re: Robert E. Lee's lines collapsed at Petersburg on this date 157 years ago...

quote:

---

Is this one of those threads where fatasses who's only service came from their couch come in and start calling the confederates traitors and other dumb shite when the two groups of Soldiers that actually fought in the war reconciled and even formed lasting friendships afterwards?

---

You got it. Keyboard warriors want to fight the war all over again, from the luxury of their recliners.

quote:

---

There is no Constitutional right to secede. Supreme Court Justices from Chase to Scalia and the founding fathers confirm that there is no right to secede. In a 1788 letter to Alexander Hamilton, James Madison stated:
quote:

"My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw . . . is a conditional ratification . . . Compacts must be reciprocal . . . The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

---

With all due respect - Scalia was NOT always right. There ARE other (legit) opinions and explanations on the Constitutional CW "escape clause" and issue of "Succession" or "Nullification" of the original Constitutional contract (which make this supposed slam-dunk claim of States and Confederacy "Treason" and "Insurrection" far more complicated AND less legit.)

WHAT WE'RE NOT TOLD by The Narrative:

There WAS indeed a gaping loophole for States to challenge Article XIII that stated, the “union shall be perpetual”. In fact, the notion of a “perpetual union” clause in the newly created Constitution was suggested, debated and solidly defeated. How many of us were ever aware of this?? (It's worth seeking deeper than the usual cursory first few pages of any Google search on ANY subject.)

FWIW, because SC's Sen. John C. Calhoun was such major thorn in the side of the Unionists / Federalists, South Carolina had already divorced itself from the Union before the "official" start of the CW (aka, the "You started this war!" False Flag and "INSURRECTION!!" grounds used BY Lincoln Inc at Fort Sumner.) Calhoun (though no angel himself) had been the target of vicious slander and character assassination by the pre & post CW newspapers of the day.)

With respect to both Madison AND Hamilton - already cited here on the subject - they waded in even further on this subject in a different context:

quote:

---

John Madison noted that the document was framed with the consent of the states assembled, but was nothing but words on paper until ratified by the states...he later argued that it [The Constitution]could not bind the non-ratifying states into acceptance or even keep those that did ratify in staying [in the Union].

Alexander Hamilton, the ultimate Federalist, believed that coercion of force to keep any state in the Union was “the maddest projects ever devised.” (But Lincoln and his cabal? Apparently not so much.)

During the ratification debates, co-Framer of the US Constitution, Oliver Ellsworth feared armed coercion to keep a delinquent state in the Confederation. He noted that this action would strike at the heart of the American founding.

The Electoral College, the Bill of Rights, the original election of the Senate and the Tenth Amendment all prove that the Constitution did not establish an all-powerful national democracy, but a confederation of sovereign states. At the time of the Civil War, the notion of secession was still a topic of heated debate, unlike today. Furthermore, the oath [was] taken (ONLY) after the Civil War specified they swore to uphold the Constitution and the Union. This, coupled with the 14th Amendment which was ratified after the Civil War, cleared up the ambiguity of loyalties to states versus the Union.

---

For more fascinating easy read on an alternative historical examination ad exposition on the CW, States' Rights and "marriage" to the Union (that is mostly buried):

Was Confederate Secession Treason?

LINK

Another great read, exposition and challenge to the CW narrative HERE:

John C. Calhoun: Nullification, Secession, Constitution

LINK

This threads getting good now.

A bit more to chew on from, 'John C. Calhoun: Nullification, Secession, Constitution'

(*excerpt*)

quote:

---

Calhoun’s arguments drew...on the continuity of political institutions.

That the name “United States” designated both the alliance under the Articles and that... the "political relationship are declared expressly to be ‘free, independent and sovereign States’.”

The ratification process itself provided the final proof of Calhoun’s thesis:

The constitutional Convention had submitted the Constitution to Congress, as the representatives of the member states “in their confederated character,” after which the agreement had to be ratified by each severally. The parties to the constitutional contract had thus participated as sovereign states, manifesting in all the possible modes in which it could be obtained:

FIRST—in their confederated character, through its only appropriate organ, the Congress; NEXT, in their individual character, as separate States, through their respective State governments, to which the Congress referred it; AND FINALLY, in their high character of independent and sovereign communities, through a convention of the people, called in each State, by the authority of its [OWN] government.

Interpretation of the Constitution as a compact was supported by Article VII, which established that the ratification of nine out of thirteen states... ordained and established the constitution ...the states creat[ing] a new system “as a compact between them, and not as a constitution over them.”

Ratification had not altered the nature of the pact.

---

In short -- John Calhoun's contention was that official "Ratification" of the Constitution was more expressed and presumption than anything -- and had not indeed technically had all its "i"s dotted, "t"s crossed even up till the Civil War's commencement. Moreover, the spirit of the States' contract or "compact" with the Federal union was said to have been violated (with respect to State "sovereignty", "Independence", and "Freedom"); Ergo, Southern states were free to leave of the Union of their own volition (or so they thought.)
Wild.

Lincoln and the Northern State PTB obviously had a difference in opinion.

LINK