The anarchy that was avoided thanks to the United States.

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Daniel David, Jun 2, 2004.

  1. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the South had their way, they would have left the United States.

    Then, when some embittered counties were tired of ___________, those counties would just leave.

    Then, when some cities within the counties were tired of ___________, those cities would just leave.

    Then, when some neighborhoods within the city were __________, those neighborhoods would just leave.

    Then, when some families within the neighborhood were _________, those families would just leave.

    This anarchy controlled the south.

    The United States didn't just win because they were better men, but because they knew how to use their brain.
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dunno. I've always been of the opinion that, had the South's secession been successful, reunification would have been inevitable. But that's just a personal opinion.
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    And of course, such anarchy ruled in western counties of the State of Virginia, pressured and intiminated by "Uncle Sam" and the Federales. They seceded from their state BUT THAT WAS JUST FINE. Why the inconsistency?

    Winners write the history. Blinded by ignorance, some cannot perceive the simplest truth of the lessons of history.

    Every day I see the horrendous intrusion of the Federales in my "sovereign" [NOT any more, thank you] State.

    The Constitution gave extreme limits to the Federales and ALL OTHER POWER is in the state.

    Right. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn . .
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    There's no inconsistency at all. The Constitution allows portions of a state to secede from its original state, and spells out procedures for portions of a state seceding into either its own state or another. It requires approval of the state from which it is seceding. It only allows the area in question to become a state or join another state. It does not allow a state to become a territory or an independent nation.
     
  5. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Where is that in the Consitution? Can you point us to that section, please?
     
  6. Jeff Weaver

    Jeff Weaver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    2,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here you go. Article IV, Section 3 Clause 1

    Article. IV.
    Section. 1.
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    Section. 2.
    Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    Clause 2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

    Clause 3: 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. (See Note 11)

    Section. 3.
    Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The State of Virginia gave this? Remember, even though Virginia seceded, that was NOT recognized by the Federales. The states "in rebellion" were still 100% states in the Union.

    I did not know that Virginia voted to allow its western counties to secede. Thanks for the info.
     
  8. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Tennessee was once part of North Carolina, as well.

    From the Internet:

     
  9. Jeff Weaver

    Jeff Weaver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    2,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, now, that is a matter of interpretation of the facts. In February 1861, a convention convened in Richmond to determine Virginia's course in the impending crisis.

    After Mr. Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861, a vote was taken and the prevalent sentiment at that time was to remain in the Union. It was only after he asked for 75,000 troops that another vote was taken. On April 17, 1861, 88 delegates voted to repeal the Commonwealth's 1788 act of ratification of the U.S. Constitution. 55 delegates were opposed, with the final result to be put to a popular vote, which was held in May.

    Some of the 55 delegates who opposed repeal of the ratification moved to Wheeling and reconvened the convention. Some who opposed secession remained loyal to Virginia. At any rate, this Wheeling Convention, declared itself the legitimate government of Virginia, elected a rival governor, Francis Pierpont (Union) versus John Letcher (Confederate). Whether the Wheeling COnvention was the legimate government or not, probably depends on ones point of view, but it was never elected for that purpose.

    At any rate, members of the Wheeling Convention represented counties in what was then Northwestern Virginia, counties along the Ohio River wedged up between Pennsylvania and Ohio. A call went out for more delegates, and some men appointed themselves. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad appointed a couple. The B&ORR wanted all of its line in Union territory, and it appointed delegates for Berkeley, Jefferson and Charles Counties, which are now in West Virginia. In what is now Southern West Virginia, a fellow named William Walker, who had been commonwealth's attorney for Wyoming County, and under indictment for several crimes, appointed himself delegate for several counties in what is now Southern West Virginia. (This is to show the credibility of the claims for legitimacy of the Wheeling Convention). One of the counties Walker claimed to represent, Monroe, had voted in the May 1861 referendum to seceed by a vote of 1101 to 7. That is seven. Other votes were closer, but many were not much closer.

    At any rate, this convention representing itself as the legimate government of Virginia voted to divide the state, which was accomplished in 1863. Arthur I. Boreman was then elected governor of West Virginia in areas under control of the Union Army.

    The state of West Virginia has put out numerous publications justifying these actions and touting the number of soldiers that entered the U.S. Army from that state. All bogus. West Virginia put about 30 regiments in the U.S. Army during the war, which normally would represent about 36,000 men. If one examines the service records of these fellows, which I have, one will discovered that more than half of them were from places other than West Virginia. For example the 2nd West Virginia Cavalry was credited to West Virginia, but 90+% of its soldiers were residents of Ohio. The 14th West Virginia Cavalry were about the same percentage residents of Pennsylvania. In their official publications the State of West Virginia claims that about 15,000 men from its territory were in the Confederate service. Again from examining the service records, one discovers that this total is nearer to 30,000.

    Oh, after the Virgiia/West Virginia separation, Pierpont continued to serve as governor of loyal Virginia. Never mind that loyal Virginia never had any representation in the U.S. Congress. Pierpont basically had control of the Eastern Shore of Virginia (under Federal occupation); Alexandria, Fairfax and Prince William Counties, likewise under Federal Occupation.

    No criticism of anyone is intended, but one does not learn history by reading. One learns it by researching it. American History textbooks are often so inaccurate as to be embarrassing. But that is a topic for another time, I suppose.

    Bottom line -- is West Virginia a legimately constituted state. The Supreme Court says it is. The issue was litigated for years. But is it really? Probably not.

    It is like the North Carolina-Virginia boundary dispute. The official charters state that the boundary should be 36 degrees 30 minutes north. When the line was surveyed the fellows had their insturments slightly off, and the boundary is north of the official line. The Supreme Court decided that yes, the line is too far north, but it would cause more trouble than it would solve to fix it at this late date.


    Jeff
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Thanks for the good info, Jeff. Winners write the history and since the Federales won the war, the truth of the West Virginia statehood issue has been clouded over by the blinded.
     
  11. superdave

    superdave
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    The issue is not as simple as you portray it in the opening post, the "slippery slope" logical assumption you make is not accurate to historical fact, nor is it relevant to the situation.

    The issue was states rights, not successionism as a general principle.

    There is a reason they called it the United States of America. The "Union" was a convenient motivational crutch, along with the slavery issue, not the true reason for Lincoln's ferver in prosecuting War upon the "rebels"

    We in America have impugned the motives and character of the communist Soviets for similar actions to uphold their "Union"

    If you view the past foreign policy of the U.S. of A. wihthout the rose colored glasses of nationalism and hypocrisy, you understand the inconsistent manner in which the dearly held principles of this nation have been enforced.
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Before the late great unpleasantness, the US was referred to often as the "United States IN America". A voluntary union in North America.

    Of course, with the "preserve the union" nonsense, the War changed that to a 100% different (and vastly inferior) entity - the "United States OF America" as if we were monolithic.

    Nothing further from the truth. I have more in common with folks in Alberta than in California or New Jersey.
     
  13. ZeroTX

    ZeroTX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    0
    Last I checked, Texas joined the U.S. from a position as an independent, sovereign nation... and we have the right to secede from said union.

    States rights before Federal rights.

    -Michael
     
  14. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are exactly right Dr. Bob!!

    The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.

    Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as “the Confederacy” and “a confederate republic,” as opposed to a single “consolidated” or monolithic state. Members of a “confederacy” are by definition free to withdraw from it.

    SOURCE
     

Share This Page

Loading...