Monckton: It’s Time For ‘Texit’ — Texas Should Secede, Thatcher Advisor Says

[DiogenesLamp]

Doesn't that imply the South was fighting to protect it?

Not at all.  Was slavery being threatened by the McDowell's 35,000 man invasion force?   


I didn't see anything in his orders regarding the disposition of slavery.

If you do not believe it was germane to why the Union was fighting,  why bring it up?

As the reason why the South started the war.

I'm having a hard time keeping up.   Isn't it your contention that they started it at Ft. Sumter?   What did Ft. Sumter have to do with Slavery?   Did they get some sort of word that Ft. Sumter was going to stop slavery or something?   


I know it commanded the entrance to the Harbor,  and could close down European Shipping in an instant,   but I know of no particular linkage between Ft. Sumter and slavery,  other than the possibility it was built using a lot of slave labor.   


You are going to have to explain this Ft. Sumter/Slavery thing to me,  cause i'm not following it on my own. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Why?  You know why.  If it is implied that congress can consent or deny state secession then consent of the states isn't required or even implied.  Your entire argument about consent of the states is gone as you should be, non-sequitur.

You really ought not continue referring to her as non-sequitur.   I'm pretty sure she isn't him.  She exhibits Very different methodology and writing style from what I remember from arguing with him.   

[RedHead]

That the South started the War is one of the topics in dispute,  but saying it's true for the sake of argument,   your statement implies they abolished slavery "because the South started the war."   

And where is that not true?  Lincoln did away with slavery in the rebellious states as a war measure.  He pushed through the 13th Amendment that later ended it nationwide.  Do you really think that slavery would have ended as soon as it did if the South had not started their war to defend slavery?

But on the subject of irony, how ironic was that?  The war that the South started to preserve slavery turned out to be what destroyed it in the U.S.

That is factually contradicted by both Abraham Lincoln and W.T. Sherman who make it clear that the South could have kept slavery,   even though they are regarded by both parties as having "started the war."   

Slavery would have continued had the South not launched its rebellion.  But in reading the Lincoln letter did you happen to notice the date - August 22, 1862?  You are aware, are you not, that by that date Lincoln had already written his Emancipation Proclamation and had discussed it with his cabinet?  All he was waiting for was a Union victory to announce it.  So by then Lincoln had taken the first step to ending slavery.

In other words,  you statement doesn't make logical sense.   They obviously didn't abolish slavery "because the South started the war."   Therefore they must have done it for some other reason.   

Yeah, because the South started the war.  And ending slavery was a war measure, legal under the Confiscation Acts in place at the time. 

But the Emancipation was *NOT*  issued on April 12,  1861.   It was issued  January 1, 1863.   See the problem?   "Cause" must precede "effect."    No time travel allowed.   Conflicts cannot have retroactive causes.   

No I don't see a problem.  The South seceded to protect slavery.  They started their war as part of that goal of protecting slavery.  The Union later ended slavery as a war measure, a war the South started.  So cause - South started the war.  Effect - Lincoln ended slavery to help win that war.  No problems at all.

In order for a war to be *about*  something,   the thing that it is about must exist at the time.    It didn't exist until 18 months later,   so obviously the war could not have been about Emancipation.

And yet you are the only one in this discussion who are claiming the U.S. went to war to end slavery.  That's your first mistake.

So why was the Union fighting those first 18 months?   

Because the South started the war.  To preserve the Union.  Take your pick since both are accurate.

[RedHead]

They were fighting because they were invaded.   Someone decided to invade for some reason that curiously didn't seem to involve instructions to do anything about slavery.   

They were "invaded", if you want to use that term, for the same reason why the Italians were invaded or the Japanese were invaded or the Germans were invaded.  They started a war.  And having started it they had nobody to blame but themselves when the war came to them.

I might get into it.   I am a firm believer in the scientific principle known as falsification.   Currently I have what I regard as a pretty good theory.   If someone knowledgeable can provide information that demonstrates the theory is incorrect,   I can toss it out.   The theory must be tested by opposition partisans.    If they can find no real holes in it,  I can regard it as sound.   

Then I can think of no group more qualified to test your theory for you.  I've been a member there for a relatively short period of time and I don't post there very often because while I feel my knowledge and understanding of the Civil War is above average it is nothing compared to most of those who post there regularly.  I am way out of my league. 

I can't imagine any more knowledgeable people on this subject than those who devote so much time to researching it.

Then the challenge is there for you to accept or decline as you see fit.

[DiogenesLamp]

And where is that not true?  Lincoln did away with slavery in the rebellious states as a war measure. 

18 months *AFTER*  the war started.   You can argue it is an escalation threat,   but you can't argue it was the *cause*.    Again,   cause must precede effect.   


As for the rest of what you wrote, I just weeded out the irrelevant bits of your argument. 

Res ipsa loquitur. 

...started their war to defend slavery?

...South started to preserve slavery

Yeah, because the South started the war.  And ending slavery was a war measure,

No I don't see a problem.  The South seceded to protect slavery.

  They started their war as part of that goal of protecting slavery. 

The Union later ended slavery as a war measure, a war the South started.

So cause - South started the war.  Effect - Lincoln ended slavery to help win that war. 

Because the South started the war. 

[DiogenesLamp]

They were "invaded", if you want to use that term, for the same reason why the Italians were invaded or the Japanese were invaded or the Germans were invaded.

Well that's not true,  because we never refused to leave Japanese or German territory which did not belong to us.   

They started a war.  And having started it they had nobody to blame but themselves when the war came to them.

Actually,   the Supreme Court has ruled that the first act of war began with the Blockade of Southern ports. 

Acts of hostility by the insurgents occurred at periods so various, and of such different degrees of importance, and in parts of the country so remote from each other, both at the commencement and the close of the late civil war, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say on what precise day it began or terminated. It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department which may be and in fact was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.

The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second.

Applying this rule to the case before us, we find that the war began in Alabama on the 19th of April, 1861, and ended on the 2d April, 1866. More than five years, therefore, had elapsed from the close of the war till the 17th of May, 1871, when this appeal was brought. The motion to dismiss, therefore, must be

Granted.

Then I can think of no group more qualified to test your theory for you.  I've been a member there for a relatively short period of time and I don't post there very often because while I feel my knowledge and understanding of the Civil War is above average it is nothing compared to most of those who post there regularly.  I am way out of my league. 

Then the challenge is there for you to accept or decline as you see fit.

I will contemplate pursing it.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

In reply 913 I was quoting Johnathan Swift to Cowboyway.  So who is lying or the mathematically challenged one?

Nope, better go reread that post again.  Wrong on the response and wrong on who you were responding to.

I had an uncle who once gave me some sound advice:  Only tell the truth, as you do not have to remember any lie you told.

And, speaking about Truth, it reminds me of one of my favorite songs by one of my favorite singers.
Also one of the most patriotic, religious songs ever.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLk330Mc6pc

[RedHead]

18 months *AFTER*  the war started.   You can argue it is an escalation threat,   but you can't argue it was the *cause*.    Again,   cause must precede effect.   

Again, I have never argued that slavery was a motivation for any side but the Confederacy.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I just weeded out the irrelevant bits of your argument. 

I must do the same for yours.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur credo.

[RedHead]

Well that's not true,  because we never refused to leave Japanese or German territory which did not belong to us.   

Neither has the U.S.

Actually,   the Supreme Court has ruled that the first act of war began with the Blockade of Southern ports. 

That whole Fort Sumter thing was just for fun, huh?

Actually the Supreme Court said nothing of the kind.  What the court ruled was:

"Acts of hostility by the insurgents occurred at periods so various, and of such different degrees of importance, and in parts of the country so remote from each other, both at the commencement and the close of the late civil war, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say on what precise day it began or terminated. It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department which may be and in fact was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.  The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second."

The court was establishing a date for the purpose of determining whether the statute of limitations had expired.

I will contemplate pursing it.   

Your compatriot Cowboyway lasted only a few weeks before he left, never to be seen again.  I'm hoping that you have more staying power than that.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Your compatriot Cowboyway

By not saying 'Our', by implication you must be saying that you are not one of the USA, (i.e. - a native or inhabitant of one's own country; fellow countryman or countrywoman, as per dictionary)?

Why else use that particular phrase, unless you are implying both of those individuals are in fact not of the USA?

@Cowboyway

[RetBobbyMI]

This thread has gotten way off base again. Gonna ignore it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Again, I have never argued that slavery was a motivation for any side but the Confederacy.

So why do you keep bringing it up when you claim it has nothing to do with why the Union invaded?   Why does it live in your head,  rent free? 


The South's motives for being independent have nothing to do with the Union's compulsion to stop their independence,  and since the Union had total control over sending in an invasion force,  it is only their reasons for doing so that matter. 

You keep steering the argument into slavery,   because you see that as somehow justifying the Union's actions...  18 months after the fact of their invasion.   


You are trying to assert a subsequent justification for a preceding event.  A sort of "retro active"  absolution.   This is almost on the same logical level as the selling of indulgences.         

Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur credo.

More like your technique (ad nauseum) was so old that it deserved a rebuttal in Latin. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Neither has the U.S.

They owned it to the same degree that the British owned New York after Independence was declared.

That whole Fort Sumter thing was just for fun, huh?

Apparently the courts didn't regard it as serious enough to point to it as the beginning of the war.   

Actually the Supreme Court said nothing of the kind.  What the court ruled was:

"Acts of hostility by the insurgents occurred at periods so various, and of such different degrees of importance, and in parts of the country so remote from each other, both at the commencement and the close of the late civil war, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say on what precise day it began or terminated. It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department which may be and in fact was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.  The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second."

Yeah,  I said that.   

The court was establishing a date for the purpose of determining whether the statute of limitations had expired.

And in the process of doing so,  decided the first act of war as having been committed by Lincoln.   

An additional point.   He wasn't "obliged to act during the recess of Congress",   he deliberately waited until he knew Congress was in recess before acting.   Another bit of evidence that this was intentional.   

Your compatriot Cowboyway lasted only a few weeks before he left, never to be seen again.  I'm hoping that you have more staying power than that.

If it is endless repetition of the same morally indignant assertions,   then I may not even last that long.   I've been in plenty of situations where everyone on a website ganged up on me,   and when I was younger,  I would still patiently kick their @$$,   but now I'm getting to a point where I have better things to do than to argue with cultists.   


There are some "true believers"  that no amount of evidence will convince,   and they tend to be the loudest and most verbose of the lot.   


If I think they can offer reasonable counter arguments,  I will listen.   If they simply keep repeating a mantra,  I won't. 

[DiogenesLamp]

This thread has gotten way off base again. Gonna ignore it.

It is perfectly reasonable for you to provide input to steer it in the direction you think it needs to go.   

[TomSea]

Demographically, the South had to let slavery go or become over-saturated with the slave population.

That's largely why parts of the East gave up slavery, so they would not have to worry about uprisings.

This is part of our present day legacy. Perhaps, instead of looking down one's noses at some high crime areas like Detroit and Chicago,  one could remember, what these folks were running from.

That is 150 years ago of course.  It caused a big mess.

[RedHead]

By not saying 'Our', by implication you must be saying that you are not one of the USA, (i.e. - a native or inhabitant of one's own country; fellow countryman or countrywoman, as per dictionary)?

Why else use that particular phrase, unless you are implying both of those individuals are in fact not of the USA?

@Cowboyway

I'm using it to recognize those who support the Confederate side of the Civil War.

[RedHead]

The South's motives for being independent have nothing to do with the Union's compulsion to stop their independence,  and since the Union had total control over sending in an invasion force,  it is only their reasons for doing so that matter. 

So the South's motivation for starting the war in the first place is irrelevant?  Good to know.

You keep steering the argument into slavery,   because you see that as somehow justifying the Union's actions...  18 months after the fact of their invasion.   

Yet you are the one claiming that the Union was motivated by slavery.

You are trying to assert a subsequent justification for a preceding event.  A sort of "retro active"  absolution.   This is almost on the same logical level as the selling of indulgences.         

Okaaay...

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If it is endless repetition of the same morally indignant assertions,   then I may not even last that long.   
There are some "true believers"  that no amount of evidence will convince,   and they tend to be the loudest and most verbose of the lot.   

If I think they can offer reasonable counter arguments,  I will listen.   If they simply keep repeating a mantra,  I won't.

They are adhering to tactics by some famous in history.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. " J. Goebbels

"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign." S. Alinksy

[RedHead]

They owned it to the same degree that the British owned New York after Independence was declared.

The Southern states were part of the U.S. before the rebellion began.  They were part of the U.S. while the rebellion was ongoing.  They were part of the U.S. after the rebellion was put down.

Apparently the courts didn't regard it as serious enough to point to it as the beginning of the war.   

You didn't read the court's decision, did you?  Do they pick the firing on Sumter?  The firing on the Star of the West?  The firing on the Rhoda Shannon?  The seizing of federal facilities?  The court had to pick a date so they chose the date of the blockade declaration.  And even then the court realized the problems that posed when they wrote, "But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second of the 27th of April, 1861, embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, embracing the State of Texas.  In the absence of more certain criteria of equally general application, we must take the dates of these proclamations as ascertaining the commencement and the close of the war in the states mentioned in them. Applying this rule to the case before us, we find that the war began in Alabama on the 19th of April, 1861, and ended on the 2d April, 1866."

You are putting words in the mouth of the court that don't belong there.

Yeah,  I said that.   

No, you said the first act of the war was the blockade proclamations.  The court itself noted that the first hostile acts of the rebellion had occurred before then.  Legally the U.S. participation in World War II began on December 8, 1941 with the declaration of war.  But the first hostile act had happened the day before.

And in the process of doing so,  decided the first act of war as having been committed by Lincoln.   

Here is a link to the court decision in The Proctor case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/79/700/case.html.  Please tell me where the court refers to it as the first act of the rebellion?

An additional point.   He wasn't "obliged to act during the recess of Congress",   he deliberately waited until he knew Congress was in recess before acting.   Another bit of evidence that this was intentional.   

He didn't have to wait long.  The House of Representatives had recessed on March 3rd, the day before his inauguration.  The Senate recessed on March 4th after confirming Lincoln's cabinet. 

If it is endless repetition of the same morally indignant assertions,   then I may not even last that long.   I've been in plenty of situations where everyone on a website ganged up on me,   and when I was younger,  I would still patiently kick their @$$,   but now I'm getting to a point where I have better things to do than to argue with cultists.   

I doubt that "moral indignation" would drive you away.  It'd be the total destruction of your arguments that would do it.

There are some "true believers"  that no amount of evidence will convince,   and they tend to be the loudest and most verbose of the lot.   

Believe me when I say I know exactly what you mean.

If I think they can offer reasonable counter arguments,  I will listen.   If they simply keep repeating a mantra,  I won't.

Give it a shot.  Should be fun.

[thackney]

Do you agree the Federal Government has abused the power granted it in the US Constitution?

If you say the compact is broken and I say it is not, then what makes you right and me wrong?

Will you answer my question before moving to a different point?

[Cowboyway]

author=RedHead link=topic=210791.msg958527#msg958527 date=1468017208

Your compatriot Cowboyway lasted only a few weeks before he left, never to be seen again.  I'm hoping that you have more staying power than that.

Exactly where is 'there'?

ETA:  Who do you post as over 'there'?

[RedHead]

Exactly where is 'there'?

Here: http://civilwartalk.com/

ETA:  Who do you post as over 'there'?

Now where's the fun in that?  You all are having such a good time trying to figure out who I was on Free Republic, if I tell you who I am on Civil War Talk then that would kill you enjoyment.

[Cowboyway]

Here: http://civilwartalk.com/

Now where's the fun in that?  You all are having such a good time trying to figure out who I was on Free Republic, if I tell you who I am on Civil War Talk then that would kill you enjoyment.

I didn't get a very nice welcome over there.  There was some jerk that was on the attack from my first post.  You?  That would make sense based on your TOS reputation and the fact that I sighed up on CWT using the same handle that I had at TOS.

If I remember correctly, you got booted from TOS when your liberalism was outed.  Do you still lean left?

BTW, have you given up on the consent of the states lunacy?  You kinda got stuck there with the implied powers of congress, didn't you.  I was wondering how you would spin it but I guess you just decided to drop it.  However, I pondered the issue and came up with some interesting questions.  Would it take both consent of the states and congressional implied power of approval for a state to leave the union?  Could one body overrule the other?  If so, which one?  Where is this process documented?  Was Chase unfamiliar with the Constitution and implied powers when he wrote the 'consent of the states' dicta?  Or, did he conclude that consent of the states was the only process for secession and that congress didn't have the implied powers to allow a state to secede?  If so, where is that documented?  If consent of the states is a requirement for secession then that would violate the equal footing doctrine unless a declaration of secession suddenly places the seceding state in a lower category.  Where is that documented?  Also, if consent of the states is a requirement would it be a unanimous consent, super majority, simple majority or what?  If so, where is this documented?

Perhaps congressional approval would be required for a state to leave the union which would make much more sense than consent of the other states since congressional rules are well established and there are no rules for consent of the states.  Don't you agree?

[RedHead]

I didn't get a very nice welcome over there.  There was some jerk that was on the attack from my first post.  You?  That would make sense based on your TOS reputation and the fact that I sighed up on CWT using the same handle that I had at TOS.

Well I went back and looked and the first real thread you posted on was in January 2014 and was titled, "Was Slavery The Only Reason For The War".  As near as I can tell your arguments were picked to shreds by Union Blue and cash and wilbur6150 among others.  But not me, sad to say.  I'm sorry I missed the fun.

If I remember correctly, you got booted from TOS when your liberalism was outed.  Do you still lean left?

No my posture is pretty good.  I stand up straight.

BTW, have you given up on the consent of the states lunacy?  You kinda got stuck there with the implied powers of congress, didn't you.  I was wondering how you would spin it but I guess you just decided to drop it.

Not at all.  I still believe that it is the only legal and sensible answer to secession.  But I've given up trying to explain it to you or anyone else, for the reason I gave in reply #913.

 However, I pondered the issue and came up with some interesting questions.  Would it take both consent of the states and congressional implied power of approval for a state to leave the union?

Yes

Could one body overrule the other?  If so, which one? 

No.  For a state to leave without Congressional approval would be the same kind of unilateral secession that led to the late unpleasantness.  For a Congress to vote for a state to leave without that state approving it would mean that a state could be turned out of the union against its will.  Something that Madison mocked.

Where is this process documented?  Was Chase unfamiliar with the Constitution and implied powers when he wrote the 'consent of the states' dicta?

A) it wasn't make in dicta.  The question of secession was a matter for the court to consider.  And B) Chase has come to the same conclusion that Madison did; the process of leaving the Union should not be any more difficult than the process of being admitted was.  Others have said that secession is impossible.  Others have said it requires a convention of the states to do.  I don't think it should be that hard.

Or, did he conclude that consent of the states was the only process for secession and that congress didn't have the implied powers to allow a state to secede? 

Since he said " The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States" then it's clear that implied in Congresses power to create a state was the power to approve the state leaving.

If so, where is that documented?

It's not.  That's the "implied" part.

If consent of the states is a requirement for secession then that would violate the equal footing doctrine unless a declaration of secession suddenly places the seceding state in a lower category.  Where is that documented?

I'm not sure what your point is here and would ask you to elaborate.

Also, if consent of the states is a requirement would it be a unanimous consent, super majority, simple majority or what?  If so, where is this documented?

If we agree that leaving should be no harder than joining then I think a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress would be sufficient.

Perhaps congressional approval would be required for a state to leave the union which would make much more sense than consent of the other states since congressional rules are well established and there are no rules for consent of the states.  Don't you agree?

OK, so I may not have been clear and if so then that's my fault.  But by "consent of the states" I mean consent as demonstrated by a vote in both houses of Congress.  If a majority of Senators and a majority of Congressmen approve then that's enough.

[austingirl]

Demographically, the South had to let slavery go or become over-saturated with the slave population.

That's largely why parts of the East gave up slavery, so they would not have to worry about uprisings.

This is part of our present day legacy. Perhaps, instead of looking down one's noses at some high crime areas like Detroit and Chicago,  one could remember, what these folks were running from.

That is 150 years ago of course.  It caused a big mess.

You attribute high crime in Northern cities to slaves running from the South? That is ludicrous. What about the former slaves that resided in the North and stayed there? I attribute the high crime rate in inner cities to the National Government creating a new plantation. The War on Poverty and the Great Society created an underclass. There are generations of fatherless families whose sole job has been cashing a welfare check. The government schools that indoctrinate and do not educate are the problem. Years of corrupt Democrat rule in those cities make the situation worse. And you blame the South? Unbelievable.


Texas secession would allow the people who revere the Founding Principles to establish a Constitutional government and restore liberty.