Top military officer labels Confederacy as treasonous as Pentagon takes ‘hard look’ at rebel ties

[EdinVA]

This topic sparked my curiosity so, I got out my shovel.... lol

Enacted on July 13, 1832, this was referred to as a protectionist tariff in the United States. The purpose of this tariff was to act as a remedy for the conflict created by the Tariff of 1828. The protective Tariff of 1828 was primarily created to protect the rapidly growing industry-based economy of the North. Because of this, the Tariff of 1828 was also called the Tariff of Abominations by Southern states, as it seemed unfair on the part of the government to favor the North's economic and sociopolitical power by forcefully reducing the value of the South's agricultural-based economy by imposing excessive tariffs on Southern goods. As compared to the gross economic disparity created by the protective Tariff of 1832, it proved to be an unsatisfactory measure by Northern politicians to quell the protests rising from the South. Its predecessor pushed the duties on citizens which were as high as 45 percent on the value of specific manufactured goods, while the Tariff of 1832 act brought it down to 35%. For instance, the tariffs on hemp, which had been raised to $60 a ton in 1828, was reduced to a $40 a ton in 1832, as a result of a tariff enacted that same year by a Northern-dominated federal congress. Even then Southerners were not happy with it. Eventually, their unrest and dissatisfaction was what led to the nullification crisis. Along with that, another bill was passed, Tariff of 1833.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1832#:~:text=The%20Tariff%20of%201832.%20Enacted%20on%20July%2013%2C,the%20rapidly%20growing%20industry-based%20economy%20of%20the%20North.
 

Passed by Congress at the urging of President Andrew Jackson, the Force Bill consisted of eight sections expanding presidential power and was designed to compel the state of South Carolina's compliance with a series of federal tariffs, opposed by John C. Calhoun and other leading South Carolinians. Among other things, the legislation stipulated that the president could, if he deemed it necessary, deploy the U.S. Army to force South Carolina to comply with the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Bill

So, the big northern corporations of the day owned the politicians and used that ownership to protect and grow their wealth using tariffs, not slavery,  thus sowing the seeds for the civil war.
And the relevance is...... how does this compare to today's situation???

[Slide Rule]

YOU are so FOS your eyes are brown!

Damn Bigun, that is outstanding. Glad you did not hold back.

I may borrow it for another forum if it isn't copyrighted.

Al

[Bigun]

Damn Bigun, that is outstanding. Glad you did not hold back.

I may borrow it for another forum if it isn't copyrighted.

Al

Be my guest @Slide Rule and thanks!

I will not see anything posted by @Mesclone from here on out. I have neither the time nor patience for his BS.

[Mesaclone]

Be my guest @Slide Rule and thanks!

I will not see anything posted by @Mesclone from here on out. I have neither the time nor patience for his BS.

I can see how viewing posts that disagree with your own view would cause tremendous cognitive dissonance for you. Better to ignore anything that contradicts your "belief" and be driven by your confirmation bias and "feelings" on the issue...facts and reasoning aren't worth your time.

[EdinVA]

I can see how viewing posts that disagree with your own view would cause tremendous cognitive dissonance for you. Better to ignore anything that contradicts your "belief" and be driven by your confirmation bias and "feelings" on the issue...facts and reasoning aren't worth your time.

Well, dictionaries aside.... Now I am not a "dixie will rise again" guy... just interested in the truth..

The original views of the United States was basically each state was free to operate within its own boundary's as it saw fit (states rights) and the federal government was to administer those issues common to all states (securing the borders, international trade, etc).  Then in the 1830's the feds took sides with the northern corporations and began charging the southern corporations tariffs and thus exceeded the national governments authority under the Constitution setting the stage for succession.  The northern corporations used the federal forces to invade basically another country to force compliance with with northern edicts.

This has been stated many times by @Bigun as well as others and your continual refusal digest that information and incorporate it into your own presentation demonstrates an unyielding bias towards your own perception of the facts.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I"m against simply because I don't want to appease these people. I have no respect for this guy now, none. I'm not sure I see the military in the same light I once did either.

[Mesaclone]

I"m against simply because I don't want to appease these people. I have no respect for this guy now, none. I'm not sure I see the military in the same light I once did either.

Let's be clear. I'm 100% against tearing down any statue. What I'm saying is, there are a number of statues that deserve to be in a museum rather than on the public square. Putting them in the correct venue would be the right thing to do AND would undermine this BLM garbage.

[Hoodat]

They jointly agreed to BUILD upon the Articles to effect a more functional and secure binding of their fates. That is quite different than a secession.

So the articles were binding unless they could come up with a reason you approved of.  Got it.

Your argument was that no State was allowed to leave the Union per the Articles of Confederation.  Yet all thirteen signatories of the Articles of Confederation independent of each other left that confederation.

Either there was a means of escape or there was not.  And history clearly teaches that there was.  Take Rhode Island for  example.  Rhode Island did not even participate in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.  They were not even part of the process.  But afterwards, they found that they were no longer part of the Confederation, nor were they part of the new Constitutional Union.  Almost two years would go by before Rhode Island took action to adopt the new Constitution.  So explain that legally binding part about the Articles of Confederation.  Because Rhode Island never said they wanted to reject it, yet it was still dissolved.  In other words, it is not as legally binding as you make it out to be, nor is it applicable to our Constitution.

The bottom line is that before ratifying, Virginia specifically asked for the right to opt out at a later date if the new government did not live up to the Constitutional standards set forth.  This right was affirmed, and Virginia signed on.  And 73 years later, their nation was in willful violation of its Constitution, upon which grievances were clearly stated in their decision to secede.

[Bigun]

So the articles were binding unless they could come up with a reason you approved of.  Got it.

Your argument was that no State was allowed to leave the Union per the Articles of Confederation.  Yet all thirteen signatories of the Articles of Confederation independent of each other left that confederation.

Either there was a means of escape or there was not.  And history clearly teaches that there was.  Take Rhode Island for  example.  Rhode Island did not even participate in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.  They were not even part of the process.  But afterwards, they found that they were no longer part of the Confederation, nor were they part of the new Constitutional Union.  Almost two years would go by before Rhode Island took action to adopt the new Constitution.  So explain that legally binding part about the Articles of Confederation.  Because Rhode Island never said they wanted to reject it, yet it was still dissolved.  In other words, it is not as legally binding as you make it out to be, nor is it applicable to our Constitution.

The bottom line is that before ratifying, Virginia specifically asked for the right to opt out at a later date if the new government did not live up to the Constitutional standards set forth.  This right was affirmed, and Virginia signed on.  And 73 years later, their nation was in willful violation of its Constitution, upon which grievances were clearly stated in their decision to secede.

All true @Hoodat and further the convention was CALLED for the purpose of amending the articles but that body decided to simply throw the articles out and write a new Constitution instead.  When that happened, the entire N.Y. delegation save Hamilton declared it a rump convention and went home.  The sophistry is thick in the arguments of some posters here.

[Hoodat]

Nonsense. As @Bigun already demonstrates, the federal government is a creature of the various states. The signators creating that creature by the very nature of what a contract is, have a perfect right to quit any obligation the moment that contract is broken. A broken contract is rendered null.

Correct.  And the federal government was in violation of that contract.

Article IV, Sec 2

No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Like it or not, the Federal government was in willful violation of this section.  From a legal standpoint, the South's secession was valid.  Lincoln did what he thought was right.  But it simply was not legal.

[Chosen Daughter]

Without a doubt contracts are not forever. And certainly not when they are broken. When they are broken the signators have a natural right to a quit claim. That is the nature of sovereignty, be it individual or otherwise.

Truth and the people have the right to form militias.  I am questioning this now.  After reading Scalia on the issue.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/  I find it hard to believe that a state however is subject to Federal Anarchy.  And if the government becomes so corrupt that it cannot protect its citizens there must be a clause to allow citizens to overthrow it.

If this country continues to spiral uncontrolled and lawlessness unchecked I think the reality will be chaos as people begin to form their own law enforcement.  The government has the obligation to the people to stop anarchy.  To protect all citizens from foreign and domestic threat.

And the President can have all the interviews with Shawn Hannity he wants telling them Democrats haven't asked for help.  He has the duty to restore order to the states.

[Absalom]

This topic sparked my curiosity so, I got out my shovel.
So, the big northern corporations of the day owned the politicians and used that ownership
to protect and grow their wealth using tariffs, not slavery, thus sowing the seeds for the civil war.
And the relevance is...... how does this compare to today's situation???

-----------------------------
On the mark.
The Agrarian/Rural Democrats of the South were our only Principled Conservative Party;
their core values included the primacy of States Rights and the economic power of Free Trade.
In contrast, the Republicans were a northern Party supported by the Mercantile Class whose
core values included Strong Centralized Government and aggressive Trade Protectionism.

Every day on TBR, w/o fail, the usual suspects rant and rage about the evil D's and the
conservative R's; when in fact the R's created our current morass, post Civil War to Hoover!
They were never, ever conservative; NOT FOR A DAY!!!

[Bigun]

-----------------------------
On the mark.
The Agrarian/Rural Democrats of the South were our only Principled Conservative Party;
their core values included the primacy of States Rights and the economic power of Free Trade.
In contrast, the Republicans were a northern Party supported by the Mercantile Class whose
core values included Strong Centralized Government and aggressive Trade Protectionism.

Every day on TBR, w/o fail, the usual suspects rant and rage about the evil D's and the
conservative R's; when in fact the R's created our current morass, post Civil War to Hoover!
They were never, ever conservative; NOT FOR A DAY!!!

Many of the founders of the Republican Party were what historians refer to as 48ers (Leaders of failed Marxist revolutions in Europe in and around 1848 who had escaped their home countries a half step ahead of the hangman and came to this country)  Many of those people later served as high ranking officers in Mr. Lincolns Army and cabinet.

Joseph Weydemeyer

August Willich

There are many others as well.

Edit to add: I know that posting things like this makes me very unpopular with some here but historical facts are historical facts and we should not ever deny them.

[sneakypete]

I"m against simply because I don't want to appease these people. I have no respect for this guy now, none. I'm not sure I see the military in the same light I once did either.

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

Neither do I,and I am a former career NCO.

[sneakypete]

This topic sparked my curiosity so, I got out my shovel.... lol

So, the big northern corporations of the day owned the politicians and used that ownership to protect and grow their wealth using tariffs, not slavery,  thus sowing the seeds for the civil war.
And the relevance is...... how does this compare to today's situation???

@EdinVA

100 PERCENT IDENTICAL!

We,or the Dims,anyhow,still have slaves. We just call slavery "Welfare" now.

And the norther industrialists/bankers STILL have  a stranglehold on the nations economy. Why else do you think we still have soldiers in Pelosi Holes like Afghanistan? WTH do you think owns the defense factories?

As Joe Friday used to say on teebee,"Nothing has been changed but the names."

[Smokin Joe]

No, its not ex post facto. If states were in rebellion in 1864, those folks fighting for them were covered by the act...and as secession was not recognized as a right they were still part of the United States. Period.

The States withdrew from the compact prior to the passage of the law, well before 1864.

[catfish1957]

The States withdrew from the compact prior to the passage of the law, well before 1864.

Shades of TOS back in the day with Wlat and Appy Pappy.  Some people just love pissing on southern heritage because of  a instituiton that died 5 generations and over 150 years ago.

You are not going to change Mescalone's white guilt.  It's hermetically sealed.

[Smokin Joe]

I find it best to cite one of the greatest conservative jurists of the last century...Antonin Scalia.

"If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."

As Scalia said, the constitutional question of secession is now resolved. Settled. Over. Secession, without the consent of the broader Union, is not allowed.

Scalia argued that the question was not in the realm of legal possibility because 1) the United States would not be party to a lawsuit on the issue 2) the “constitutional” basis of secession had been “resolved by the Civil War,” and 3) there is no right to secede, as the Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line “one nation, indivisible.”


Let me guess....Antonin Scalia is just another squishy liberal.

Now ask yourself, who is the more qualified of these legal scholars....Hoodat....roamer1....or Antonin Scalia? Hint: It ain't Hoodat or roamer1.

The Pledge wasn't even written until 1892. So waving that as casus belli in 1860 would require considerable prescience.

[Chosen Daughter]

Gen. Mark A. Milley thank you for your service and I wish you the greatest
of success in civilian life.

I don't think its going to happen.  Trump is the BLM president.   Kanye West running is about taking votes from Biden.  I imagine he is going to rejoin Trump for more BLM pandering.

[Smokin Joe]

Shades of TOS back in the day with Wlat and Appy Pappy.  Some people just love pissing on southern heritage because of  a instituiton that died 5 generations and over 150 years ago.

You are not going to change Mescalone's white guilt.  It's hermetically sealed.

I'm just pointing out a few material errors.

[EdinVA]

I find it best to cite one of the greatest conservative jurists of the last century...Antonin Scalia.

"If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."

As Scalia said, the constitutional question of secession is now resolved. Settled. Over. Secession, without the consent of the broader Union, is not allowed.

Scalia argued that the question was not in the realm of legal possibility because 1) the United States would not be party to a lawsuit on the issue 2) the “constitutional” basis of secession had been “resolved by the Civil War,” and 3) there is no right to secede, as the Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line “one nation, indivisible.”


Let me guess....Antonin Scalia is just another squishy liberal.

Now ask yourself, who is the more qualified of these legal scholars....Hoodat....roamer1....or Antonin Scalia? Hint: It ain't Hoodat or roamer1.

So your position is that no matter what, states do not have the rights to self determination?
How about is Islam takes over Washington?
By declaring absolute rule over the states no matter how, the states must submit... Not me...

[Smokin Joe]

Reinforcing Scalia's view on the invalidity of secession, are the opinions of Supreme Court Justice Chase.

 â€œThe 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.”

The interpretation of the applied meaning of the Constitution, and of the law, is tasked to the Supreme Court (Courts) via the Constitution. That Constitutionally tasked body has ruled...repeatedly...that secession is illegal and therefore treasonous. That, quite literally, makes this interpretation the law of the land. Individuals may agree or disagree with the correctness of the ruling, but it is the opinion of the United States of America that secession is an act of treason. Period.

Of course it would. No bias there. After secession, that court had no more jurisdiction or authority of the states which seceded than Lincoln had in 1863 with his proclamation.
The People, and the States, had exercised their reserved Right to secede, following to wit:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

. and

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.

The power to secede was not prohibited.
There is an entire logical disconnect between proclaiming that Right, and then nullifying it.
If governments reigned in perpetuity, one of my relatives would be on the English throne and the Tudors would not.
It just doesn't work that way.

[Smokin Joe]

Let's be clear. I'm 100% against tearing down any statue. What I'm saying is, there are a number of statues that deserve to be in a museum rather than on the public square. Putting them in the correct venue would be the right thing to do AND would undermine this BLM garbage.

Fine. Drag those rocks off the Mall with MLK on them and  put them in your Museum of White Guilt.

[Hoodat]

To be fair, anyone in the Confederacy WAS a traitor

A traitor to what, exactly?  Certainly not traitors to the Constitution.  The chief grievance of Southern States was that the Federal government was violating its own Constitution.  If anyone should be considered a traitor here, it should be the ones holding federal power who willfully allowed the Constitution to be ignored at the expense of Southern States.

As for Lincoln, he was handed an extremely bad hand.  Buchanan is the one who set the stage, not Lincoln.  But that did not make Lincoln's actions any more lawful.

[Hoodat]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

and

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.

The power to secede was not prohibited.

Easy now, let's not put too much emphasis on what Jefferson and Madison said.  What do they know?

[/sarc]