The Confederacy was one gigantic contradictory failure

>"I have had a laborious task here; but nullification is dead, and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men, who would involve the country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds, and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifiers you have amongst you. Let them meet the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext. Its burthen was on your coarse woolens---by the law of July, 1832, coarse woolen was reduced to five per cent. for the benefit of the South. Mr. Clay's bill takes it up and classes it with woolens at 50 per cent., reduces it gradually down to 20 per cent., and there it is to remain, and Mr. Calhoun and all the nullifiers agree to the principle. The cash duties and home valuation will be equal to 15 per cent. more, and after the year 1842, you pay on coarse woolens 35 per cent. If this is not protection, I cannot understand. Therefore the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and a Southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery, question." - Andrew Jackson
>“John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body.” - Andrew Jackson

Attached: Tk0Gjqa.jpg (638x597, 67K)

Other urls found in this thread:

teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-james-madison-22/).
founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-05-02-0012-0099).
press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions).
founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/06-03-02-0225)
founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-3190).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights).
nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/peoriaspeech.htm
undergod.procon.org/sourcefiles/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States.pdf)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#Unionism)
civilwarcauses.org/houston.htm)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

1. Secession: The idea of secession is nowhere in the United States Constitution and the Founding Fathers during the debates for the adoption of our now Constitution were against any form of secession. It is evident enough that creating a central government was the point of the Constitution and that the Articles of Confederation, which gave states almost complete autonomy, allowed for secession and showed weakness by allowing states to voluntary pay taxes and limited commercial and foreign affairs. Whatever your views on state sovereignty is it is evident that that the Founders did not propose any form of secession and the states herein would give their autonomy to the central government. This is shown with James Madison during his time garnering support for the Constitution during his tour around the states alongside Alexander Hamilton. “Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification” (teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-james-madison-22/). When Federalists were in New York and New Yorkers found out that New Hampshire and Virginia voted ‘yes’ on adopting the Constitution they asked for a compromise to allow states to secede, the federalists rejected the compromise, making it clear this was not meant to be a compact among states: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification." (founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-05-02-0012-0099).

Secession part 2:
James Madison later reiterates that nullification and secession are not constitutional but revolution is: “I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.” (press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html) (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States)

2. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolution: Another argument in favor of nullification is the Kentucky and Virginia Resolution laid out by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively. In these speeches they both lay out that the states have the right to nullify a law if it is deemed unconstitutional, where they differ is the Jefferson interpretation; Jefferson interpreted that if it is deemed unconstitutional, a state should not only reject it, they have the right to openly rebel from the Union and secede since his interpretation is that the Union is a compact among states. Madison, on the other hand, did not view it that way and regretted that his words were used out of context. Madison proposed that if a law is unconstitutional, a state should nullify a law through Constitutional means, such as amending the Constitution or sending representatives and asking their senator to repeal the law, not openly rebel, Madison even reiterates that the Union is not a compact, it cannot be seceded from (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions). Even George fucking Washington saw these resolutions as a danger to the union: "systematically and pertinaciously pursued", they would "dissolve the union or produce coercion" (founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/06-03-02-0225)

3. Nullfication: Nullification appears nowhere in the Constitution. Every Supreme Court decision throughout our history has voted against both of these time and time again and as I have just pointed out in the secession argument, James Madison was completely against it. The concept of nullification was not discussed at all during the Constitutional Convention and only a federal judge could declare a law unconstitutional. Not to mention the supremacy clause of the United States stating federal law is the supreme law of the land. "But it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined" (founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-3190). (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)). There is plenty of proof of the south picking a law to use the nullification argument in favor of states’ rights for but for others they remain silent, when the Tariff of 1828 and 1832 took place they cried foul and demanded a repeal but when the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 passed, forcing the federal government to return slaves to the state they are from, they didn’t utter a fucking word about the rights of other states to oppose that law. In fact, they’re not the only states to use nullification, Wisconsin and Vermont have used the argument of nullification too during this act. More importantly, why didn’t the south just declare secession during the Nullification Crisis when Andrew Jackson told them that nullification was unconstitutional?

4. States’ rights: The South seemed to have this view that there was a compact when proof showed otherwise and that the states had the right to secede and be their own country, which has been shown otherwise. Whenever the federal government expanded slavery the south did not care, but whenever the federal government wanted to limit slavery and remove it from the new territory, all of a sudden states’ rights mattered. “Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision—all triumphs of the slave power—did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights).

The South says Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot in any of the nine southern states, making his election null and void. Except Lincoln, after constitutionally winning by winning the electoral votes needed to win, won. The south claims that Lincoln’s constitutional victory was unconstitutional. At the time, you needed 152 electoral votes to win an election, Abraham Lincoln won 180 electoral votes. His opponents won 72, 39, and 12. As we all know, you get more electoral votes and representatives in Congress depending on the population of your state plus the two senators. We also know the majority of immigrants did not go to the south and instead flocked to the north where there was actual work. This gave the north more representatives in Congress and slowly the representatives for the south diminished as little to no immigrants went south. The south also declared independence on the most trumped up charge: That Lincoln was going to free the slaves for good except Lincoln ran a campaign stating he did not want to end slavery, he just wanted to stop the spread of slavery in the new territory, he even talks about it in a speech stating that that territory was for poor whites to build themselves and create wealth, that the western portion of the nation and the nation as a whole is for the white race. You can read it here: nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/peoriaspeech.htm

5. Confederate Constitution: The Confederate constitution did not have any provision for states to secede: “The Confederate Constitution did not specifically include a provision allowing states to secede; the Preamble spoke of each state "acting in its sovereign and independent character" but also of the formation of a "permanent federal government". During the debates on drafting the Confederate Constitution, one proposal would have allowed states to secede from the Confederacy.”, the Confederate constitution called for the end of the slave trade BUT they still wanted to keep slaves and if they got more territory they were going to expand slavery into those territories: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.” Which means they definitely would have given birth to plenty of new niggers all across North America. It also said that no law barring slavery could be passed “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”, the constitution also had a Supremacy clause just like the United States Constitution so there was no point in the nullification debate in the end. (undergod.procon.org/sourcefiles/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States.pdf)

6. Contradictions: The Confederate States said the states had the right of nullification yet kept the Supremacy Clause in their constitution, they called for states’ rights to secede but added no provision for them to do so, the Confederate government said that the Union was filled with bureaucracy yet had more people working in their federal government than the one they just seceded from and had a stronger federal government during the war, they said the north was a militaristic tyrant yet passed the first conscription law in North American history, they say the north was money hungry but created a national currency, the Confederates said the north was suppressing the first amendment but did it just as much as the north, had troops patrolling almost every inch of their territory, and they had a domestic passport system so someone from one state couldn’t just go into another like they do in the US. “Civil liberties were of small concern in North and South. Lincoln and Davis both took a hard line against dissent. Neely explores how the Confederacy became a virtual police state with guards and patrols all about, and a domestic passport system whereby everyone needed official permission each time they wanted to travel. Over 4,000 suspected unionists were imprisoned without trial.” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#Unionism)

7. Abraham Lincoln: Now we get to the bread and butter of it all: The Great Emancipator. Funnily enough the Emancipation Proclamation only freed southern slaves and this was planned ever since Lincoln took office to bring the Southerners back into the Union. It was a threat under the Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862 that if the south did not surrender, then the north would free southern slaves. Lincoln did not want to extend slavery, Lincoln wanted to ship slaves back to Liberia, Lincoln wanted to preserve the union no matter what whether if the slaves were free or still enslaved or if some were free and others were slaves. All Lincoln cared about was preserving the union, period. Lincoln believed the United States was a country for white people. Lincoln believed that whites were the only race that should be in the United States. Had Lincoln not done what he did then Great Britain and France would have definitely joined the war and destroyed the American continent forever. Here is one pro-slavery unionists views on the Civil War, a man named Sam Houston who gained independence for Texas from Mexico: (civilwarcauses.org/houston.htm)

Attached: Butler's conversation with President Lincoln.png (2544x1048, 2.46M)