Cause of Civil War

The Declaration of Independence though is outlining extra-legal rights, rights that are beyond those instituted by a STATE, rights reserved to the individual and the corporate body.And the South did go to war to separate.As I pointed out way up thread, the biggest difference I see is that the Declaration was a joint statement (except maybe from New York) of the Colonies that set out the object as well as the reasoning that led to the decision. I know of no comparable missive from the South.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Along those lines what about the beating of Senator Sumner in the Senate chamber by one of his Southern colleaguesCharles Sumner - Wikipedia

quote:

---

He [Sumner] also portrayed Butler as having taken "a mistress who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sightI mean, the harlot, Slavery." Sumner's three-hour oration later became particularly personally insulting as he mocked the 59-year-old Butler's manner of speech and physical mannerisms, both of which were impaired by a stroke that Butler had suffered earlier...

​

Two days later, on the afternoon of May 22, Brooks, confronted Sumner as he sat writing at his desk in the almost empty Senate chamber. Brooks was accompanied to the chamber by Keitt and Henry A. Edmundson of Virginia (the latter taking no part in the assault). Brooks addressed Sumner, "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." As Sumner began to stand up, Brooks began beating Sumner severely on the head with a thick gutta-percha cane with a gold head before he could reach his feet. Sumner was knocked down and trapped under the heavy desk (which was bolted to the floor), but Brooks continued to bash Sumner until Brooks ripped the desk from the floor. By this time, Sumner was blinded by his own blood, and he staggered up the aisle and collapsed, lapsing into unconsciousness. Brooks continued to beat the motionless Sumner until his cane broke at which point he left the chamber. Several other senators attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Keitt who brandished a pistol and shouted, "Let them be!"

---

quote:

---

She meets her sisters on the plain-
"Sic semper!" 'tis the proud refrain
That baffles minions back amain,
Arise in majesty again,
Maryland! My Maryland!

---

A bit tacky given Lincoln's final fate. I know this is not was not meant to link to JW Booth originally, but the song was adopted as the state song in 1939. Probably promoted for adoption by the UDC or the Sons of the Confederacy.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Without participation from Artie on this thread it is pretty much dead. I figured he would have no way to back his claims and assertions with any sort of coherent argument or any evidence. His lack of participation has shown this to be true. As I told slevesque on another thread, if you present unevidenced assertions you have every reason to expect to be called out. If you don't want to or can not back your arguments don't make them here. I and others will demand evidence.I would like to thank everyone that made this an interesting thread. Dr A, Anglagard, NWR, NoNukes, Bluejay and Jar, showed how to have a meaningful thread with evidence presented to bolster ones argument.I think a review of this thread would be a good lesson for apologists and fundies on how to present evidence and back ones argument.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Some people have lives, Theo.I didn't post for a month because I was too busy.It hasn't even been a week since they've posted here:EvC Forum: Artemis Entreri Topic IndexMaybe if they had a bunch of messages in other threads you'd have a point, but they haven't posted at all since they last posted in this thread, and it hasn't even been a week yet.

The thread is up to 110 posts, artie made 3. 2 were just more unevidenced assertions. The third used a paragraph from wiki followed by more assertions. All of his arguments have been countered quite well.My comment about lack of participation was not the lack since his last post, but his lack since the initiation of the thread.From his first post to the thread. He never addressed the Lee part of the OP at all. He only addressed two states out 6 that he made assertions about and he hasn't made a post since this classic of debating style. Now do you want to add to the thread or were you just happy to find another way to show your dislike for me.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No, I basically just wanted to vent my dislike for you. You do more nitpicking than actually adding anything to the discussion and apprently you don't like the taste of your own medicince. I did misunderstand you there... but I still don't like you

Well at least you admit that it was nothing more than a personal attack. Keep on the high road there CS. Did you notice how I had a very clear, understandable explanation to counter your criticism. You admit that yours is nothing but a personal attack, much different than me. I don't give a rats ass. I don't come here to be liked. Maybe you might want to consider arguing the point instead of the person.Like I asked before, do you have anything to add to this thread or do you just want to show you don't like me?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I notice that Theodoric is somewhat summing up in recent posts such as Message 109. Since I haven't yet commented on the above point by Blue Jay, perhaps now is the time to do so.It has been my impression that, from the union perspective, preserving the union was a major motivation.We have, I think, been mainly talking about the reasons behind those who chose to secede and those who decided to commit to opposing the secession - that is, the leadership on both sides. What motivated the rank and file could be significantly different. During political seasons, we see all kinds of propaganda, and I expect it was the same at the time of the civil war. So we might expect a wider variety of motivations for the rank and file, than from the leadership.Although most of the discussion here has been contrary to the view that Artemis Entreri was expressing, it is quite possible that he got that view passed down through several generations, and it might reflect what his ancestors believed that they were fighting for.

There were some comments about the legality of secession. I am not sure that the founders thought it would be something that was legal or allowed.Washington made it very clear in the document known as "Washington's Legacy" which he wrote as the war was coming to an end.
From his "Circular to State Governments"

quote:

---

There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

​

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.

---

8 June 1783
Source

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

And so on.I shall still maintain that every State has the right to secede, whether or not this action may be prudent. It was not.

Could you elaborate a bit? What is the basis for such a right? What would be the appropriate process under which a state could sever the relationship between one of its citizens and the federal government against that citizen's will?

Revolution.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I gotta reply after reading all this, then I will get back to my point. WTF is this? F your country Thanks for a well thought out response, some of it has merit. Then we get to this gem at the bottom of it, and your whole point is ruined. Whine-one-one!?!
We need a WHAAAAAMBULANCE here at EvC. Theo has nothing to say or contribute so he goes for something else in his attempt to make a statement. Are you female by any chance? interesting that only southerner's are biased, while Yankee Historians are the ones telling the truth. that Kool-aid you have must be delicious indeed The right of Secession. Um hello!?! I know you are Canadian and all but, C'mon. Strawman Insult the Double standards here are too funny. Is Science revisionist when new evidence is uncovered? Is History? yet you continue to show nothing at the time of secession, the slavery issue was not different it was not until 1865 after the war that that issue was different. How thick are you? You mean just like they did in KY, DE, MD, and MO? Puh-leeze there was no precedence for this nonsense you speak. Lincoln's Government was not about to loose more states. I bet if a State or Commonwealth of the CSA decided to Secede, the CSA would not have gone to war with them over it. I appriciate it but I did not give up, I got a new PC, and did not record all of my old Passwords (this site is a perfect example), and it took a while to get a new password from the people who run this website (a few weeks), I was lurking but I could not post. If you notice I did not post at all on here for a long time. Some believe the Constitution grants us rights. While others of us believe the Constitution restricts the power of the Federal Government, that we have rights, and the constitution prevents the government from encroaching on those rights. Strawman. This is not and never was my argument, though it is always easier to defeat some one when you "make up" their position. 10 stars, someone described the double standards and falsehoods of this entire website, I am suprised you didn't get banned for speaking the turth around here. gloating early, huh? I lost access, I am far from done. you contributed nothing but insults and so that is what I replied to you with. you still haven't answered my question: are you nutless or a cocksucker? maybe both? you only see what you want to see. I Just Read everything I missied and it seemed to be going fine, you just wanted to claim victory in my absense, but i would not expect much more from someone like you anyway. holy cow, someone who is awake in this thread, and isn't so excited to dance around and toot their own horn. CS its really funny how you called the h8rs out earlier and then "hit the nail on the head again", you may be the only smart guy here. LOL TRUE. you got theo pegged for sure. he is just a nitpicking talking head, he waits for Dr. Adequate to make a point and then says "YEAH Artie what you got to say about that?" its really hilarious from my perspective, Theo is actually funnier than Onifre, because he is not trying to be funny. no you didn't, I went from posting daily to no posts at all, it was coincidentally since the inception of the thread. Dont let theo spin anything on you. Translation: "I am better than you" LOL

Oh, sorry, I missed this when you asked it.If a state legislature is elected that votes to do so, of course. My theory being that the United States is in fact a union of states.Now your question raises a couple of awkward questions of its own. If we take your implicit premises to be true, then:(1) By what right could the states attach themselves to a federal government against the will of one of its citizens? If there was one citizen of (for example) Virginia, who had said "But I don't want any federal government! Virginia alone and independent for ever!" should that have kept the whole state out of the union?(2) If it is a question for individuals, then by what right is (for example) Mr. Joe Bloggs kept in the union now if he personally wants to secede? You ask how his state can sever the connection against his will, but if that is a good question, then surely it is an equally good question as to how his state can maintain this connection against his will.Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.