"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan
Partially, but they also wanted the northern states to trade fairly, European countries got better economic deals than southern states did on cotton products. That in itself is a good reason to complain.States Rights - what right were they determined to perserve? The right to rule on the issue of slavery
In a way yes, but there would have still been economic grievances had the south unanimously and instantly dissolved the practice. There is a historical theory that slavery was already on the way out with the invention of better equipment that would have made ag. production more efficient, but the south was still catching up on the production end.Economics - That peculiar institution was necessary to keep the agriculutural engine running - keep slaves
Among other issues. The north was ignoring much of the ninth and tenth amendments which the south wanted to restore. We still to this day are paying for the mis-interpretation of those two BOR amendments in the way of New Deal, Great Society, the Healthcare Mandate, and other commerce clause and general welfare clause abuses.Nullification - the laws they wished to nullify were laws concerning slavery
There were plenty of reasons, slavery was the match on the kindling.Sorry but I can find no other reason more powerful than the fight to maintain slavery. Look at the legal and physical battles leading up to the civil war. Dredd Scott, decision, Missouri/Maine Compromise, etc - all were attempts to mitigate the slave issue, and preserve the union.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
Whether or not the Confederates committed treason depends on which parts of the Constitution's definition of treason you look at. You are correct that secession specifically is not prohibited. However, levying war against the United States and forming a confederation is prohibited within it. The Confederate states did both.
You have directed me to the Supreme Court as proof that the Confederate states did not commit treason and since your direction implies that you respect the Supreme Court on this issue, I will direct you to the same place, specifically the case of Sprott vs. United States.
In this case the Supreme Court declared:
SECONDThe government of the Confederate States can receive no aid from this course of reasoning. It had no existence, except as a conspiracy to overthrow lawful authority. Its foundation was treason against the existing Federal government. Its single purpose, so long as it lasted, was to make that treason successful. So far from being necessary to the organization of civil government, or to its maintenance and support, it was inimical to social order, destructive to the best interests of society, and its primary object was to overthrow the government on which these so largely depended. Its existence and temporary power were an enormous evil, which the whole force of the government and the people of the United States was engaged for years in destroying.
Sprott v. United States/Opinion of the Court - Wikisource
One could argue that they levied war and formed a confederation as a separate entity and therefore, did not commit treason, but for that argument, I direct you to the Supreme Court again, specifically the case of Williams v. Bruffy:
To confirm this point of view, I also direct you to one Chief Justice Chase's own cases - Texas v. White:The Confederate States was an illegal organization, within the provision of the Constitution of the United States prohibiting any treaty, alliance, or confederation of one state with another, whatever efficacy, therefore, its enactments possessed in any state entering into that organization must be attributed to the sanction given to them by that state.
WILLIAMS V. BRUFFY, 96 U. S. 176 :: Volume 96 :: 1877 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
THIRDConsidered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. [...]
That board, as we have seen, was organized, not for the defence of the State against a foreign invasion, or for its protection against domestic violence, within the meaning of these words as used in the National Constitution, but for the purpose, under the name of defence, of levying war against the United States. This purpose was, undoubtedly, unlawful, for the acts which it contemplated are, within the express definition of the Constitution, treasonable.
Texas v. White
You have offered the pardon of Confederate leaders as proof that treason was not committed. However, I direct you to Lincoln's proclamation of these pardons as proof that it was treason. In that proclamation, Lincoln declared:
A pardon is not the same thing as a declaration of innocence.Whereas, a rebellion now exists whereby the loyal state governments of several states have for a long time been subverted, and many persons have committed, and are now guilty of, treason against the United States; and
Whereas, with reference to said rebellion and treason[...]
Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, December 8, 1863
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
@theplaydrive: You realize that those two paragraphs came after what he referenced made it illegal, yes? That was a grave error on his part making the rest of it null as he put it.
btw, this is dumbest thing I have heard all year...
1) they weren't overthrowing anything, but leaving the authority. Big difference.The government of the Confederate States can receive no aid from this course of reasoning. It had no existence, except as a conspiracy to overthrow lawful authority.
2) It wasn't a conspiracy. They were leaving. It was as cut and dry as it gets.
3) They existed to form a new government to leave the control of the union.
The ****ing moron starts with hyperbole. Got to love it.
Last edited by Henrin; 11-15-11 at 03:10 PM.
So let me get this straight. If a state decides to take away any right in the constitution, let's say the 2nd amendment, it is unconstitutional. But if a state decides to take away all of them and disobey the constitution completely its constitutional. One of the cons will need to explain that to me.
2) The attacks came after aggression from Lincoln and ignoring of the order to leave their country. Lincoln committed acts of war making it warranted.
3) None of this is a conspiracy, but acts to get free and stay free from the aggressor.
That is the difference here - I accept reality and the historical record for what it is. You obviously are not willing to accept the judgment of history and fight to change it. Lotsa luck with that particular crusade.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers