on July 02, 2012, 01:07:20 PM
Well, sir, if you'll carefully read my previous post (scroll up three or four or five), I'm not claiming one way or the other for the right to secede.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
So now your claim that it was unconstitutional, really wasn't what you claimed after all?
You really are a piece of work, you know that?
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: tbone0106 on July 02, 2012, 01:14:57 PM
There is a school of thought on this subject that holds that North and South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia had the right to secede because it was more or less a given at the time of federation that if things didn't work out, it was goodbye. The same wouldn't necessarily apply to the remainder of the Confederate states, since they came along after the nation had been formed.

In any case, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not, and were never meant to be, a complete digest of the rights of the several states. You have to remember that when they were written, and until they were ratified, the several states had ALL the rights and the federal government was just an idea. In any case, any rights to secession -- and I'm not arguing that they exist, or that they don't -- would be nicely covered by the Ninth and/or Tenth Amendments. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were specifically and expressly written to put some pretty tight shackles on the new federal government, while reserving to the states the maximum freedom to govern themselves.

Also the Supremacy Clause is, I think, pretty limited to matters elsewhere specifically covered in the Constitution, such as laws governing interstate commerce, for example. To say that Congress can prohibit a state from seceding, and that's that, is a bit of a stretch. If Congress can do that, then it can also just pass a law disbanding the State of Arizona, something I think Dear Leader wouldn't mind doing right about now.  :tounge:

Oh, and the Articles of Confederation were officially supplanted by the Constitution on March 4, 1789, and didn't much matter in 1861.

Sorry, I meant the post before. The above was my first sidelines post.  :tounge: :tounge:
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Solar on July 02, 2012, 01:54:37 PM
Sorry, I meant the post before. The above was my first sidelines post.  :tounge: :tounge:
OOPS! I thought I was responding to Scifi post.
I only read the first line, since most of his stuff is self congratulatory.

But the point that seems to evade you is, he claimed it was Unconstitutional, then claimed it was, when called on this little point, he goes in circles trying to prove both were correct.

But the truth is, if one State reserves the Right of secession, or two, as in the case of Virginia and New York, where they claimed the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution.
Where such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.
So yes, secession is legal.
Consider that the Federal Govt is a servant to the Sovereign States, not the other way around.

So it appears were on the same page after all. :biggrin:
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 02:13:10 PM
At no point did I ever claim secession was constitutional.  Your willful evasion of requests for evidence of me ever doing this leaves me to seriously question your own honesty, and exactly who you are trying to fool here.

So exactly how could a national government possibly survive, with the precedent that any state can secede or threaten secession whenever it doesn't get its way...like, for example, when a candidate it doesn't like wins a lawful election, or when it fears that the evil union will take away its slaves?
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on July 02, 2012, 02:43:38 PM
1. The AoC decrees that the United States shall be perpetual. 

I had no idea we still was subject to the AoC. Live and learn.

BTW, that perpetual union, wasn't. The states seceded from it to form the current union.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on July 02, 2012, 02:46:59 PM
Do you believe this happy horse shit? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Well, Solar, once this goes to the SCOTUS, and Mr Roberts decides whether it is horse shit, and/or whether it is happy or not, then I will be obligated to give my answer. :lol:
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Solar on July 02, 2012, 02:48:38 PM
At no point did I ever claim secession was constitutional.  Your willful evasion of requests for evidence of me ever doing this leaves me to seriously question your own honesty, and exactly who you are trying to fool here.

So exactly how could a national government possibly survive, with the precedent that any state can secede or threaten secession whenever it doesn't get its way...like, for example, when a candidate it doesn't like wins a lawful election, or when it fears that the evil union will take away its slaves?
Read my above post.
Your need to make the Federal Govt the King with the final say, slaps in the face of what the Founders had in mind, they saw the Govt as the servant of the people, not the other way around.
Remember, we retain the right to dismantle as a people, a corrupt Govt.

That hardly sounds like a Govt with the right to dictate to Sovereign States whether they can stay or not.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 03:03:58 PM
Quote
So you oppose universal women suffrage?

What about men who neither own property, nor pay taxes, nor are veterans?  Should they vote?
NO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF UNIVERSAL  SUFFRAGE FOR MEN. That clear enough?
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: tbone0106 on July 03, 2012, 12:16:21 AM
At no point did I ever claim secession was constitutional.  Your willful evasion of requests for evidence of me ever doing this leaves me to seriously question your own honesty, and exactly who you are trying to fool here.

So exactly how could a national government possibly survive, with the precedent that any state can secede or threaten secession whenever it doesn't get its way...like, for example, when a candidate it doesn't like wins a lawful election, or when it fears that the evil union will take away its slaves?
You're presupposing that the object of the game is to insure the survival of a national government. It is not, and never has been, except in the lib/prog mindset, where such notions fester. As Thomas Paine famously said, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." THAT is the mindset of the founders.

Your examples intrigue me though. I would ask how could any legislature function when those members who disagree with the majority pack their toothbrushes and briefcases and leave Wisconsin to shack up in motel rooms in Illinois in order to deny the opposition a quorum? How is that different from secession, in your mind?
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on July 03, 2012, 08:13:34 AM
Quote
Whatever the reason behind the law becoming economically feasible, the fact remains that the evil progressives passed it.  It's yet another list of accomplishments under the banner of liberalism.  Who says it never works?
Really? Where, when and why? Or is this just another example of you claiming any good law as the results of "progressives". BTW, explain what's wrong with child labor?
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 12:12:42 PM
Read my above post.
Your need to make the Federal Govt the King with the final say, slaps in the face of what the Founders had in mind,

I don't think you understand what we're discussing here.  The federal government is king over the states.  Not only is your whiny appeal to the founders irrelevant, it's clearly wrong, given that this principle is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Quote
they saw the Govt as the servant of the people, not the other way around.

Why do you equate people with the states?

Quote
Remember, we retain the right to dismantle as a people, a corrupt Govt.

The right?  Perhaps, but not legal rights.  No sane government would ever write into law the right to rebel against the state...in fact, it is quite explicitly outlawed in the Constitution.  Huh.

Quote
That hardly sounds like a Govt with the right to dictate to Sovereign States whether they can stay or not.

Sovereign people, or sovereign states?  There's a difference here.


You still haven't answered my question regarding the practical implications of any state having the right to secede from the union on a whim.

---------------------------------------------

And to get it out of the way, do you hold any sympathy over the confederacy's specific secession?
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Solar on July 03, 2012, 12:32:26 PM
I don't think you understand what we're discussing here.  The federal government is king over the states.  Not only is your whiny appeal to the founders irrelevant, it's clearly wrong, given that this principle is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

No it's NOT, read the Bill of Rights!
And what part of Sovereign State, do you not understand?

Quote
Why do you equate people with the states?
HUH?
Quote
The right?  Perhaps, but not legal rights.  No sane government would ever write into law the right to rebel against the state...in fact, it is quite explicitly outlawed in the Constitution.  Huh.

Sovereign people, or sovereign states?  There's a difference here.

Jefferson termed the "unalienable Rights" of Americans, chief among which, he wrote, are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Declaration described in simple terms what governments are meant to do, and what citizens are obliged to do if governments fail to perform to specification. "That to secure these [unalienable] rights," Jefferson explained,

    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 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.
Quote
You still haven't answered my question regarding the practical implications of any state having the right to secede from the union on a whim.
Whim, do you think any State would take secession lightly?

Quote
And to get it out of the way, do you hold any sympathy over the confederacy's specific secession?
That question makes no sense.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 12:44:51 PM
No it's NOT, read the Bill of Rights!

Federal law is supreme over state law.  This is rather explicit and final; no need to twist the 9th amendment and rewrite it to suit your own agenda.

Quote
And what part of Sovereign State, do you not understand?

Show me where in the Constitution states are declared sovereign.

Quote
HUH?
Jefferson termed the "unalienable Rights" of Americans, chief among which, he wrote, are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Declaration described in simple terms what governments are meant to do, and what citizens are obliged to do if governments fail to perform to specification. "That to secure these [unalienable] rights," Jefferson explained,

I don't think you understand Jefferson's words.

Jefferson never argued that the law should allow for rebellion (that would be stupid); he himself had his vice president tried for treason.  He merely argued that the people are in the ethical right to abolish an unjust government.

Is what is stated in the Declaration in any manner related to what is constitutional and what isn't?  No, not at all.  Stop using ethics to argue legality. 

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now; if you wish to shift the subject and discuss the ethics of secession, I'd be happy to oblige.

Quote
    Governments are instituted among Men states, deriving their just powers to tax and enslave from the consent of the governed white male state legislatures, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends slavery, it is the Right legal right of the people white male state legislatures to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government laying its foundation on such principles the white christian male power structure and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and Happiness yet, upon finding their pro states' rights government entirely unequipped to battle their motherland, institute a strong central authority.

Fixed.

Quote
Whim, do you think any State would take secession lightly?

Whim was an exaggeration.  You still haven't answered the question: if we established the precedent that any state can secede whenever it wants to, how could either the United States or the Confederacy have survived longer than two decades?

Quote
That question makes no sense.

Are you a Confederate sympathizer? 
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on July 03, 2012, 02:55:17 PM
Show me where in the Constitution states are declared sovereign.

Show where the states are not declared sovereign.

What is the Constitution but a Compact among the States that created the union? Each state was sovereign and gave some of that sovereignty- limited- to the union they had created. The created can never be greater than the creator.

I don't think you understand Jefferson's words.

Quote
Jefferson never argued that the law should allow for rebellion (that would be stupid); he himself had his vice president tried for treason.  He merely argued that the people are in the ethical right to abolish an unjust government.


Then are they not morally right and duty bound to overthrow a tyrannical government?

I would suggest a perusal by you of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 and 1799, and the principle of state nullification, which is worthless without the ultimate step of secession.

................................

Quote
Are you a Confederate sympathizer?

Can not speak for Solar or anyone else, but I damned sure am.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: walkstall on July 03, 2012, 03:58:34 PM



Are you a Confederate sympathizer?







................................

Can not speak for Solar or anyone else, but I damned sure am.


 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Shooterman has been as long as I have know him.    :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  Sick em Shooter!!!!!
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on July 03, 2012, 04:30:32 PM
Quote
What is the Constitution but a Compact among the States that created the union? Each state was sovereign and gave some of that sovereignty- limited- to the union they had created. The created can never be greater than the creator.
Just a point, but the union was greater than any individual state. They recognized that principle, which is why they formed a union in the first place. And give up part of their sovereignty? They gave up the three greatest powers of a sovereign state. Their militias became subject to federal control. They could no longer deal with foreign states. And the only money that was accepted everywhere was US currency.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on July 03, 2012, 04:58:40 PM
Just a point, but the union was greater than any individual state. They recognized that principle, which is why they formed a union in the first place.

Nope, everything but the amount of sovereignty they gave to the union, was reserved unto themselves- not collectively, but completely. They only formed the union to make some things a tad easier- defense mainly. Even then they preferred limitations- no standing armies, no entangling alliances with other nations. Anything and everything not specifically allocated to the union was reserved to themselves and/or the people. ( of the states, BTW ) Almost of a certainty, everyone knew that the right to give sovereignty could be rescinded.

The union did not just appear in a vacuum, MD, but was created by the states ( people of the states meeting in convention ) by the ratification process. I'll go one step farther. At one time, certainly not very long, but still for a period, there were two unions in force Those beyond the original nine ratifying the new Constitution, and the four left before the ratification. If the four had never ratified, would they have been forced, by arms, to do so? I have asked that of others and never received an honest answer.

I ask again. Who formed the union? When was it formed? What were the rules of the new union? Who, in effect, wrote them?
 
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on July 03, 2012, 05:05:13 PM
BTW, the currency of the new union was not the only currency accepted. The currency could not be counterfeited, but an equivalent of a unit of gold or silver, could be minted by individual banks. It happened. An ounce of gold or a silver piece of eight was recognized currency until our beloved criminals in DC decided to make paper the currency of the realm by Fiat.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on July 03, 2012, 05:08:09 PM





 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Shooterman has been as long as I have know him.    :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  Sick em Shooter!!!!!

I will make no apology for my state or for my kin that fought to preserve their homes.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: walkstall on July 03, 2012, 07:21:03 PM
I will make no apology for my state or for my kin that fought to preserve their homes.

I would hope not your man.  I have learned a lot from you Southerners for the South, that was not even in the old text book.   :thumbup:
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Solar on July 04, 2012, 07:26:15 AM
Show where the states are not declared sovereign.

What is the Constitution but a Compact among the States that created the union? Each state was sovereign and gave some of that sovereignty- limited- to the union they had created. The created can never be greater than the creator.

I don't think you understand Jefferson's words.
 

Then are they not morally right and duty bound to overthrow a tyrannical government?

I would suggest a perusal by you of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 and 1799, and the principle of state nullification, which is worthless without the ultimate step of secession.

................................

Can not speak for Solar or anyone else, but I damned sure am.
You pretty much did. :thumbsup:

I highly doubt any of us can get through this kids head, that Govt. is not our friend, but instead has become an opponent, one that needs to be caged and put back in restraints.
Although this time, in shackles and throw away the freakin key!!!.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on July 04, 2012, 08:17:11 AM
Quote
I would suggest a perusal by you of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 and 1799, and the principle of state nullification, which is worthless without the ultimate step of secession.
And I suggest you read up on the Nullification Crisis of 1832. What is it about neo confederates constantly trying to convince us they fought for some cause nobler than human chattel slavery. States Rights? The minute the South supported the Fugitive Slave Act, they forfeited any claim to being the "champions" of states rights. Or state sovereignty.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on July 04, 2012, 08:53:21 AM
And I suggest you read up on the Nullification Crisis of 1832. What is it about neo confederates constantly trying to convince us they fought for some cause nobler than human chattel slavery. States Rights? The minute the South supported the Fugitive Slave Act, they forfeited any claim to being the "champions" of states rights. Or state sovereignty.

How so? Rightly or wrongly, and it was wrong morally to own another person, but until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which freed the slaves, and rightly so, they were still considered property, not only by the slave owners themselves, but by many Yankees, as well. Supporting a return of an investment was, under the law, not unreasonable. As you would expect property stolen from you to be returned.

I certainly do not know what ever the hell a neo- Confederate is, MD. I am sure it is intended as a pejorative, which is not really surprising.   :thumbdown:

As you well know, many Yankees held slaves as their property as did freed Blacks.

Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on July 04, 2012, 10:11:44 AM
How so? Rightly or wrongly, and it was wrong morally to own another person, but until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which freed the slaves, and rightly so, they were still considered property, not only by the slave owners themselves, but by many Yankees, as well. Supporting a return of an investment was, under the law, not unreasonable. As you would expect property stolen from you to be returned.

I certainly do not know what ever the hell a neo- Confederate is, MD. I am sure it is intended as a pejorative, which is not really surprising.   :thumbdown:

As you well know, many Yankees held slaves as their property as did freed Blacks.
The Fugitive Slave Act used the power of the federal government to enforce slave law of slave states in free states. Neo Confederate is simply a term for those who attempt to justify the Civil War on the basis either of outmoded ideas about the Constitution, or on the basis of our current problems with an overweening federal government. In a way it also refers to historical revisionists, like those who despite the slavery clause in succession documents and in the Confederate Constitution claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery. As for free blacks who owned slaves, yes there was the occasion free black plantation owner , especially in Louisiana - which due to it's French background - was  case all to itself. However, often due to the difficulty in freeing slaves in the South, slaves were often family members. It was simpler to buy your wife and children and hold them as your property, than it was to go through the long drawn out process of freeing them. Besides all you had to do was make sure they were freed in your will, which was a much easier process.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on July 04, 2012, 10:38:49 AM
I'm curious, were all slaves black?
Originally no, because slaves weren't always slaves, they were indentures and were freed after seven years. Lifetime chattel slavery was brought to the United States, by British plantation owners who moved from Barbados to South Carolina. Do you know that the Constitution says nothing about slaves, only persons held in servitude. Lincoln in a speech given in Chicago, on July 10, 1858 reminded his audience of that, along with the fact that if the Declaration of Independence's famous clause "that all men were created equal" could be amended to read "except Negros", than it could also be amended to exclude others.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on July 04, 2012, 10:55:33 AM
The Fugitive Slave Act used the power of the federal government to enforce slave law of slave states in free states. Neo Confederate is simply a term for those who attempt to justify the Civil War on the basis either of outmoded ideas about the Constitution, or on the basis of our current problems with an overweening federal government. In a way it also refers to historical revisionists, like those who despite the slavery clause in succession documents and in the Confederate Constitution claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery. As for free blacks who owned slaves, yes there was the occasion free black plantation owner , especially in Louisiana - which due to it's French background - was  case all to itself. However, often due to the difficulty in freeing slaves in the South, slaves were often family members. It was simpler to buy your wife and children and hold them as your property, than it was to go through the long drawn out process of freeing them. Besides all you had to do was make sure they were freed in your will, which was a much easier process.

It seems the thread has been hijacked, and the issue of slavery has little to do with whether the union is, was, or shall be perpetual. However, I shall endeavor in my poor methods to answer the call on this subject.

I propose a reading of; http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm (http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm)

Excerpt

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).

Excerpt

Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In the same article, MD, read the story of William ( born April ) Ellison of South Carolina who became a very wealthy man owning many slaves.

You may also note at times, because free Blacks could not support themselves, they would partition to become slaves.

Quite frankly, MD, your argument doesn't necessarily hold water.

Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on July 04, 2012, 12:03:37 PM
You do realize that Robert M. Grooms Is a revisionist Holocaust denier, and anti Semite correct? And I should accept any "facts" he presents as valid because? I also find it difficult to believe that the quarter of a million free blacks who lived in the South, most of whom lived in the Southern states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, would form a significant group of slave owners. Finding one or two blacks who actually were plantation owners, isn't what I would think of as representative. You wouldn't happen to have some reputable historians you could refer to? Especially considering that when you attempt to Google these people the only sources you find are from people who can really be "trusted" on black history - like the Klan. And I've already noted that the majority of whites didn't own any slaves. Remember, I asked why the vast majority of Southerners would even fight for the plantation owners. Besides although there were few actual slave owners, there were any number of people who depended upon the system of slavery: cotton brokers, shippers, slave traders, people who grew the crops to feed slaves, the manufacturers who provided them with clothing and equipment.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on July 04, 2012, 02:34:16 PM
You do realize that Robert M. Grooms Is a revisionist Holocaust denier, and anti Semite correct? And I should accept any "facts" he presents as valid because? I also find it difficult to believe that the quarter of a million free blacks who lived in the South, most of whom lived in the Southern states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, would form a significant group of slave owners. Finding one or two blacks who actually were plantation owners, isn't what I would think of as representative. You wouldn't happen to have some reputable historians you could refer to? Especially considering that when you attempt to Google these people the only sources you find are from people who can really be "trusted" on black history - like the Klan. And I've already noted that the majority of whites didn't own any slaves. Remember, I asked why the vast majority of Southerners would even fight for the plantation owners. Besides although there were few actual slave owners, there were any number of people who depended upon the system of slavery: cotton brokers, shippers, slave traders, people who grew the crops to feed slaves, the manufacturers who provided them with clothing and equipment.

I'm sure you will find fault with Joseph E Holloway in The Black Slave Owners

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners (http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners)

Or possibly.  Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 by Larry Koger, a black author.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on July 04, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
I'm sure you will find fault with Joseph E Holloway in The Black Slave Owners.
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners (http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners)
From your link:
Quote
The majority of urban black slave owners were women.  In 1820, free black women represented 68 percent of heads of households in the North and 70 percent of slaveholding heads of colored households in the South. The large percentage of black women slave owners is explained by manumission by their white fathers,  or inheritance from their white fathers or husbands.  Black women were the majority of slaves emancipated by white slave owning men with whom they had sexual relations.  Thirty-three percent of all the recorded colonial manumissions were mulatto children and 75 percent of all adult manumissions were females.
And this:
Quote
According to the federal census of 1830, free blacks owned more than 10,000 slaves in Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia.  The majority of black slave-owners lived in Louisiana and planted sugar cane.
Let's see 10,000 out of 4,500,000 slaves in the South. That's called reaching. That's a minuscule percentage
Quote
Or possibly.  Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 by Larry Koger, a black author.
I went here and checked:
Quote
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23e_1241404707
Where they discussed Koger book. What's bothers me is over a period of 70 years he names an occasional example, but doesn't give overall figures. And he mentions as does Hollyway, the special circumstances that lead to them coming to own slaves. But getting back to the main question. I have no doubt that there were black slave owners. But some act as if they were this significant number of people, which some how makes the overwhelming examples of chattel slavery a "non issue". 
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: Shooterman on July 04, 2012, 06:02:38 PM
From your link:And this:Let's see 10,000 out of 4,500,000 slaves in the South. That's called reaching. That's a minuscule percentageI went here and checked:Where they discussed Koger book. What's bothers me is over a period of 70 years he names an occasional example, but doesn't give overall figures. And he mentions as does Hollyway, the special circumstances that lead to them coming to own slaves. But getting back to the main question. I have no doubt that there were black slave owners. But some act as if they were this significant number of people, which some how makes the overwhelming examples of chattel slavery a "non issue".

No one, to my knowledge has ever said it was a non issue. This terrible instrument of inhumanity, though, was practiced by those that should have known better, is my point.

Again, though, this has really nothing to do with whether the union was perpetual.
Title: Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
Post by: mdgiles on July 05, 2012, 04:51:42 AM
No one, to my knowledge has ever said it was a non issue. This terrible instrument of inhumanity, though, was practiced by those that should have known better, is my point.

Again, though, this has really nothing to do with whether the union was perpetual.
Absent the issue of slavery, do you believe the question ever would have been raised? To ignore chattel slavery as pretty much the basis, of questions over the perpetual union, is to ignore the driving force behind the question. BTW, I've never held that the Union was perpetual, because there are procedures in place to change it, either a Constitutional Convention or the Amendment process. Every time we amend the Constitution, in no small measure, the union we were in the day before the amendment was ratified, no longer exists the day after the amendment is ratified.