Confederate Flag

[Brimshack]

1) Ther eis NO respect in which confederates can be said to have been fighting on behalf of the constitution.

2) Just because the majority of people fighting for the South did not own slaves, does NOT mean that the war was not fought over slavery.

3) To deny the flag is not to deny ones ancestors, nor is it to admit shame. But those insisting on such flat-footed loyalties ought to consider that it was a flag flown in open rebellion against the United States of America. That alone should give people cause to question its value.

4) The ressurgence of confederate flag waiving is most certainly tied southern opposition to desegegation, and a variety of racist messages used at the time to intimidate blacks. Regardless of its value in the Civil War, it has in modern times MOST CERTAINLY been a symbol of racism, and those who embrace it are indeed sending a racist message.

 

[ee-o-safe']

Did the south believe this? Nope. In fact Lincoln wasnt even on the balots in the southern states, they feared he was going to destroy the institution they held so dear. That is why the south waited til they knew Lincoln won the presidency before they seceded.

Lets look at the Secession ordinace of South Carolina shall we.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.


For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.


Now lets look at Texas

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?



It must be hard being a revisionist with such damning evidence mounted against you. I suggest before you say the War had nothing to do with slavery you read the secession ordinances of the seperate Confederate States, slavery is a huge factor in them, and is mentioned more times than states rights.

I like to toot my horn when it comes to history, which is where I am at my best. I love it, I love to read it, write about it, I even participate in Alternate History discussions where I read and write about how the world would look if another path was taken, American History is my specialty, which the Civil War falls under.

Such a smart person should know that it was not a civil war. The Southern states lawfully seceeded from the union and formed their own country. How can the invasion of a country be called a civil war?

Joseph

 

[Brimshack]

I think we can do without your summary statements about what smart people should and should not know.

In the meantime, could you please tell me what provision of th U.S. Constitution details the methods to be followed in seceeding from the union, and who the proper authorities are for making such a decision?

 

[MatthewG215]

Keep the Confederate flags, hang them high and proud. I want to know where all the racists are.

GO NORTH!

 

[jameseb]

I think we can do without your summary statements about what smart people should and should not know.

In the meantime, could you please tell me what provision of th U.S. Constitution details the methods to be followed in seceeding from the union, and who the proper authorities are for making such a decision?

Perhaps you can also tell us why the Confederate states how to readmit themselves to the Union then? Kinda strange considering the North insisted the South never seceded.... don't ya think?

 

[jameseb]

Keep the Confederate flags, hang them high and proud. I want to know where all the racists are.

GO NORTH!

I'm going to call you flat out on this........ tell me right here and right now.... are you calling me a racist because I have a Confederate battle flag?

 

[Kakadu]

I don't wanna start any wildfire this way, i just have a question to you jameseb, i look at your flag and see serbia, and i wonder why you have a confederate flag?

 

[praying]

Was the Confederacy Only About States Rights?


I have seen so much posted throughout CF in defense of the Confederacy and states rights I feel the need to post some truths. I will be posting quotes from original documents regarding states rights, the confederate flag and slavery, interspersed with my commentary.

Note; the text in red was in red in the original documents from which they were copied. Anything in bold is a point I emphasized. (sorry copy and paste doesn't do color)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 14, 1865.--Ordered to be printed.

[By Mr. SWAN.


AMENDMENT
To the Negro Soldier Bill.
1 The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact,
2 That the General-in-Chief commanding the armies of the Confederate
3 States be and he is hereby invested with the full and
4 complete power to call into the service of the Confederate
5 States, to perform any duty to which he may assign them, so
6 many of the able-bodied slaves within the Confederate States,
7 as in his judgment the exigencies of the public service may
8 require.

1 SEC. 2. Be it enacted, That while said slaves are so employed,
2 whether voluntarily offered for service by their owners or
3 impressed in conformity to any existing or future law, such compensation,
4 clothing and rations shall be allowed to and for said
5 slaves as are allowed, by the Act approved February 17, 1864,
6 and Acts amendatory thereto, to increase the efficiency of the
7 army by the employment of free negroes and slaves in certain
8 cases.

voluntarily offered for service by their owners - I find this terminology to be an oxymoron



SECTION 3.
3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.



SECTION 9.

1. The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(to be fair to show that Africans were no longer going to be imported)

4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.



The Southern States have been for nearly sixty years the object of political persecution by the North, which they have borne with patience and returned with kindness. In 1820, the North entered into a compromise, which has been broken. In 1850 they made new agreements, which have since been violated. In 1860 a legal majority elected a President on the "Platform" that "slavery must be restricted to its present limits." Outraged in our rights, and threatened in our interests, what course is left the South? To fold their arms and await more injury and endure more obloquy? Would this check the aggressions of the North till both North and South were swallowed up in the vortex of ruin? It is clear that the South has no alternative. Far better they should have abandoned the Confederacy than remain only to engage in bitter feuds that compromise the dignity of the country, and sow the seeds of undying hatred.

In 1789, according to our view, the South entered into a civil compact with the North, on certain conditions and guarantees. These have been broken, and the South returns, in her opinion, to her original sovereignty.*


* This principle of sovereignty was repeatedly asserted by New England during the last war, and on January 4, 1815, a report of a committee was made in the Hartford Convention, in favor of immediate secession from the Union, on the plea that the Constitution had been violated by the Embargo Act, and the ordering of the militia into the service of the United States. The report defended the right of secession as follows:

"That Acts of Congress, in violation of the Constitution, are absolutely void, is an undeniable position. . . . . But in cases of deliberate, dangerous, and palpable infractions of the Constitution, affecting the sovereignty of a State and liberties of the people, it is not only the right, but the duty, of such State to interpose its authority for their protection, in the manner best calculated to secure that end. When emergencies occur, which are either beyond the reach of the judicial tribunals, or too pressing to admit of the delay incident to their forms, States which have no common umpire, must be their own judges and execute their own decisions. The States should so use their power as effectually to protect their own sovereignty and the rights and liberties of their citizens."

were it otherwise--were it true that the South owed allegiance to the Federal Government--still, she asserts our own Declaration of Independence in 1776, and the present practice of Europe justify all people in repudiating a government which assails their rights and sacrifices their best interests. If the Northern States do not acknowledge these truths, then are they false to their origin, and seek to substitute for a government of opinion the tyranny of force. The South will adhere to its rights of secession at all hazards, and at every sacrifice.

A few general considerations, and we conclude our narrative. After tracing the course of events recorded in the foregoing pages, the questions naturally arise--What has been the result? What have the Abolitionists gained? The answers may be briefly summed up as follows:

1. They have put an end to the emancipation which originated among the real philanthropists of the South. In their wild and fanatical attempts they have counteracted the very object at which they have aimed. In the language of another, "The worst foes of the black race are those who have intermeddled in their behalf. By nature, the most affectionate and loyal of races beneath the sun, they are also the most helpless; and no calamity can befal them greater than the loss of that protection they enjoy under

this patriarchal system. Indeed, the experiment has been tried of precipitating them upon a freedom which they know not how to enjoy; and the dismal results are before the world in statistics that may well excite astonishment."*

* "Compared with European laborers, the black lives like a prince. He has his cabin generally neat and clean, and always weather-proof. He has likewise his own garden-patch, over which he is lord paramount. He is well fed, well lodged, well clothed, and never overworked. His holidays are numerous, and enjoyed with infinite gusto. Sleek, happy, and contented, the black lives to a great age. The slaveholder finds it to his interest to treat his negroes liberally, and takes every means to make them healthy and contented."

In striking confirmation of the above, we extract from the mortuary records of the last year the following cases of Negro slaves who lived to over a hundred years:

1860--February 2. Female slave, Virginia . . . . . 105
1860--February 15. Milly Lamar, Georgia . . . . . 135
1860--March 25. Sam, Georgia . . . . . 140
1860--April 17. Glasgow, Kentucky . . . . . 112

(Well that settles it for me 4 slaves out of millions transported form Africa who lived long lives, all the reason in the world to believe in the benevolence of slavery )


"With the fairest portions of the earth in their possession, and with the advantage of a long discipline as the cultivators of the soil, their constitutional indolence has converted the most beautiful islands of the sea into howling wastes. It is not too much to say, that if the South should at this moment, surrender every slave, the wisdom of the entire world, united in solemn council, could not solve the question of their disposal. Freedom would be their doom. Every Southern master knows this truth and feels its power."

2. Touch the negro, and you touch cotton--the mainspring that keeps the machinery of the world in motion. In teaching slaves to entertain wild and dangerous notions of liberty, the Abolitionists have thus jeopardized the commerce of the country and the manufacturing interests of the civilized world. They have likewise destroyed confidence. In short, all the kind relations that have ever existed between the North and the South have been interrupted, and a barrier erected, which, socially, commercially, and politically, has separated the heretofore united interests of the two sections.

(the heart of the Confederate matter)

3. They have held out a Canadian Utopia, where they have taught the slaves in their ignorance to believe they could enjoy a life of ease and luxury, and having cut them off from a race of kind masters, and separated them from comfortable homes, left the deluded beings, incapable of self-support, upon an uncongenial soil, to live in a state of bestiality and misery, and die cursing the Abolitionists as the authors of their wretchedness.


From a thread I started was the ocnfederacy just about states rights.

 

[Brimshack]

Perhaps you can also tell us why the Confederate states how to readmit themselves to the Union then? Kinda strange considering the North insisted the South never seceded.... don't ya think?

Complete nonsequitor. It does nothing to answer the question of whether or not southern states had the legal authority to leave the union.

 

[jameseb]

I don't wanna start any wildfire this way, i just have a question to you jameseb, i look at your flag and see serbia, and i wonder why you have a confederate flag?

Read my sig. I'm from the South... my ancestors fought for the South. Regardless of what people say, many fought for state rights. My great, great, great, great grandfather did not own slaves, thought it was despicable and fought with an African American in his Confederate ranks. I have his diary if anyone would like to read it.

 

[jameseb]

Complete nonsequitor. It does nothing to answer the question of whether or not southern states had the legal authority to leave the union.

"Nonsequitor?" I'm not pointing out a typo (I make TONS of them), but I'm just at a loss what you were trying to say here.

However, as the States all VOTED to join the Union prior to the Civil War, why would they also not have the right to cecede? Also, my point is quite valid and still stands... the defeated Southern States were required to reapply for statehood in the Union. That is a de facto way of saying they HAD left the Union.... no if's and's or but's to it.

 

[jameseb]

Was the Confederacy Only About States Rights?


I have seen so much posted throughout CF in defense of the Confederacy and states rights I feel the need to post some truths. I will be posting quotes from original documents regarding states rights, the confederate flag and slavery, interspersed with my commentary.

Just a note, but slavery was never mentioned in the Articles of Sucession. That is a truth. It is a fact. These articles you've posted are not at all related to the Sucession legislation. We're diverting away from slavery to address state's rights which is, indeed, a legitimate point for discussion.

 

[praying]

If you want an excellent site on Southern history here it is. I like seeing the original documentation, because that tells the truth of what the South in general was about.

The site literally has thousands of origianl documents form ealry colonial times to early n19th century online.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/

First-Person Narratives of the American South
Library of Southern Literature
North American Slave Narratives
The Southern Homefront, 1861-1865
The Church in the Southern Black Community
The North Carolina Experience, Beginnings to 1940
North Carolinians and the Great War

Documenting the American South (DAS) is a collection of sources on Southern history, literature and culture from the colonial period through the first decades of the 20th century. It is organized into the projects listed above. The Academic Affairs Library at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill sponsors DAS, and the texts come primarily from its Southern holdings. An editorial board guides its development.

 

[JohnCJ]

No I beg to differ, if owning the flag to you represents the glory days of the ol' south, forget going back as far as slavery let's just go back to German Shepards attacking peaceful demostrators, or George Wallace standing on the steps of Ol' Miss blocking the entrance for Africam American citizens, or killing little girls by blowing up churches, then yes you are a racist.

If as you say it represents just the soldiers who fought and certain other things then no, but...

There are some problems with that becuase no matter what it was created for it certainly embodies more than just that:

Flag Links:
Ole Miss

Selma

Selma March

I am not close minded, I am realistic though

Some of my more rural relatives display the Stars and Bars in there trucks or houses and anytime I have discussed any sort of politics with them especially right after the Gulf War many of them were wanting Colin Powell to run for president. The flag means many things to them I don't think hate or supremacy is one of them. I have also seen totally redneck people with stars n' bars all over there truck and listening to Dr. Dre. But hey I am from WV we may be some kinda special case.

 

[Brimshack]

"Nonsequitor?" I'm not pointing out a typo (I make TONS of them), but I'm just at a loss what you were trying to say here.

However, as the States all VOTED to join the Union prior to the Civil War, why would they also not have the right to cecede? Also, my point is quite valid and still stands... the defeated Southern States were required to reapply for statehood in the Union. That is a de facto way of saying they HAD left the Union.... no if's and's or but's to it.

The question is irrelevant. That is what I am saying. The point I was challenging was the claim that the States have the authority to leave the union. They did not. Any questions about their plans to return or inconsistencies in Northern approaches to reconstruction are completely irrelevant to that question. Article VI states that Federal law will be the Supreme Law of the land, and the Constitution also states the procedures by which the Constitution will be ratified. There is no escape clause, and as such there is no legal authority to leave the Union. Your claim that the Southern states all voted to join the Union is btw false. The Union was not formed on the authority of state legislatures. States did not vote to join the Union, people did. In any event, your folksy logic that if they joined they must have the right to leave has no bearing on the matter. The question is what do the documents say, and they do not say what you want them to say.

JohnCJ: I have no doubt that many a racist does like Colon Powel, and that many a racist likes African American music. In fact I have known self-described racists who liked both. Such inconsistencies are a regular part of human nature, and saying "my best friend is a…" is one of the oldest liches in the history of bigotry.

 

[JohnCJ]

JohnCJ: I have no doubt that many a racist does like Colon Powel, and that many a racist likes African American music. In fact I have known self-described racists who liked both. Such inconsistencies are a regular part of human nature, and saying "my best friend is a…" is one of the oldest liches in the history of bigotry.

My relatives (those in particular) don't hate anyone and I take offence to your assertion.

 

[jameseb]

The question is irrelevant. That is what I am saying. The point I was challenging was the claim that the States have the authority to leave the union. They did not.

Perhaps its only irrelevant to you as it doesn't support your "folksy" (to borrow your own word) claim that the states do not have the right to secede.

Any questions about their plans to return or inconsistencies in Northern approaches to reconstruction are completely irrelevant to that question. Article VI states that Federal law will be the Supreme Law of the land, and the Constitution also states the procedures by which the Constitution will be ratified. There is no escape clause, and as such there is no legal authority to leave the Union.

Nope. Its not irrelevant. Your assertion is that there is no legal claim for a state to secede from the Union. I didn't argue there was, but rather there is no legal doctrine whatsoever that prohibits a state leaving the Union either. The Union requiring Southern states to readmit to the United States only lends further support to the Confederate viewpoint.

Your claim that the Southern states all voted to join the Union is btw false. The Union was not formed on the authority of state legislatures. States did not vote to join the Union, people did.

Actually, Brim, your assertion is quite false; not mine. The states did in fact vote to adopt the government that exists today. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 drafted a new Constitution to replace the ailing Articles of Confederation. The new Constitution had to be ratified or rejected by each existing state in the Union.

In any event, your folksy logic that if they joined they must have the right to leave has no bearing on the matter. The question is what do the documents say, and they do not say what you want them to say.

You're not very good at hiding your sarcasm, are you? Brim, perhaps you should take another look at my old posts.. I never said the "documents" say what I want them to say... but since you bring this up, its only proper that I return the point back to you. I'm sorry, Brim, but the "documents" do not say what you want them to say. There is no 'You Can't Leave the Union' clause in any legal document. Apparently you just don't want to acknowledge that the whole issue of secession is in fact ambiguous at best. You have no legal grounds to support your assertion that the States had no right to secede... and that's all I was saying. Unfortunately, IMHO, you just don't want to admit you have no basis for denying a state's right to secede.

Would you like to try again?

 

[Brimshack]

My relatives (those in particular) don't hate anyone and I take offence to your assertion.

My assertion was simply that such things do not demonstrate a lack of racism, which they do not. If you do not wish to see your relatives implicated in the matter, then perhaps your should not use them as your own examples.

 

[Brimshack]

Perhaps its only irrelevant to you as it doesn't support your "folksy" (to borrow your own word) claim that the states do not have the right to secede.

Nice try at t*t for tat, but I have actually explained its irrelevance, and this does nothing to counter that explanation.

Nope. Its not irrelevant. Your assertion is that there is no legal claim for a state to secede from the Union. I didn't argue there was, but rather there is no legal doctrine whatsoever that prohibits a state leaving the Union either. The Union requiring Southern states to readmit to the United States only lends further support to the Confederate viewpoint.

I am uninterested in whether or not there are any legal DOCTRINES to this effect, and I have already demonstrated to you that the Constitution itself does hold states responsible for enforcing its provisions. This in itself amounts to a claim of juridiction over states for which no exception is made. To say that secession is not forbidden is simply a shell game.

The Union requiring re-admittance does nothing to answer the question of whether or not the Southern States had the authority to leave. At most it would prove that they had left, not that they had the authority to do so. But in fact it doesn't even prove that. It merely proves that you have legitimate questions about Union practics in the wake of the Civil War, which is a topic that you would apparently rather discuss than the one at hand.

Actually, Brim, your assertion is quite false; not mine. The states did in fact vote to adopt the government that exists today. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 drafted a new Constitution to replace the ailing Articles of Confederation. The new Constitution had to be ratified or rejected by each existing state in the Union.

Did you look up the phrase you put in italics, or did you just assume that must have been it? Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says: "The Ratification of the CONVENTION of nine states shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution…" In other words a separate body, distinct from the state legislatures, was set up in each state to determine the question at hand. State legislatures did NOT vote on the Constitution, and as such the states themselves did not vote on it. (See also McCulloch V. Maryland, and for that matter the Preamble to the Constitution, "We the people…")

You're not very good at hiding your sarcasm, are you? Brim, perhaps you should take another look at my old posts.. I never said the "documents" say what I want them to say... but since you bring this up, its only proper that I return the point back to you. I'm sorry, Brim, but the "documents" do not say what you want them to say. There is no 'You Can't Leave the Union' clause in any legal document. Apparently you just don't want to acknowledge that the whole issue of secession is in fact ambiguous at best. You have no legal grounds to support your assertion that the States had no right to secede... and that's all I was saying. Unfortunately, IMHO, you just don't want to admit you have no basis for denying a state's right to secede.

I'm not interested in your views as to what I do or do not want James. the fact is that I have already refuted the claim that Southern States had such a legal right, and you have done nothing to address my arguments except shift the goal-posts, assert things about the content of the constitution that are not there, misdirect me to post-war irrlevenacies, and try to shiftthe burdens. What I meant by folksy logic was precisely you unwillingness to address the legal questions in any substantive way. I also find it rather unsurprising that someone who refuses to address the specifics as are refusing to now would find the issue murky at best. This issue and any other can only be as clear as you will let it be, and if you insist on confusion as you do, you will certainly get it.

It is, btw, a fair bet that your state does not have anything on the books that says you personally cannot declare yourself free from its laws. Perhaps you should claim this gives you the right of secession.

 

[jameseb]

Nice try at t*t for tat, but I have actually explained its irrelevance, and this does nothing to counter that explanation.

Brimshack, frankly I think you just toss the word "irrelevant" around when and wherever contrary points are directed at you even if the points are valid. As I've pointed out, you create a position for your detractors that is not their own, but this of course works well for you as it sets them up nicely for your counter arguments. However, I'm not going to allow you to fabricate my positions here just so you can address said fictitious positions with your replies that are, frankly, irrelevant, as they do not address my real points, not what points you try to make up for me.

I am uninterested in whether or not there are any legal DOCTRINES to this effect, and I have already demonstrated to you that the Constitution itself does hold states responsible for enforcing its provisions. This in itself amounts to a claim of juridiction over states for which no exception is made. To say that secession is not forbidden is simply a shell game.

I meant "documents," but if you like pointing out typos, my friend, you provide more than enough ammo for me to do the same.

The Union requiring readmittance does nothing to answer the question of whether or not the Southern States had the authority to leave. At most it would prove that they had left, not that they had the authority to do so. But in fact it doesn't even prove that. It merely proves that you have legitimate questions about Union practics in the wake of the Civil War, which is a topic that you would apparently rather discuss than the one at hand.

Again, I've never stated the South had the legal right to secede. I posed the Union's position that the Southern states had to reapply to the Union as a valid example of the ambiguity over the issue. And I am addressing the topic at hand... You flat out stated previously that South secession was illegal. My point is that this isn't true. There is no legal clause that says a state cannot leave the Union nor any clause that states leaving the Union is not allowed. Why is it hard just to state as I'm saying that the entire matter is ambiguous at best? You can no more prove that South couldn't secede than I can prove they could. At least I can point to the North's apparent acceptance of secession as they were treated as such after the war.

Did you look up the phrase you put in italics, or did you just assume that must have been it? Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says: "The Ratification of the CONVENTION of nine states shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution…" In other words a separate body, distinct from the state legislatures, was set up in each state to determine the question at hand. State legislatures did NOT vote on the Constitution, and as such the states themselves did not vote on it. (See also McCulloch V. Maryland, and for that matter the Preamble to the Constitution, "We the people…")

Brm ~ I want you to do something. Please go back through all my posts and show me where I said state legislatures had to approve admission to the Union. Please... I beg you. The fact is, you're assigning a position to me that I never took. The citizens of the states had to vote on the Constitution. Unless you are trying to tell me that the Constitution was voted on by cross-state elections? If so, you're so very wrong.

Again....stop attributing positions to me that I don't have. I could easily say you believe the earth is flat and I could legitimately prove you wrong over and over.... but I don't define your positions for you, do I? No, I don't. So do me a favor.... Dont' do it for me.

I'm not interested in your views as to what I do or do not want James. the fact is that I have already refuted the claim that Southern States had such a legal right, and you have done nothing to address my arguments except shift the goal-posts, assert things about the content of the constitution that are not there, misdirect me to post-war irrlevenacies, and try to shiftthe burdens. What I meant by folksy logic was precisely you unwillingness to address the legal questions in any substantive way. I also find it rather unsurprising that someone who refuses to address the specifics as are refusing to now would find the issue murky at best. This issue and any other can only be as clear as you will let it be, and if you insist on confusion as you do, you will certainly get it.

Again, this is nothing but a tangent against a false position you have attributed to me. And I'm not substantive? Again, you have purposefully avoided recognition that you cannot provide legitimate proof that it was illegal for the South to secede. Why, oh why, can't you just admit there's no legal justification either way?

It is, btw, a fair bet that your state does not have anything on the books that says you personally cannot declare yourself free from its laws. Perhaps you should claim this gives you the right of secession.

Its a fair bet that it doesn't rain golf balls in your state. Now where are you going with this? Perhaps you should just drop the sarcasm, then I will too, and then we can all play nice and friendly like.