the Constitution, Succession, and the Civil War

yes another one of these. Just been doing alot of research and what to state something.

The Constitution does not say you can succede at any time. What the Constitution does do is recognize that our nation will have an elected president. This is a contract the people accepted.

It doesnt say if you dont like the eprson elected president then you can leave the United States.

When did the South sucede? BEFORE LINCOLN WAS INAGURATED sounds like treason to me. They blatantly broke the COnstitution agreement reguarding the presidency.

The south left and succeded because they were Fire-Eater democrats that wanted slavery to expand westward. They were thuroughly defeated by Lincoln (impressive since Lincoln was not on the ballot in some southern states (LIKE TEXAS))

Exerpt from the reasons given for Texas' Succession

under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution

Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State


^^^^^that last line is comical what the fuck do they think the Mexican-American War started over?

Most telling statement vvvvvv

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.



States Rights my ass guys, if you cant read from the very people that succeded that this was about slavery then you dont want to accept facts.

States Rights is jargon for protecting slavery WHICH LINCOLN WAS NOT GOING TO ABOLISH his political positions where that slavery would stay in its form in the South.


Up for a laugh read this statement

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations



yep the Declaration Causes of Succession sure werent about slavery it was all about states rights.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Another Civil War thread Bird? hahaha.. tell you what, it's gotta be one of the most interesting periods in american history, the Civil War changed everything, so it's a subject worth discussing.

When I get more time i'll read all of the OP and respond.

P.S. i'd always read that the South had a legal right to sucede.

ya thats a pretty big MYTH in america, same as Davey Crockett being a frontiersman (he was a congressman that fought in the Red Creek Indian War)

the Constitution does not say a state has the right to or not to sucede, what it does say is that the President elect will be the President, since they suceeded before Lincolns inaguration it is clearly an act of treason and violation of the Constitution

bird wrote:ya thats a pretty big MYTH in america, same as Davey Crockett being a frontiersman (he was a congressman that fought in the Red Creek Indian War)

the Constitution does not say a state has the right to or not to sucede, what it does say is that the President elect will be the President, since they suceeded before Lincolns inaguration it is clearly an act of treason and violation of the Constitution

I read something a few years back, that according to several mexican soldiers accounts of the Battle of the Alamo, unlike the popular myth that the American/Texican defenders died to the last man, the accounts stated that a dozen or more had surrendered. Among those who surrendered, one was alleged to be Davy Crockett, who was later executed. Most "Texican" accounts of what happened at the Alamo, seem to be Texas folklore, and the reality is something quite different.

I would dispute that because Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was famous for executing all survivors, as he did in the Alamo and massacre of Goliad....a few people did escape the Alamo though.

David (he was not called Davey) Crocket was a congressman for nearly 20 years, lost re-election, went to Texas because he was pissed at Tennessee, he was not fond of Andrew Jackson (as Disney would want you to believe) THAT IS THE REASON HE WENT TO THE ALAMO

Why??? Because Sam Houston (personal friend of Andrew Jackson) was controlling the Texas (rebel) militia in east texas. James Bowie (who was an actual frontiersman) and later Austin Travis (who was a huge racist against mexicans) were not friends with Jackson so Crockett went to the Alamo.

Another interesting "myth" is the battle of San Jacinto

1. It was not a surprise attack while the mexicans where having ciesta. It has been referred to a surprise attack, because the timing of the attack was not normal (took place around 4 in the afternoon)
2. Claims say the Texas Army attacked and massacred the Mexican army within 16 minutes. UTTER BULLSHIT. The battle may have lasted 16 minutes, but the mass execution probably took hours. What do we know about wars and battles? THere is always more wounded than killed.
700 mexicans killed, 200 + wounded, 9 texans killed. 700 mexicans killed in 16 minutes, BULLSHIT!

Was simply revenge on Santa Anna for massacering over 400 at Goliad and the Alamo slaughter.

also, the belief that the Texas Army defeated the Mexican army is not factually correct.

After Alamo was captured (400+dead) and the slaughter at Goliad (over 400 executed(they had surrendered)) Sam Houston did a genius move called the "Runaway Scrap" basically he traveled east through Texas and into Louisiana, gaining more recruits along the way. He went from having around 700 men to over 1,000 men because of this,

Most importantly moron Santa Anna led the column (he split his army) furthest after Sam Houston. Simply put, when Sam Houston attacked Santa Anna's column at San Jacinto it was the Texas Army against 1 regiment of the Mexican Army. Because Santa Anna was a moron and went so deep into Texas without support, he was captured (by accident) and forced to surrender Texas from Mexico.

If Santa Anna had not been leading that column Texas may still be a part of Mexico.

bird wrote:also, the belief that the Texas Army defeated the Mexican army is not factually correct.

After Alamo was captured (400+dead) and the slaughter at Goliad (over 400 executed(they had surrendered)) Sam Houston did a genius move called the "Runaway Scrap" basically he traveled east through Texas and into Louisiana, gaining more recruits along the way. He went from having around 700 men to over 1,000 men because of this,

Most importantly moron Santa Anna led the column (he split his army) furthest after Sam Houston. Simply put, when Sam Houston attacked Santa Anna's column at San Jacinto it was the Texas Army against 1 regiment of the Mexican Army. Because Santa Anna was a moron and went so deep into Texas without support, he was captured (by accident) and forced to surrender Texas from Mexico.

If Santa Anna had not been leading that column Texas may still be a part of Mexico.

Oh well, Mexicans still seem to think they own it. hahaha. Santa Anna ceded Texas so that his life would be spared.

As you probably know, there's a dreary looking San Jacinto memorial in Houston, Texas. I went to see it one day when I lived in Houston, with my wife.

Ring wrote:

bird wrote:also, the belief that the Texas Army defeated the Mexican army is not factually correct.

After Alamo was captured (400+dead) and the slaughter at Goliad (over 400 executed(they had surrendered)) Sam Houston did a genius move called the "Runaway Scrap" basically he traveled east through Texas and into Louisiana, gaining more recruits along the way. He went from having around 700 men to over 1,000 men because of this,

Most importantly moron Santa Anna led the column (he split his army) furthest after Sam Houston. Simply put, when Sam Houston attacked Santa Anna's column at San Jacinto it was the Texas Army against 1 regiment of the Mexican Army. Because Santa Anna was a moron and went so deep into Texas without support, he was captured (by accident) and forced to surrender Texas from Mexico.

If Santa Anna had not been leading that column Texas may still be a part of Mexico.

Oh well, Mexicans still seem to think they own it. hahaha. Santa Anna ceded Texas so that his life would be spared.
As you probably know, there's a dreary looking San Jacinto memorial in Houston, Texas. I went to see it one day when I lived in Houston, with my wife.

Without a doubt, it really makes you wonder cause if Mexico keeps Texas, United States doesnt go to war with exico over the Mexican-Texas border (which is what the war started over)

We still would have probably made a big land grab on Mexico somehow with manifest destiny but you really gotta wonder? That war gave us everything from Texas to the West, including Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevade, Oregon, etc.

Gotta wonder what would have happened if Anna wasnt such a moron

Without a doubt, it really makes you wonder cause if Mexico keeps Texas, United States doesnt go to war with exico over the Mexican-Texas border (which is what the war started over)

We still would have probably made a big land grab on Mexico somehow with manifest destiny but you really gotta wonder? That war gave us everything from Texas to the West, including Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada, Oregon, etc.

Gotta wonder what would have happened if Anna wasnt such a moron

Yeah, Santa Anna wasn't the shapest tack in the box, the fact is, Mexico at that time was a small country with a small army, there's no way they could have ever controlled an area as large as Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada, and Oregon, they'd overloaded their ass with territory.

Another Great "land grab" for the U.S. was The Louisiana Purchase in 1803, from another 'moron', Napoleon of France, who needed funds (he got $15 million), to support his military ventures in Europe.

Ring wrote:Another Civil War thread Bird? hahaha..

Admit it - you're just trying to bait Marble into coming back here with this, aren't ya Bird?

Tobe wrote:

Ring wrote:Another Civil War thread Bird? hahaha..

Admit it - you're just trying to bait Marble into coming back here with this, aren't ya Bird?

DUH, WINNER