Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Secession or Treason?

Sport, if you think I’m a liberal you’ve not been paying attention.

If you think deciding that the United States was still going to be the United States after they wanted to remove everything south of Pennsylvania from the United States to their breakaway country isn’t trying to destroy the United States, well there is little hope for your ability to grasp other complex concepts like “water is wet”

Those were my ancestors in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas and Texas that made war on my country and while I admire their bravery, their vision was myopic and it has cost our country dearly for the last 150 years. They were fools to have started. The end was inevitably bad for the south and bad for America.

That’s why they tried to leave, because it wasn’t going to be the United States any longer.

X2

The victors get to write the history books and set the narratives. The rural South culturally was more in keeping with what the founders had intended for the US to look like. More importantly constitutionally speaking despite the northern states imposing their will on the South. The power was clearly supposed to be with the states subjugating the states to the Federal government marked the beginning of the end and was the exact opposite of what the founders intended.

Think about it state is a another term for a country. The United States of America was intended to be countries united within the North American continent. For defense and a few other crucial causes. Thus the United States (countries) of America. They were intended to voluntarily unite similarly to the EU and the south should have been able to jump through some hoops and leave similar to a Brexit.

Yep

Well dupe there would still be a "United States". And in reality it is Lincoln who "made war on your country" by refusing to had over Fort Sumter to South Carolina. He knew he was on shaky ground going with just secession. Have you by the way ever read the Declaration of Independence? Or the Constitution? Since you seem to be some kind of Yankee dumbass here's a link.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/

Another.

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/secession

And the South did not start the war dupe.

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter

This all said the states joined the Union voluntarily, by internal vote and they were as free men able to do the same to leave it.

So if you are not a leftard then start being an American or is the Constitution just an informal guide to you?

"We the People..." not "We the States..."

Lincoln's oath of office required him to preserve and defend the Union.

From his first inaugural address;

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another.

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends.


History.com. I don't even allow my high schoolers to count among scholarly sources.

As far as Pugs being a "dupe"..those of us who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution tend to study same.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
Socrates

For one that throws out slurs against other folks intelligence like rice after a wedding, perhaps you ought to read your own source:



So, the USA is thought by the CSA to be illegally occupying territory belonging to South Carolina. There are at least two routes to follow. One involves diplomacy and a non-belligerent solution, another involves starting a war and getting your ass kicked. How'd that last one work out for the CSA?

Kinda stupid of ole Beauregard if you ask me. Personally, I'm all good with Secession. But, once your state has seceeded, you can't start a war over who gets to occupy an insignificant amount of real estate, get your ass kicked, then blame it on the inevitable winners.

Well a body can live where ever they can afford to in this country but that doesn't mean they get automatically welcomed to where they moved to. Buncha louisiananons got relocated to Wyo after Katrina and they were as welcome as a broke dick in a whorehouse with no money. Most people over there are still waiting for their sorry asses to leave.you can ask a bunch of native montanon's ,alaskans,idahoans and etc. What they think of relocated democrats from California and down south in their state and it ain't very favorable either. Most of them natives figure the relocators need to stay where their at and clean up their own mess.

Out of curiosity, how's that Negro thing working out for you all?

g

Except they couldn't. South Carolina sent emissaries to Washington to negotiate for Sumter. They were willing to pay a fair price for it. The administration refused to meet with them. Finally, Lincoln sent two emissaries to South Carolina's governor. They handed him note which said, in effect, "I am going to resupply Fort Sumter."

The governor asked them to wait a few minutes while he composed a reply, but they told him they were not allowed to receive any replies from him, and left.

Basically, Lincoln forced the Confederates to order Beauregard to fire on the fort.

Well,....you got Baltimore.

Pretty simple to understand, if you haven't caught on by now you're just to damn stupid.

Bullschidt

Lol, If you think Pugs is anything close to a leftard you're the blithering dumbass.

Don't know any facts so you have to mumble curse words?

No, I merely call BS when I see it.

Lincoln forced Beauregard to open fire on the fort?

There were no other options?

Reread my first post carefully.

I’m hesitant to contribute to this thread because I know that I won’t change someone else’s opinion about the Civil War and I definitely feel divided in my sympathies but I don’t know why “that Negro thing” is “anything” but the South’s “thing”. Ultimately the blacks were going to be freed, the war just caused unnecessary carnage in the ashes of slavery. The South imported slaves, brokered, sold, bred, all the original “brood stock” into this country without a care. The South held virtually all of the slaves and despite their freedom the slaves and their descendants didn’t migrate far. I’ve never seen so many blacks than I did when I’ve been in the South. Where I live it’s roughly 98.7% Whites and the few black families that live out here are good families......So “that Negro thing” ain’t no thang for me or mine.

Those are facts and therefore not subject to opinion. 😉

Brush up on your facts... No opinion offered.

g

+1