Started by Shooterman, February 11, 2012, 03:58:55 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on February 11, 2012, 03:58:55 AMUnder the Articles of Confederation, the union was considered perpetual. The Articles of ConfederationAgreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781.PreambleTo 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 )
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 11, 2012, 11:20:02 AMMoot 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.
QuoteI believe secession probably was constitutional.
QuoteMost 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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteI am glad slavery was abolished.
Quote from: Shooterman on February 11, 2012, 12:57:19 PMThey, 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.
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 11, 2012, 11:25:09 PMAll 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.
Quote from: Solar on February 11, 2012, 11:57:58 PMSlavery 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...
Quote from: Shooterman on February 11, 2012, 11:52:26 PMSorry, 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 )
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 12, 2012, 03:56:29 AMThe 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.
QuoteActually, 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."
Quote from: mdgiles on June 27, 2012, 03:36:05 AM And the South would have lasted right up to the point where they joined the Nazi side in WW2.
Quote from: Shooterman on June 27, 2012, 05:08:57 AMFok you, MD. That was totally uncalled for.
Quote from: mdgiles on June 27, 2012, 05:19:02 AMYou do know that the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany were based on the Segregation Laws of the old South, right?