are you civil or military? since, civil or military, are United States Constitution Laws establish Law Word and Form, Class and office in Amendment XIV Section 3 (ratified 9 July 1868) which all so establish the ‘No person shall be’ Clause in the United States of America; civil is ‘left’ or no not military right born or naturalized citizens of the United States of America;
@@calebwarren5841it War that Military Forces wage against each others; and War is not civil nor is wage by civil persons or civil military persons : civil i a ns: civil ians : civilians; so do not down size War to war in the land of civil or military; or as as I call them: the little ones since I AM Class: Military II.5.6 which means if I go to War: IT WAR;
So I assume you supported the radical calls for economic democracy by the direct successors to the Tea Party, the Democratic Republican societies. Many of whom supported mass land redistribution, dismantling of corporate manufacturers, and breaking up all large banking institutions. Because the only thing more American than opposing political tyranny in the form of the state is opposing economic tyranny in the form of the usurious corporation.
Everything they did was legal if they want to argue the case of treason then why did we leave the British colonies we left the British colonies for the same reason that the people of the South left in 1861 we left because our rights as Americans were not being honored
@@romad357 i'm pretty sure they didn't do that until after the southern states began seceding if we're talking about the same tariff i believe your talking about.
@@romad357 For the sake of discussion, let's say that you are right that northern politicians passed tariff laws that were unpopular in the South. What Southern rights did those tariff laws violate? Were those tariffs actually unconstitutional?
Another good book that I started reading is detailed minute of soldier life in the army of Northern Virginia it was written by a member of the Richmond howitzers
My southern ancestors were no more guilty of treason than the early colonists who fought for my country's independence from England. The Confederates fought for their idea of freedom. Slavery was only a part of the reason why the South seceded from the Union. Slavery was coming to an end anyway, if you read the world's history of slavery.
@@snocamo154 couple things 1) their idea of freedom necessitated the oppression of a whole group of people which is fucked 2) based upon seccession docs from each state as well as alex stephenson cornerstone speech point all fingers to slavery as the main reason among many other reasons for betraying america.
The colonists that rebelled against the Crown were absolutely guilty of treason, to Britain. They didn't dispute that their actions were illegal or extra-legal, which is why they justified them with an appeal to natural law rather than the written law. Slavery was diminishing across the world, but Southerners were resisting that trend with a great amount of political and ideological effort. The Confederacy was created as an intentional effort to help preserve the future of the institution and promote its expansion.
Ah a Christian! So surely you support land redistribution, debt cancellation, and an end to all forms of usury as did Radical Patriots of 76, and as did the Christians of the pre-constantinian church. Usury, or unearned income, is of course a sin. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors as the Lord’s Prayer states in more direct translations.
I agree completely. And, a government set up like ours, it was inevitable. The crisis had to come. And the north played a part in that as well, a big part.
It might have been better if the Union states had forbidden the import of Southern cotton and other products to end slavery. There would have been no armed struggle that way and much less loss of life. Also, then, slaves who escaped to the pro-union states would have been free! It's a universal truth today that a country has the right to self-determination. On the other hand, what percentage of the adult population in the South even voted for the southern legislatures that voted to succeed from the Union? Only white adult males and, maybe, a few free Black adult and, maybe, these males eligible to vote also were only eligible, if they had property. In the 1850s, there wasn't universal suffrage for adults older than 21, right?
A well known rule of statutory construction states “a legislature is not bound by its prior acts.” So the framers chose that conventions called for that purpose to vote on the question of ratification.
Yeah, it was so “perpetual” that the founders ended it in 1787 by writing a new constitution and giving the states the option to ratify it or become independent again. Only 9 states ratifications were required to put the new constitution into operation. So if 9 ratified and the remaining 4 did not - guess what - the old union of 13 states would END and two separate unions of two separate nations would take its place. So much for the myth of a perpetual union. The word perpetual was optimism, not reality. No country lasts forever. Nations come. Nations go. Forms of government come and go. National borders come and go and change all of the time. CHANGE is the only constant in the history of mankind and governments.
The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4 & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now? Still a union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, & in which strife & civil war are to take the place of brotherly love & kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country, & for the welfare & progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved & the government disrupted, I shall return to my native State & share the miseries of my people & save in her defence will draw my sword on none. Give much love to Charlotte to my dear little son & believe me always your devoted father Robert E. Lee Letter to His Son.
New England was the only region of the federal republic to ever commit treason by openly trading with the British during the war of 1812. The New England states after committing treason met at Hartford Connecticut in 1814_1815 to decide if they would secceed from the rest of the federal republic. They chose not to. It was their legal right to leave had they chosen to do so. The southern states used their legal options to leave the federal republic and form a federal republic of their own. The only exception was the southern states never committed treason before or after they chose to leave the old republic
I imagine you would know. But to the readers, he was against it and was willing to start war over it. And to counter his claims against the nullification crisis based on the tariff of abominations, Calhoun said, "A deep constitutional question lies at the bottom of this controversy. . . the real question at issue is this: has the federal government the right to impose burdens on the capital and industry and freedom and liberty of one portion of the country, not with the view to revenue, but to benefit another portion of the country. Is this right?" The bigger question, does the ultimate civil power rest with the states or the union of the states? Considering the ratification documents of New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia--its pretty clear that it belongs to the states. Especially in that historic case, where tariffs were extracted from one in order to benefit another.
@confederateshop I appreciate you trying to tackle the subject, complex indeed, I never thought the Confederates were traitors, and my Ancestor was a Union soldier from Maryland
As long as a state remained in the union it could not nullify any federal law, however that doesn't mean a state cannot secede. I expect that is the way Jackson viewed it
@@olekcholewa8171 I think Lincoln is quoted as saying it was the taxes. Morrill Tariff Act of 1861 specifically. "My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.
@@BookZealots I mean i don't really care much about what Lincoln thought was the reason for the South seceeding. I want to know why the Southern States according to themselves seceeded.
if he r0se fr0m the dead he sacrificed n0thing returning fuIIy functi0naI is n0t sacrificing y0ur Iife its the very 0pp0site his return degrades the sacrifice 0thers have made and c0ncIusive pr00f he sacrificed n0thing but time
Secession might have been allowed had the seceding states done it via congress or the Supreme Court or some kind of vote. But they chose to just unilaterally leave while seizing federal property and eventually attacking a federal fort (and firing on federal ships). That put them in rebellion. Now, the states that didn't at first secede are a different thing in my opinion as they considered themselves to have been illegally invaded. Legally it was questionable what was actually legal in that regard (as was secession). But in the end the confederacy was very bad for the seceding states and the country and we still see vestiges of that today. And slavery could easily have remained legal where it was in 1861 but a small group of wealthy men could see that without expansion the southern states were going to lose their political hold on the Senate and they paniced (but fantasized about going to South America). It's complicated.
Had it gone to the Supreme Court, Lincoln would have issued arrest warrants for any judge that deemed it legal. That very thing occurred with Chief Justice Taney who ruled against Lincoln’s actions as unconstitutional. My question though is who created the Union, sovereign states or the states themselves? Read the ratification documents of NY, RI, and VA. As far as legalities, all seceded states held legal referendums within their boarders on the decision. Fort Sumter was ceded to the federal government on specific boundaries that it would be used in defense of SC. Upon the federal governments resupply of troops to that location, which was done in secret, was seen, by both sides admittedly in the official records of the “rebellion,” as an act of aggression. And we know, according to wartime law (hallams) that the aggressor in a war isn’t always the first to use force but the one who renders force necessary. Now, why would Lincoln do that is the next question.
@@confederateshop Well, this discussion has been had many a time over many a year. I'm not up for a debate on UA-cam so will just leave it at that (but I am a member of a well-respected CW forum where such things are discussed). I am glad, though, to see someone bringing up the questions where people not versed in the history of the era might see it (even though we disagree on some things).
"All of these men, which might I mention they were all agrarian southerners too." Really? Franklin, Hamilton, Hancock, Adams, Jay, Revere were agrarian southerners? Do you offer for sale Hinton Rowan Helper's 1857 work "The Impending Crisis of the South" .... I suspect not. Lee was one of the greatest military leaders spawned by the nation. He was also a traitor. George Thomas - also from Virginia - kept true to his oath, was perhaps the greatest operational general officer on either side, and paid the price for remaining loyal - both sides didn't like him. An articulate, likable young man making tired old arguments .... but doing an excellent job at it!
Were Franklin, Hamilton, Hancock, Adams, Jay and Revere mentioned in my video? No, I do not offer Helper's book--which was part of the outrage in which the South was referring to in some of the secession documents. General Lee was a loyal American and Virginian who could not abide the impending tyranny and aggression of the Lincoln regime, especially against his native states. Again, in his day, his citizenship was derived from state citizenship. When Virginia seceded, his military obligation to the US government ceased. Officers swear loyalty to the Constitution and its principle, not to governments and leaders.
I say Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan were traitors to the concept that originally formed America and all were war criminals. Even the filthy republican post-war regime did not charge Gen. Robert E. Lee with treason.
The Declaration of Independence was not incorporated in the US Constitution. The DOI's sentiments have no legal bearing at all. George Rawle's book has no legal standing. It has no authority. Threats made by Northern states are also irrelevant. This guy needs to go to law school.
I have always understood that. The DOI is just that : a declaring, a putting forth of the reasons and intent for independence from Britain. It took another decade and more to establish the Const as the Law of the Land.
I do get your point that people had different loyalties back then, but what the confederates did was objectively treason, just as our separation from the British was. Also, you mentioned that the civil war was started because the union was unwilling to evacuate fort Sumter, now that is true but I don’t think it should be categorized as aggression. If the confederates were really trying to be peaceful, why did they take federal armories? Why did they fire on union troops that were in no position to damage them? They could’ve at least tried to make their separation more peaceful, but they didn’t.
I don’t disagree as far as the colonials were concerned. But for the states, treason against what or whom? It was the states which created the union based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Many specifically outlined their intentions in their ratification documents upon entering that union (NY, RI, and VA). Fort Sumter was ceded to the Federal government specifically for the protection of Charleston. Once SC held legal referendums to seceded from that union, those agreements were void. According to wartime law (Hallams), the aggressor in a war isn’t the first to use force but the one who renders force necessary. In this case, the secretive resupply of troops and arms to that fort was seen as an act of aggression. This is admitted by Federal officers at that time.
@@confederateshop Fort Sumter was not the first U.S. Army installation forcibly captured by secessionists. In January 1861, before Louisiana formally declared its secession, its militia troops marched upon a U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge and threatened to open fire if the soldiers there did not surrender the entire stock of weapons and supplies. The outnumbered U.S. garrison surrendered. A few days later, secessionists also captured Fort Jackson at the mouth of the Mississippi River, after threatening the small U.S. Army staff there. That same month, secessionists in Alabama took over a U.S. Army arsenal at Mount Vernon and Confederates in Florida demanded the surrender of Fort Pickens at Pensacola, Florida, but were rebuffed by an army lieutenant who promised to defend the fort against any Confederate attack. Additionally, several other U.S. Army facilities--manned or unmanned--were taken by secessionists before, during, or after secession conventions in the Deep South passed their ordinances, well before Lincoln was inaugurated or ordered the resupply of Fort Sumter. Any one of those events, or all of them, could have been considered acts of rebellion or war by the United States government. Yet, federal officials--including Lincoln--did not call for open hostilities until after Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter in an undeniable use of military force to justify their political objectives. To most people then, and now, the Confederacy started the war.
You still think the union cares about black people!come on!I'm Choctaw confederate!it has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with slavery!
In regard to N.E. being the first region to seriously consider secession; as far as we know, this is correct. I don't see that this region "openly" traded with Britain during the WO1812. The economy of the area was hard hit by the war and the blockade of the coast restricting trade was a primary reason. Certainly some " bad actors" traded with England clandestinely and I would condemn that as treasonous. However, as an open, region wide policy that was treasonous.. no I disagree. The Federalists were opposed to the war for certain. Did they commit open treason in regard to trade? I don't believe so. The northern armies in the ACW did move to "invade" the southern regions/states and personally I cannot condemn the citizens from taking a defensive posture. Of course Lincoln always maintained that the seceded states were not a foreign country he was invading... there was only one country.. the USA. The actual demographic of citizens in the south who owned slaves and fought against the Union armies is something I would need to read more up on. However, to deny the fact of human slavery as a central policy and tenet of the Conf Sts of Amer is to me egregious. The institution was established to be preserved by the govt of the confedercy in it's very fabric. I support historically it's abolition and destruction. I must agree that Robert E. Lee was a traitor and General Thomas the "Rock of Chickamauga" was not. I would also note that for the most part it was the Democrat Party that was for the continuance of human slavery in the U.S. and responsible for bringing on the war for it's continuance. This I must condemn. The Republican Party at the time was the party for the preservation of the Union and the abolition of human slavery. It is an odd twist of history in regard to the demographic of the parties today... these times in which we live. I will not fault a Texan from thinking of themselves as that first.
Well, we now know what you think. The fact is America was freely formed by the constituent states. When those states freely decided to annul the bonds with it, the states of the north launched an armed invasion. The CSA lost the war and suffered horrendous war crimes from the north, but that does NOT make them incorrect. Free men have a right to self-determination.
@@justjosie0107 If free men self-determine to keep other men enslaved and denegrated to chattel and owned property then no one is free. You speak of war crimes. The centuries long enslavement and cruel treatment of Africans and their descendents who were born Americans is the crime. It's recognized as a national sin. One that was dealt with. The CSA was created to continue and propagate human slavery as a way of life.
@alexgramm5170 Americans were the descendants of those who founded, built, and fought to make her a nation. While I think it was wrong for the entire nation to have allowed slavery, that is beside the point. Slavery benefitted only the wealthy few, while actually hurting the hardy settlers who worked with their own hands. The ready availability of this owned labor retarded the innovative spirit needed. It prevented better cohesion and development of society for efficient yet beneficial solutions. No one should have been allowed to import slaves, as they were not only culturally unsuited, but were used to "keep down" too many of the original members of the society. Still, as to the War of Northern Aggression, they themselves had slaves, did not put it forward as a primary reason until 1863, and even then only called for the dissolution of ownership in the states that had succeeded. The poor but glorious soldier, fighting barefoot and in butternut uniform, hardly fought to maintain the few rich men's property. They fought for the Homeland, their soil, their ancestors, and their freedom. Obviously you will never change my mind, and undoubtedly I will not change yours. We could fight, but isn't it wiser to simply both go our own ways? Lincoln refused and committed war crimes that would have seen him in the docks at Nuremberg 80 years later, if he had been german.
@@justjosie0107 You might not change my mind but you can affect my thoughts and cause me to explain my view of things even as I work out why I see it a certain way. I'll be reading yours again to go thru each point you made. I do know that A.Lincoln said if I can save the Union by abolishing slavery I will.. if I can save it without abolishing slavery I will... if I can save it by abolishing slavery in some parts and not in others I will do that too. Maintaining the Union was the initial primary objective and with that I agree.
@alexgramm5170 Yes, it would have been best if America, north & south, had never had to go through that terrible war. I sincerely believe that if the war had never occurred, we would still have ended slavery soon after that time. The British were struggling valiantly against the slave trade and even Brazil did away with slavery, peacefully and without a war.
n0, the maj0rity 0f fighting s0uthern men were manipuIated then, as they are n0w by their despicabIe sIave 0wning I0rds and masters wh0 c0nned them int0 fighting t0 maintain a s0ciety which benefitted them IittIe they even managed t0 dupe bIacks int0 fighting f0r their 0wn c0ntinued ensIavement
Fighting to defend your family and country from invaders is not treason.
are you civil or military? since, civil or military, are United States Constitution Laws establish Law Word and Form, Class and office in Amendment XIV Section 3 (ratified 9 July 1868) which all so establish the ‘No person shall be’ Clause in the United States of America;
civil is ‘left’ or no not military right born or naturalized citizens of the United States of America;
Sounds kinda like right now. Funny how the tyrants don’t change.
Fighting a war of aggression in order to preserve the practice of slavery is though
@@calebwarren5841it War that Military Forces wage against each others; and War is not civil nor is wage by civil persons or civil military persons : civil i a ns: civil ians : civilians; so do not down size War to war in the land of civil or military; or as as I call them: the little ones since I AM Class: Military II.5.6 which means if I go to War: IT WAR;
@@paulrodgers252if this is the state ‘edited’ version, what did the original say?
Only the evil and corrupt call patriots treasonous.
1776-1861
So I assume you supported the radical calls for economic democracy by the direct successors to the Tea Party, the Democratic Republican societies. Many of whom supported mass land redistribution, dismantling of corporate manufacturers, and breaking up all large banking institutions. Because the only thing more American than opposing political tyranny in the form of the state is opposing economic tyranny in the form of the usurious corporation.
Tip for those who want power: You only end up the traitor if you are on the losing side.
Its so refreshing to see an intelligent ,articulate, and passionate young man on the right side of history. Bless you.
"History is written by the victors", as they say. Which is why we talk about 'Rebs' in the second civil war and 'Patriots' in the first.
Everything they did was legal if they want to argue the case of treason then why did we leave the British colonies we left the British colonies for the same reason that the people of the South left in 1861 we left because our rights as Americans were not being honored
what rights weren't being honored? what specific rights were so violated they necessitated breaking our country apart?
@@LSW25 The tariffs adopted that deliberately enriched the industrial North and deliberately penalized the agricultural South.
@@romad357 i'm pretty sure they didn't do that until after the southern states began seceding if we're talking about the same tariff i believe your talking about.
@@romad357 again tho what rights specifically in the constitution were violated?
@@romad357 For the sake of discussion, let's say that you are right that northern politicians passed tariff laws that were unpopular in the South. What Southern rights did those tariff laws violate? Were those tariffs actually unconstitutional?
Excellent video. Well researched !
great work
Well said.l
Well articulated young man!
Excellent
Only empires are indivisible.
Deo Vindice.
Now there's a quote I'll remember.
@@confederateshop Got it from the Kennedy Brothers,
"The South was right."
I think I’m wearing grey when we have to fight this time. God is on our side.
again ?
he was 0n y0ur side Iast time and y0u g0t y0ur arse kicked
Another good book that I started reading is detailed minute of soldier life in the army of Northern Virginia it was written by a member of the Richmond howitzers
My southern ancestors were no more guilty of treason than the early colonists who fought for my country's independence from England. The Confederates fought for their idea of freedom. Slavery was only a part of the reason why the South seceded from the Union. Slavery was coming to an end anyway, if you read the world's history of slavery.
@@snocamo154 couple things 1) their idea of freedom necessitated the oppression of a whole group of people which is fucked 2) based upon seccession docs from each state as well as alex stephenson cornerstone speech point all fingers to slavery as the main reason among many other reasons for betraying america.
The colonists that rebelled against the Crown were absolutely guilty of treason, to Britain. They didn't dispute that their actions were illegal or extra-legal, which is why they justified them with an appeal to natural law rather than the written law.
Slavery was diminishing across the world, but Southerners were resisting that trend with a great amount of political and ideological effort. The Confederacy was created as an intentional effort to help preserve the future of the institution and promote its expansion.
I rank my loyalty to my state (Louisiana) and the South higher than my loyalty to the US. I rank my loyalty to Jesus Christ as the first and highest.
thats because y0u are 0ssified and beIieve it is h0n0rabIe t0 degrade human beings int0 sIavery
Ah a Christian! So surely you support land redistribution, debt cancellation, and an end to all forms of usury as did Radical Patriots of 76, and as did the Christians of the pre-constantinian church. Usury, or unearned income, is of course a sin. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors as the Lord’s Prayer states in more direct translations.
I agree completely. And, a government set up like ours, it was inevitable. The crisis had to come. And the north played a part in that as well, a big part.
You seem to have no remorse that Confederates held human beings as hostages and forced them to do labors. That's like Hamas but much worse.
It might have been better if the Union states had forbidden the import of Southern cotton and other products to end slavery. There would have been no armed struggle that way and much less loss of life. Also, then, slaves who escaped to the pro-union states would have been free! It's a universal truth today that a country has the right to self-determination. On the other hand, what percentage of the adult population in the South even voted for the southern legislatures that voted to succeed from the Union? Only white adult males and, maybe, a few free Black adult and, maybe, these males eligible to vote also were only eligible, if they had property. In the 1850s, there wasn't universal suffrage for adults older than 21, right?
Very interesting context on the entire situation. I appreciate it. There’s always 2 sides to any story.
Yeah, so remind me again where the Declaration of Independence is a governing document of the United States?
A well known rule of statutory construction states “a legislature is not bound by its prior acts.” So the framers chose that conventions called for that purpose to vote on the question of ratification.
The Articles of Confederation said “the union shall be perpetual.”
Which all of the states then removed themselves from. So even then they knew the perpetual union was not truly perpetual.
Yeah, it was so “perpetual” that the founders ended it in 1787 by writing a new constitution and giving the states the option to ratify it or become independent again. Only 9 states ratifications were required to put the new constitution into operation. So if 9 ratified and the remaining 4 did not - guess what - the old union of 13 states would END and two separate unions of two separate nations would take its place. So much for the myth of a perpetual union. The word perpetual was optimism, not reality. No country lasts forever. Nations come. Nations go. Forms of government come and go. National borders come and go and change all of the time. CHANGE is the only constant in the history of mankind and governments.
The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4 & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now? Still a union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, & in which strife & civil war are to take the place of brotherly love & kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country, & for the welfare & progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved & the government disrupted, I shall return to my native State & share the miseries of my people & save in her defence will draw my sword on none. Give much love to Charlotte to my dear little son & believe me always your devoted father
Robert E. Lee Letter to His Son.
I still wait for an answer
New England was the only region of the federal republic to ever commit treason by openly trading with the British during the war of 1812. The New England states after committing treason met at Hartford Connecticut in 1814_1815 to decide if they would secceed from the rest of the federal republic. They chose not to. It was their legal right to leave had they chosen to do so. The southern states used their legal options to leave the federal republic and form a federal republic of their own. The only exception was the southern states never committed treason before or after they chose to leave the old republic
Thanks for sharing.
Well said, and a very valid point.
What did Andrew Jackson say and think about seccession?
I imagine you would know. But to the readers, he was against it and was willing to start war over it. And to counter his claims against the nullification crisis based on the tariff of abominations, Calhoun said, "A deep constitutional question lies at the bottom of this controversy. . . the real question at issue is this: has the federal government the right to impose burdens on the capital and industry and freedom and liberty of one portion of the country, not with the view to revenue, but to benefit another portion of the country. Is this right?" The bigger question, does the ultimate civil power rest with the states or the union of the states? Considering the ratification documents of New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia--its pretty clear that it belongs to the states. Especially in that historic case, where tariffs were extracted from one in order to benefit another.
@@confederateshop “The Union, next to our liberty, most dear.”
@confederateshop I appreciate you trying to tackle the subject, complex indeed, I never thought the Confederates were traitors, and my Ancestor was a Union soldier from Maryland
As long as a state remained in the union it could not nullify any federal law, however that doesn't mean a state cannot secede. I expect that is the way Jackson viewed it
@@panthercreek60 States can nullify unconstitutional laws.
no taxation without rep.(ie tariff ) was not about nothing but states rights
Could you please make a video laying out clearly the Southern reasons for secession?
That's going to be a long multi video seminar series.
Decades of economic abuse by the northern states made it inevitable and necessary.
@@charlescalvert8647
Yes but I'd like to know what specifically caused it
@@olekcholewa8171 I think Lincoln is quoted as saying it was the taxes. Morrill Tariff Act of 1861 specifically.
"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.
@@BookZealots
I mean i don't really care much about what Lincoln thought was the reason for the South seceeding. I want to know why the Southern States according to themselves seceeded.
@@olekcholewa8171 northern oppression with over taxation
I’ve always considered myself a Texan 1st.
@@texasaggie8449 same here
*Texian.
Well said!
Have you believed the gospel? The gospel is that Jesus died on the cross for your sins was buried and rose again the third day
Indeed. Chris is Lord, and he’s Lord of my life.
if he r0se fr0m the dead he sacrificed n0thing
returning fuIIy functi0naI is n0t sacrificing y0ur Iife its the very 0pp0site
his return degrades the sacrifice 0thers have made
and c0ncIusive pr00f he sacrificed n0thing but time
C.S.A IS GREAT PATRIOT'S
Secession might have been allowed had the seceding states done it via congress or the Supreme Court or some kind of vote. But they chose to just unilaterally leave while seizing federal property and eventually attacking a federal fort (and firing on federal ships). That put them in rebellion. Now, the states that didn't at first secede are a different thing in my opinion as they considered themselves to have been illegally invaded. Legally it was questionable what was actually legal in that regard (as was secession). But in the end the confederacy was very bad for the seceding states and the country and we still see vestiges of that today. And slavery could easily have remained legal where it was in 1861 but a small group of wealthy men could see that without expansion the southern states were going to lose their political hold on the Senate and they paniced (but fantasized about going to South America). It's complicated.
Had it gone to the Supreme Court, Lincoln would have issued arrest warrants for any judge that deemed it legal. That very thing occurred with Chief Justice Taney who ruled against Lincoln’s actions as unconstitutional. My question though is who created the Union, sovereign states or the states themselves? Read the ratification documents of NY, RI, and VA. As far as legalities, all seceded states held legal referendums within their boarders on the decision. Fort Sumter was ceded to the federal government on specific boundaries that it would be used in defense of SC. Upon the federal governments resupply of troops to that location, which was done in secret, was seen, by both sides admittedly in the official records of the “rebellion,” as an act of aggression. And we know, according to wartime law (hallams) that the aggressor in a war isn’t always the first to use force but the one who renders force necessary. Now, why would Lincoln do that is the next question.
@@confederateshop Well, this discussion has been had many a time over many a year. I'm not up for a debate on UA-cam so will just leave it at that (but I am a member of a well-respected CW forum where such things are discussed). I am glad, though, to see someone bringing up the questions where people not versed in the history of the era might see it (even though we disagree on some things).
"All of these men, which might I mention they were all agrarian southerners too." Really? Franklin, Hamilton, Hancock, Adams, Jay, Revere were agrarian southerners? Do you offer for sale Hinton Rowan Helper's 1857 work "The Impending Crisis of the South" .... I suspect not. Lee was one of the greatest military leaders spawned by the nation. He was also a traitor. George Thomas - also from Virginia - kept true to his oath, was perhaps the greatest operational general officer on either side, and paid the price for remaining loyal - both sides didn't like him. An articulate, likable young man making tired old arguments .... but doing an excellent job at it!
Were Franklin, Hamilton, Hancock, Adams, Jay and Revere mentioned in my video? No, I do not offer Helper's book--which was part of the outrage in which the South was referring to in some of the secession documents.
General Lee was a loyal American and Virginian who could not abide the impending tyranny and aggression of the Lincoln regime, especially against his native states. Again, in his day, his citizenship was derived from state citizenship. When Virginia seceded, his military obligation to the US government ceased. Officers swear loyalty to the Constitution and its principle, not to governments and leaders.
I say Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan were traitors to the concept that originally formed America and all were war criminals. Even the filthy republican post-war regime did not charge Gen. Robert E. Lee with treason.
The Declaration of Independence was not incorporated in the US Constitution. The DOI's sentiments have no legal bearing at all. George Rawle's book has no legal standing. It has no authority. Threats made by Northern states are also irrelevant. This guy needs to go to law school.
Well of course none of it has legal standing today, the North won. Look at what the Rule of Law has become.
I have always understood that. The DOI is just that : a declaring, a putting forth of the reasons and intent for independence from Britain.
It took another decade and more to establish the Const as the Law of the Land.
Look at America today, the law and justice are not the same.
I do get your point that people had different loyalties back then, but what the confederates did was objectively treason, just as our separation from the British was. Also, you mentioned that the civil war was started because the union was unwilling to evacuate fort Sumter, now that is true but I don’t think it should be categorized as aggression. If the confederates were really trying to be peaceful, why did they take federal armories? Why did they fire on union troops that were in no position to damage them? They could’ve at least tried to make their separation more peaceful, but they didn’t.
I don’t disagree as far as the colonials were concerned. But for the states, treason against what or whom? It was the states which created the union based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Many specifically outlined their intentions in their ratification documents upon entering that union (NY, RI, and VA).
Fort Sumter was ceded to the Federal government specifically for the protection of Charleston. Once SC held legal referendums to seceded from that union, those agreements were void. According to wartime law (Hallams), the aggressor in a war isn’t the first to use force but the one who renders force necessary. In this case, the secretive resupply of troops and arms to that fort was seen as an act of aggression. This is admitted by Federal officers at that time.
@@confederateshop Fort Sumter was not the first U.S. Army installation forcibly captured by secessionists. In January 1861, before Louisiana formally declared its secession, its militia troops marched upon a U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge and threatened to open fire if the soldiers there did not surrender the entire stock of weapons and supplies. The outnumbered U.S. garrison surrendered. A few days later, secessionists also captured Fort Jackson at the mouth of the Mississippi River, after threatening the small U.S. Army staff there. That same month, secessionists in Alabama took over a U.S. Army arsenal at Mount Vernon and Confederates in Florida demanded the surrender of Fort Pickens at Pensacola, Florida, but were rebuffed by an army lieutenant who promised to defend the fort against any Confederate attack. Additionally, several other U.S. Army facilities--manned or unmanned--were taken by secessionists before, during, or after secession conventions in the Deep South passed their ordinances, well before Lincoln was inaugurated or ordered the resupply of Fort Sumter.
Any one of those events, or all of them, could have been considered acts of rebellion or war by the United States government. Yet, federal officials--including Lincoln--did not call for open hostilities until after Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter in an undeniable use of military force to justify their political objectives. To most people then, and now, the Confederacy started the war.
Chattel slavery.
You still think the union cares about black people!come on!I'm Choctaw confederate!it has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with slavery!
The Confederate Shop! Profiting off old hate 👍
In regard to N.E. being the first region to seriously consider secession; as far as we know, this is correct.
I don't see that this region "openly" traded with Britain during the WO1812. The economy of the area was hard hit by the war and the blockade of the coast restricting trade was a primary reason. Certainly some " bad actors" traded with England clandestinely and I would condemn that as treasonous. However, as an open, region wide policy that was treasonous.. no I disagree.
The Federalists were opposed to the war for certain. Did they commit open treason in regard to trade? I don't believe so.
The northern armies in the ACW did move to "invade" the southern regions/states and personally I cannot condemn the citizens from taking a defensive posture.
Of course Lincoln always maintained that the seceded states were not a foreign country he was invading... there was only one country.. the USA.
The actual demographic of citizens in the south who owned slaves and fought against the Union armies is something I would need to read more up on. However, to deny the fact of human slavery as a central policy and tenet of the Conf Sts of Amer is to me egregious. The institution was established to be preserved by the govt of the confedercy in it's very fabric.
I support historically it's abolition and destruction.
I must agree that Robert E. Lee was a traitor and General Thomas the "Rock of Chickamauga" was not.
I would also note that for the most part it was the Democrat Party that was for the continuance of human slavery in the U.S. and responsible for bringing on the war for it's continuance. This I must condemn.
The Republican Party at the time was the party for the preservation of the Union and the abolition of human slavery.
It is an odd twist of history in regard to the demographic of the parties today... these times in which we live.
I will not fault a Texan from thinking of themselves as that first.
Well, we now know what you think. The fact is America was freely formed by the constituent states. When those states freely decided to annul the bonds with it, the states of the north launched an armed invasion. The CSA lost the war and suffered horrendous war crimes from the north, but that does NOT make them incorrect. Free men have a right to self-determination.
@@justjosie0107 If free men self-determine to keep other men enslaved and denegrated to chattel and owned property then no one is free.
You speak of war crimes. The centuries long enslavement and cruel treatment of Africans and their descendents who were born Americans is the crime.
It's recognized as a national sin. One that was dealt with. The CSA was created to continue and propagate human slavery as a way of life.
@alexgramm5170 Americans were the descendants of those who founded, built, and fought to make her a nation. While I think it was wrong for the entire nation to have allowed slavery, that is beside the point. Slavery benefitted only the wealthy few, while actually hurting the hardy settlers who worked with their own hands. The ready availability of this owned labor retarded the innovative spirit needed. It prevented better cohesion and development of society for efficient yet beneficial solutions. No one should have been allowed to import slaves, as they were not only culturally unsuited, but were used to "keep down" too many of the original members of the society. Still, as to the War of Northern Aggression, they themselves had slaves, did not put it forward as a primary reason until 1863, and even then only called for the dissolution of ownership in the states that had succeeded. The poor but glorious soldier, fighting barefoot and in butternut uniform, hardly fought to maintain the few rich men's property. They fought for the Homeland, their soil, their ancestors, and their freedom. Obviously you will never change my mind, and undoubtedly I will not change yours. We could fight, but isn't it wiser to simply both go our own ways? Lincoln refused and committed war crimes that would have seen him in the docks at Nuremberg 80 years later, if he had been german.
@@justjosie0107 You might not change my mind but you can affect my thoughts and cause me to explain my view of things even as I work out why I see it a certain way. I'll be reading yours again to go thru each point you made.
I do know that A.Lincoln said if I can save the Union by abolishing slavery I will.. if I can save it without abolishing slavery I will... if I can save it by abolishing slavery in some parts and not in others I will do that too. Maintaining the Union was the initial primary objective and with that I agree.
@alexgramm5170 Yes, it would have been best if America, north & south, had never had to go through that terrible war. I sincerely believe that if the war had never occurred, we would still have ended slavery soon after that time. The British were struggling valiantly against the slave trade and even Brazil did away with slavery, peacefully and without a war.
I agree... They ALL were traitors!
n0, the maj0rity 0f fighting s0uthern men were manipuIated then, as they are n0w
by their despicabIe sIave 0wning I0rds and masters
wh0 c0nned them int0 fighting t0 maintain a s0ciety which benefitted them IittIe
they even managed t0 dupe bIacks int0 fighting f0r their 0wn c0ntinued ensIavement