Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by VisorBoy »

Marine Hokie wrote:Good point. Non-seceding states were not invaded.
Delaware and Maryland were also slave states. If the war had been about slavery, one would think that they'd have been invaded too. As it were, Delaware was mostly left alone, and Maryland was occupied only for the purpose of prohibiting secession. Secessionists in Maryland were imprisoned, while slaveowners were not.

RiverguyVT wrote: solid point.
perfect examples- Michigan, CT, RI, Mass.
Didn't secede. Didn't find themselves at war.
First of all, the war was begun by the Confederate South when Fort Sumter was attacked.

Slavery, states' rights, and taxation were the primary causes of the Civil War.
Last edited by VisorBoy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
User avatar
SuwaneeTim820
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:36 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by SuwaneeTim820 »

Hokie5150 wrote:
SuwaneeTim820 wrote: Pretty much everyone who has devoted their life to studying the issue disagrees with you.
So, you're saying the consensus among historians today is that slavery was the cause of the Civil War?
Correct.
hokie80
Posts: 10714
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:11 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by hokie80 »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
SuwaneeTim820 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: That was a stretch. The South, I'm told, seceded, "over a multitude of issues."
You were told that by someone arguing in favor of your position.
ip_law-hokie wrote: I'm also told that if the south had outlawed slavery and Fitty's great, great uncle had a hoo hoo instead of a wang, then the war would still have been fought and Fitty's great uncle buck would have been the first woman in combat.
Do you feel that, if slavery had been outlawed in seceding states, the war would have never happened?
1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."

2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.
Southern apologists and their revisionist history always crack me up. "95% of historians disagree with me? Historian smishtorian! AMIRITE?!" Reminds me of the hilarious global warming "debate."
It's cute seeing the silly necks dip and dodge with that heavy chip on their shoulder.
The only chip I see has to do with your self-loathing and white guilt. Basically you strike me as someone who moved to NYC and, in order to fit in, decided to follow the meme of making fun of southern people.

IIWII
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by ip_law-hokie »

hokie80 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
SuwaneeTim820 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: That was a stretch. The South, I'm told, seceded, "over a multitude of issues."
You were told that by someone arguing in favor of your position.
ip_law-hokie wrote: I'm also told that if the south had outlawed slavery and Fitty's great, great uncle had a hoo hoo instead of a wang, then the war would still have been fought and Fitty's great uncle buck would have been the first woman in combat.
Do you feel that, if slavery had been outlawed in seceding states, the war would have never happened?
1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."

2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.
Southern apologists and their revisionist history always crack me up. "95% of historians disagree with me? Historian smishtorian! AMIRITE?!" Reminds me of the hilarious global warming "debate."
It's cute seeing the silly necks dip and dodge with that heavy chip on their shoulder.
The only chip I see has to do with your self-loathing and white guilt. Basically you strike me as someone who moved to NYC and, in order to fit in, decided to follow the meme of making fun of southern people.

IIWII
Facing the facts doesn't equal self-loathing and white guilt. Sorry.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by ip_law-hokie »

VisorBoy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:Good point. Non-seceding states were not invaded.
Delaware and Maryland were also slave states. If the war had been about slavery, one would think that they'd have been invaded too. As it were, Delaware was mostly left alone, and Maryland was occupied only for the purpose of prohibiting secession. Secessionists in Maryland were imprisoned, while slaveowners were not.

RiverguyVT wrote: solid point.
perfect examples- Michigan, CT, RI, Mass.
Didn't secede. Didn't find themselves at war.
First of all, the war was begun by the Confederate South when Fort Sumter was attacked.

Slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War.
Well VisorBoy, I've learned that the individual states all had their own reasons for seceding. Marine is now researching what some of those were that didn't involve slavery. Stay tuned.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
SuwaneeTim820
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:36 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by SuwaneeTim820 »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:Good point. Non-seceding states were not invaded.
Delaware and Maryland were also slave states. If the war had been about slavery, one would think that they'd have been invaded too. As it were, Delaware was mostly left alone, and Maryland was occupied only for the purpose of prohibiting secession. Secessionists in Maryland were imprisoned, while slaveowners were not.

RiverguyVT wrote: solid point.
perfect examples- Michigan, CT, RI, Mass.
Didn't secede. Didn't find themselves at war.
First of all, the war was begun by the Confederate South when Fort Sumter was attacked.

Slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War.
Well VisorBoy, I've learned that the individual states all had their own reasons for seceding. Marine is now researching what some of those were that didn't involve slavery. Stay tuned.
LOL.
User avatar
SuwaneeTim820
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:36 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by SuwaneeTim820 »

hokie80 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
SuwaneeTim820 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: That was a stretch. The South, I'm told, seceded, "over a multitude of issues."
You were told that by someone arguing in favor of your position.
ip_law-hokie wrote: I'm also told that if the south had outlawed slavery and Fitty's great, great uncle had a hoo hoo instead of a wang, then the war would still have been fought and Fitty's great uncle buck would have been the first woman in combat.
Do you feel that, if slavery had been outlawed in seceding states, the war would have never happened?
1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."

2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.
Southern apologists and their revisionist history always crack me up. "95% of historians disagree with me? Historian smishtorian! AMIRITE?!" Reminds me of the hilarious global warming "debate."
It's cute seeing the silly necks dip and dodge with that heavy chip on their shoulder.
The only chip I see has to do with your self-loathing and white guilt. Basically you strike me as someone who moved to NYC and, in order to fit in, decided to follow the meme of making fun of southern people.

IIWII
Image
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by VisorBoy »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:Good point. Non-seceding states were not invaded.
Delaware and Maryland were also slave states. If the war had been about slavery, one would think that they'd have been invaded too. As it were, Delaware was mostly left alone, and Maryland was occupied only for the purpose of prohibiting secession. Secessionists in Maryland were imprisoned, while slaveowners were not.

RiverguyVT wrote: solid point.
perfect examples- Michigan, CT, RI, Mass.
Didn't secede. Didn't find themselves at war.
First of all, the war was begun by the Confederate South when Fort Sumter was attacked.

Slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War.
Well VisorBoy, I've learned that the individual states all had their own reasons for seceding. Marine is now researching what some of those were that didn't involve slavery. Stay tuned.
I edited my post. Slavery, states' rights and taxation were the primary causes.

Also, do you mind stopping with the name-calling?
Last edited by VisorBoy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by Marine Hokie »

Fortunately, the state governments gave some of the reasons. Some of them gave reasons in their ordinances of secession, and we have information on discussions during secession conventions. While slavery was a major issue in secession, most of the states didn't like the economic restrictions and tariffs imposed on them. For the Virginia government specifically, they promised to leave only if Lincoln went to war with other states (they kept the promise).

Again, while you're incorrect on the various reasons for secession, you're completely missing my point. Even if 100% of the confederate states gave slavery as their one and only reason for secession, that still wouldn't make it the reason for the war.

You just ignore everything I say without any actual refutation, and keep repeating the same general position without backing it up.

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."
The actual quote is "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons, some of which included slavery." It was a followup to my criticizing of you referring the the seceding states as one entity, leaving for one reason. Do you dispute my statement?
ip_law-hokie wrote:2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.
How so? Your position is that the war was over slavery. I'm asking whether you think that the war still would have happened if slavery had been outlawed in the seceding states.
Again, all slave states were not invaded, only the ones that seceded. Slaveowners were not arrested and imprisoned in Maryland along with those supporting secession. If the war was about slavery, why wasn't Delaware invaded as well? Why was Maryland only occupied for the purposes of keeping them from seceding, rather than to free the slaves? Why did Lincoln support slavery and enforce slavery laws? Why did Lincoln explicitly say that he wouldn't wage war over slavery, and would only use military force in the south to 1) enforce tariff collection and 2) to prevent secession.

As someone already been pointed out, you have yet to actually make an argument to support your position. Just saying that slavery is the reason for the war doesn't support itself.
Yes I dispute your statement. What other issues were relevant to these individual southern states' in deciding to secede that were not related to slavery? Name one.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
hokie80
Posts: 10714
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:11 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by hokie80 »

Facing the facts doesn't equal self-loathing and white guilt. Sorry.[/quote]

You mean the facts that it wasn't all about slavery?

This is where you throw out "necks" to overcome and hid your own self-loathing about where you are from.

I'm sure those elite, higher class folks you associate with in NYC LOVE that.
User avatar
Major Kong
Posts: 15727
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
Party: Independent
Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by Major Kong »

Meh most of what can be considered the South (below the Mason-Dixon Line) left the union.

Lincoln said to paraphrase united we stand and divided we fall.

The states that left the union got together and formed their own gubment based on the original articles of confederation with some of the constitution, making sure to include in the Constitution of the Confederate States several references to slave/slaves/slavery the only individual state right that was mentioned by name...called themselves the Confederate States of America and set up shop in Richmond (dumb move to go to Richmond).

SC bombed Ft. Sumter and the schitt hit the fan

Sides were chosen, brother set against brother and 4 yrs. later the South capitulated and the Union was restored with several long years of "reconstruction".
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.

Image
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by ip_law-hokie »

VisorBoy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:Good point. Non-seceding states were not invaded.
Delaware and Maryland were also slave states. If the war had been about slavery, one would think that they'd have been invaded too. As it were, Delaware was mostly left alone, and Maryland was occupied only for the purpose of prohibiting secession. Secessionists in Maryland were imprisoned, while slaveowners were not.

RiverguyVT wrote: solid point.
perfect examples- Michigan, CT, RI, Mass.
Didn't secede. Didn't find themselves at war.
First of all, the war was begun by the Confederate South when Fort Sumter was attacked.

Slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War.
Well VisorBoy, I've learned that the individual states all had their own reasons for seceding. Marine is now researching what some of those were that didn't involve slavery. Stay tuned.
I edited my post. Slavery, states' rights and taxation were the primary causes.

Also, do you mind stopping with the name-calling?
do state's rights and taxation relate back to slavery?
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by Marine Hokie »

If England had troops in a fort in the US, would they be attacked?
SC had seceded. They were no longer part of the US. They asked Lincoln to pull the out the troops. They offered to purchase the fort, but Lincoln's people refused to meet to talk about it. Instead, he sent more troops down to the fort.
Want to guess how many people were killed during the "attack"? Zero.

You're conflating causes of secession with causes of the war.
The war was waged over secession. Lincoln did not want to lose the revenue from the southern states. He had no interest in fighting over slavery. He was explicit about both of these points.
VisorBoy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:Good point. Non-seceding states were not invaded.
Delaware and Maryland were also slave states. If the war had been about slavery, one would think that they'd have been invaded too. As it were, Delaware was mostly left alone, and Maryland was occupied only for the purpose of prohibiting secession. Secessionists in Maryland were imprisoned, while slaveowners were not.

RiverguyVT wrote: solid point.
perfect examples- Michigan, CT, RI, Mass.
Didn't secede. Didn't find themselves at war.
First of all, the war was begun by the Confederate South when Fort Sumter was attacked.

Slavery, states' rights, and taxation were the primary causes of the Civil War.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by ip_law-hokie »

your view is legalistic and nonsensical. Even if you refuse to admit it, we all know the southern states seceded due to slavery. And yes, the US went to war because the southern states seceded.

But if A caused B, and B caused C, most without an agenda would say that A caused C.
Marine Hokie wrote:Fortunately, the state governments gave some of the reasons. Some of them gave reasons in their ordinances of secession, and we have information on discussions during secession conventions. While slavery was a major issue in secession, most of the states didn't like the economic restrictions and tariffs imposed on them. For the Virginia government specifically, they promised to leave only if Lincoln went to war with other states (they kept the promise).

Again, while you're incorrect on the various reasons for secession, you're completely missing my point. Even if 100% of the confederate states gave slavery as their one and only reason for secession, that still wouldn't make it the reason for the war.

You just ignore everything I say without any actual refutation, and keep repeating the same general position without backing it up.

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."
The actual quote is "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons, some of which included slavery." It was a followup to my criticizing of you referring the the seceding states as one entity, leaving for one reason. Do you dispute my statement?
ip_law-hokie wrote:2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.
How so? Your position is that the war was over slavery. I'm asking whether you think that the war still would have happened if slavery had been outlawed in the seceding states.
Again, all slave states were not invaded, only the ones that seceded. Slaveowners were not arrested and imprisoned in Maryland along with those supporting secession. If the war was about slavery, why wasn't Delaware invaded as well? Why was Maryland only occupied for the purposes of keeping them from seceding, rather than to free the slaves? Why did Lincoln support slavery and enforce slavery laws? Why did Lincoln explicitly say that he wouldn't wage war over slavery, and would only use military force in the south to 1) enforce tariff collection and 2) to prevent secession.

As someone already been pointed out, you have yet to actually make an argument to support your position. Just saying that slavery is the reason for the war doesn't support itself.
Yes I dispute your statement. What other issues were relevant to these individual southern states' in deciding to secede that were not related to slavery? Name one.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
SuwaneeTim820
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:36 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by SuwaneeTim820 »

Marine Hokie wrote:Even if 100% of the confederate states gave slavery as their one and only reason for secession, that still wouldn't make it the reason for the war.
Image
User avatar
SuwaneeTim820
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:36 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by SuwaneeTim820 »

He's never going to admit it, but he knows deep down it's true. They all do.
ip_law-hokie wrote:your view is legalistic and nonsensical. Even if you refuse to admit it, we all know the southern states seceded due to slavery. And yes, the US went to war because the southern states seceded.

But if A caused B, and B caused C, most without an agenda would say that A caused C.
Marine Hokie wrote:Fortunately, the state governments gave some of the reasons. Some of them gave reasons in their ordinances of secession, and we have information on discussions during secession conventions. While slavery was a major issue in secession, most of the states didn't like the economic restrictions and tariffs imposed on them. For the Virginia government specifically, they promised to leave only if Lincoln went to war with other states (they kept the promise).

Again, while you're incorrect on the various reasons for secession, you're completely missing my point. Even if 100% of the confederate states gave slavery as their one and only reason for secession, that still wouldn't make it the reason for the war.

You just ignore everything I say without any actual refutation, and keep repeating the same general position without backing it up.

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."
The actual quote is "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons, some of which included slavery." It was a followup to my criticizing of you referring the the seceding states as one entity, leaving for one reason. Do you dispute my statement?
ip_law-hokie wrote:2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.
How so? Your position is that the war was over slavery. I'm asking whether you think that the war still would have happened if slavery had been outlawed in the seceding states.
Again, all slave states were not invaded, only the ones that seceded. Slaveowners were not arrested and imprisoned in Maryland along with those supporting secession. If the war was about slavery, why wasn't Delaware invaded as well? Why was Maryland only occupied for the purposes of keeping them from seceding, rather than to free the slaves? Why did Lincoln support slavery and enforce slavery laws? Why did Lincoln explicitly say that he wouldn't wage war over slavery, and would only use military force in the south to 1) enforce tariff collection and 2) to prevent secession.

As someone already been pointed out, you have yet to actually make an argument to support your position. Just saying that slavery is the reason for the war doesn't support itself.
Yes I dispute your statement. What other issues were relevant to these individual southern states' in deciding to secede that were not related to slavery? Name one.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by HokieFanDC »

Marine Hokie wrote:
Homebrew wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:It's no wonder you resort to things like "haha" or "ok" when you lack facts to support your position that it was a war fought over slavery. Repeating nonsense your middle school history teacher told you without knowing what you're talking about isn't always enough. Your bias is blinding you. You believe the myth of Lincoln as a anti-slavery moral crusader rather than what he actually said and did. Everything I've said is an easily verifiable (or disprovable) fact if you're so inclined.
ip_law-hokie wrote: Haha.
OK. As long as you believe your bullshit, I guess it's fine. Carry on.
Speaking of BS...you've yet to address a single point brought up in this thread.
"Haha" "Nope"
"Ok."
"Neck"
Here is the text of South Carolina's declaration of secession. This tells you what their main reason for seceding was. It starts with an S and ends with a Y.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

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 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.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by Marine Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:your view is legalistic and nonsensical.
How so?

ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you refuse to admit it, we all know the southern states seceded due to slavery.
I've shown that isn't the case.
ip_law-hokie wrote:And yes, the US went to war because the southern states seceded.
Yes. This is my main point.

ip_law-hokie wrote:But if A caused B, and B caused C, most without an agenda would say that A caused C.
Only when it fits your agenda.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by HokieFanDC »

SuwaneeTim820 wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:Even if 100% of the confederate states gave slavery as their one and only reason for secession, that still wouldn't make it the reason for the war.
Image
If that's the stance someone's going to take, then it's impossible to debate. Debates require some form of logic and reason.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by HokieFanDC »

VisorBoy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:Good point. Non-seceding states were not invaded.
Delaware and Maryland were also slave states. If the war had been about slavery, one would think that they'd have been invaded too. As it were, Delaware was mostly left alone, and Maryland was occupied only for the purpose of prohibiting secession. Secessionists in Maryland were imprisoned, while slaveowners were not.

RiverguyVT wrote: solid point.
perfect examples- Michigan, CT, RI, Mass.
Didn't secede. Didn't find themselves at war.
First of all, the war was begun by the Confederate South when Fort Sumter was attacked.

Slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War.
Well VisorBoy, I've learned that the individual states all had their own reasons for seceding. Marine is now researching what some of those were that didn't involve slavery. Stay tuned.
I edited my post. Slavery, states' rights and taxation were the primary causes.

Also, do you mind stopping with the name-calling?

Here are the declarations from Georgia, Mississippi, SC, and Texas. Slavery.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by ip_law-hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
SuwaneeTim820 wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:Even if 100% of the confederate states gave slavery as their one and only reason for secession, that still wouldn't make it the reason for the war.
Image
If that's the stance someone's going to take, then it's impossible to debate. Debates require some form of logic and reason.
Yep.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by Marine Hokie »

What's your point? Unlike IP, I'm familiar.
Please find where I said that slavery was not a big part of why SC seceded. They claimed it was the primary reason, and I see no problem with taking them at their word. I've never claimed otherwise.
HokieFanDC wrote: Here is the text of South Carolina's declaration of secession. This tells you what their main reason for seceding was. It starts with an S and ends with a Y.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by Hokie5150 »

SuwaneeTim820 wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
SuwaneeTim820 wrote: Pretty much everyone who has devoted their life to studying the issue disagrees with you.
So, you're saying the consensus among historians today is that slavery was the cause of the Civil War?
Correct.
Cute...care to address the actual question I asked? Was that the consensus of historians 50 years ago? 25?
HokieHighlander
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:10 am

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by HokieHighlander »

I think what Marine Hokie is saying that the reason for WAR was not slavery, but because the states were going to secede...I think it's just semantics here
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

Post by ip_law-hokie »

Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:your view is legalistic and nonsensical.
How so?

ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you refuse to admit it, we all know the southern states seceded due to slavery.
I've shown that isn't the case.
ip_law-hokie wrote:And yes, the US went to war because the southern states seceded.
Yes. This is my main point.

ip_law-hokie wrote:But if A caused B, and B caused C, most without an agenda would say that A caused C.
Only when it fits your agenda.
Gotcha.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Post Reply