re: If secession was legal then what right did the North have to keep the South in the USA?

Leaving NOVA soon, thank god. Locals here are terrible.

Good food, though, even if it does cost 200% more than back home.

Treason.



Honor.



Treason.



Honor.



Treason.



Honor.

See how easy that is?

quote:

---

Leaving NOVA soon, thank god. Locals here are terrible.

---

Maybe you're terrible. But I can't imagine what life would be like with Tinder when I was single. It seems like it would have been quite a nice luxury, so I didn't feel bad about your slim pickings.

quote:

---

Good food, though, even if it does cost 200% more than back home.

---

Yeah. I don't know how people can handle the cost of living. NYC is probably more extreme, but I found it strange that my friend and his wife could by a huge cabin in the Berkshires but are still renting in the city because of the cost of buying.

Have your American culture. Just enslave, lynch and murder your own kind. Since it's not a big deal. Matter solved.

With respect to some of the southern states wasn't this sort of a bait-n-switch.

The northern states needed the south in order to form a more perfect union against the English so slavery was permitted. Apart from this it is unlikely the southern states would have joined the revolution.

But later, the institution of slavery was taken away IOW, had the South known then (1776) what it learned in mid-1800's, it would not have gone along with the northern states.

Reading that article was interesting.

To put it in modern terms that would be like the democrats voting to raise the base federal income tax rate on just southern states to 50% on all citizens despite the votes against it.

I'm sure people would be thrilled by that.

quote:

---

There was no federal government.

Then how did Congress function?

Who employed them?

---

Under the Articles adopted in 1779 the senior government official was the president of Congress. The states sent congressmen to the congress. There was no Senate. each state had one vote. Congress placed requisitions upon the states. "Please send us some money."

This didn't work at all. By 1785 the government was completely broke. That is when the last Navy ship was sold. Under the Articles there was no president of the United States, no departments of State, Treasury or War, no judiciary and no power to tax.

The -federal- system adopted under the Constitution delegates power to both the federal government and the states.

George Washington to John Jay


1 Aug. 1786


Your sentiments, that our affairs are drawing rapidly to a crisis, accord with my own. What the event will be, is also beyond the reach of my foresight. We have errors to correct; we have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power. I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged some where a power, which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the State Governments extends over the several States.

To be fearful of investing Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness. Could Congress exert them for the detriment of the public, without injuring themselves in an equal or greater proportion? Are not their interests inseparably connected with those of their constituents? By the rotation of appointment, must they not mingle frequently with the mass of Citizens? Is it not rather to be apprehended, if they were possessed of the powers before described, that the individual members would be induced to use them, on many occasions, very timidly and inefficaciously for fear of losing their popularity and future election? We must take human nature as we find it: perfection falls not to the share of mortals. Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience. Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility where thirteen sovereign independent disunited States are in the habit of discussing and refusing compliance with them at their option. Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word throughout the land. If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the Treaty of Peace, and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy, they will laugh in your face. What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same train forever. It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people, being disgusted with the circumstances, will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever. We are apt to run from one extreme into another. To anticipate and prevent disastrous contingencies, would be the part of wisdom and patriotism.

What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing. I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of Government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! what a triumph for our enemies to verify their predictions! what a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious! Would to God that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend."

Washington was a strong proponent of national Union.

quote:

---

The moral argument changed once the North realized they might lose.

---

Hate to tell you, the North was NEVER going to lose that war. They had too many advantages. They had the manpower. They had the resources. They had the geography strategically on their side ....especially when Kentucky was prevented from seceding. They also had a more unified rail system in order to transport men and material faster than the South could.

We concentrate a lot on the successes of Lee in Virginia mostly. But the things that were happening in the Western theatre of the war was far more important strategically than anything that was going on in Northern Virginia. When the Union took Nashville in February of 1862, then Farragut takes New Orleans in April and then the Union lands 60,000 troops in Shiloh in April/May of 1862....it was game over. Lee and Jackson could futz around all they wanted around Virginia. DC was never going to be taken after 1st Bull Run.

I know a lot of people like to talk about how the North had slaves...I assume you are speaking of the 200-300 that were in New Jersey at the time?

quote:

---

I know a lot of people like to talk about how the North had slaves...I assume you are speaking of the 200-300 that were in New Jersey at the time?

---

Yes, that's right. The same number of Real Neo Nazis that we have in the USA currently today.



But, seriously, I completely understand your post and tend to agree with you.

quote:

---

Hate to tell you, the North was NEVER going to lose that war.

---

The South could have won a quick war, and almost did due to such low public support in the North at the beginning.