Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
YES as a matter of fact EVERY government rules by force, of somekind or another. In our case we rule by Representation of the people, with the majority having the power to make and eliminate laws ( though the Constitution places a few restrictions on that power) But it is Force that keeps every country together. Friendly feelings and no laws only work if at all in very small communities. The Government not only has force BUT is required to use it to ensure the welfare and safety of all.

People or governments are justified in using force to stop bad people from harming other people. I don't believe that people or governments are justified in using force to stop innocent people from doing harmless things.

Slavery is harmful and should be stopped; but secession in itself is not harmful, and the use of force is not justified merely to "keep a country together".

Easily. We could learn from and understand the views of the past and apply them to the situation.

 
Yes, and often hindsight, distance, perspective, and later historical events allow us to understand the views of the past better.  Shouldn't we use them?  For example, if you were currently writing a history of anti-Semitism in Europe covering the years 1900-35, doesn't the knowledge of what happened after 1935 improve your understanding of what the events of 1900-35 mean?  This is not to say that a person writing such a book in 1935 is necessarily or automatically wrong because he doesn't know what is coming, just that his understanding is less complete than the person looking back.  
 

I disagree. The issue isn't so much whether or not we modern men think they were right based upon our current day outlook, but rather we can take a view based upon their understanding of the constitution, how it binds the nation together, under what conditions states ratified the constitution, and finally, do they have the right to leave. We do have hindsight, in that I agree. However, for the most part what we have, is our own modern biases in which we use to judge them.

 
Of course the danger of modern bias is very real.  That is why I took pains to point out in my example that the southerners of the time knew slavery was oppression, in that they themselves would consider themselves oppressed if they were made slaves.  Here is another historical quote you may recognize about slavery in the south.  "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."  I am willing to bet you know that Thomas Jefferson wrote that (Source - Notes on the State of Virginia).  It is not modern bias to note that the southerners believed 2 contradictory things (that slavery upon them was oppression and they were not oppressors even though they had slaves), it is simply using the advantage of being "an outside observer".  Jefferson is noting it here himself.
 

By the same token, if you asked them if they felt animals were oppressed, they probably would have answered no. This understanding, although foreign to us today, would have been more understandable back then.

 
Yes, I understand the southerners felt they were not oppressers because blacks were little better than animals.    As I wrote in a previous post, "If you ask the question did the southerners of 1860 think they had the right to secede from the Union, it is a trivial question, obviously they thought they did."  So the right question here is not "Did the southerners think they were oppressed and not oppressers."  Of course they thought that.  The question is "Were they right to think that?"  That is why I keep asking you for one (just one!) good example of actual oppression.  Even by 19th century standards they were not oppressed.  And yes, even by 19th century standards, their system was oppressive, even if they had convinced themselves otherwise.  Let me ask you, were the southerners wrong in thinking they were not oppressors because blacks were just inferior beings meant to be used for slave labor?  I don't mean is it just a modern bias that they were wrong, but can we, in the light of fuller knowledge gained by living with blacks in a free society, now say the southern beliefs about the races were wrong?  If your answer is yes, then doesn't it follow that from fundamental wrong beliefs a person or society might take wrong actions?  If your answer is no, then people can draw their own conclusions about your argument.    
 

I'm not convinced we do understand the people of 1860 better, but rather that we have a modern day acceptable historical line.

 
I agree that there are many things about the people of 1860 that we will not understand because of historical distance.  But that does not mean there are not other things we understand better than them.  Again I would ask you, is the belief the southerners were wrong in thinking that blacks were inferiors fit mainly for slave laber just our modern historical line or is it a better understanding of the true facts?
 

I don't recall saying/writing anything about the election of lincoln. I believe I was referring to those that adhered to the day to day administration of the law. 

 
I know you didn't, but since it was the election of Lincoln that directly caused the southerners to secede, it seems fair to ask what exactly was he doing (or going to do) that was so oppressive it justified secession.  If your answer is that he wasn't actually doing anything that justified it, one might point out that the southerners who thought Lincoln so horrible that they had to immediately secede were then, in your opinon, wrong.  Or shall we just say mistaken   
 

 I'll go with the oppressed bit myself. It's a valid argument, but since that argument was on the losing side, we tend to downplay it's validity. It'd be no different than the taxation/representation question had we lost the revolutionary war.

 
Well, since I have mentioned earlier my skepticism that the oppression of the American colonists was great enough to justify violent revolt, I am perfectly willing to go against the winning side (and my own side) if I think the arguments go that way.  In this case I do not see that they do.
 
Reiryc - As I wrote to Jonathan, I look forward to settling our differences over the virtual battlefield once the game comes out.  [:)]
 
 




    
 

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Still waiting for an answer to your claim the Union under Lincoln siezed State "property" and refused to pay for it.

Want to show me where I said that? I'm not in the habit of answering strawmen.

And what Tyranny the Union practiced against the Southern States when in fact the Union FORCED the Northern States to obey southern laws, not the other way round.

The problem is, they often didn't enforce the laws.

The premise that the States can, on a whim, simply leave the Union was ridicolous even in 1861.

Actually, it wasn't ridiculous then nor during the war of 1812 when their were rumblings for some of the northern states to leave the union due to 'mr madisons war'.

Thats why the South tried so hard to dress up the excuses as somekind of tyranny forced on them by the North. The reality being that the Federal Government was enforceing Southern laws and values on the North, NOT the other way round.

I didn't realize the protection of property wasn't a value in the north or that no laws existed in the north that protected property.

People will obviously revolt if enough feel agrieved, just pointing out that doesnt somehow equate to they had the Constitutional right to do so.

The constitution doesn't give rights. The rights exist and the constitution protects them. The states that left did so because they no longer felt benefit from the current union and many of their citizens felt that their property was not being protected in contrast to the laws on the books that should have been enforced.

As for Jonathans continued claim that one shouldnt rule by force or impose Union by force... The US is not a despotic country and does not have any great number of citizens desiring to leave nor overthrow the government, AND after the Civil ar had little trouble reintergrating the Southern States and their citizens back into the fold.

Odd that the US doesn't rule by force yet used force to make the southern states remain in the union. That's a contradiction.

But the issue of force... YES as a matter of fact EVERY government rules by force, of somekind or another. In our case we rule by Representation of the people, with the majority having the power to make and eliminate laws ( though the Constitution places a few restrictions on that power) But it is Force that keeps every country together. Friendly feelings and no laws only work if at all in very small communities. The Government not only has force BUT is required to use it to ensure the welfare and safety of all.

Sounds like a despotic form of government contrary to your assertion otherwise.

Individuals do not have the inherient right to impose their will, morals or "laws" on others ( except their underage children) BUT Governments MUST do JUST that.

No, governments not not impose their will or morals on others. They should act in accordance with the will of the people so long as the will of the people does not violate certain unalienable rights, among those are, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.

ORIGINAL: lvaces


Yes, and often hindsight, distance, perspective, and later historical events allow us to understand the views of the past better. Shouldn't we use them? For example, if you were currently writing a history of anti-Semitism in Europe covering the years 1900-35, doesn't the knowledge of what happened after 1935 improve your understanding of what the events of 1900-35 mean?

It might and it might not. I may interpret incorrectly the events of 1900-35 using my own present day biases and thus inject views that do not necessarily represent the reasoning for the anti-semitism of that time period.

This is not to say that a person writing such a book in 1935 is necessarily or automatically wrong because he doesn't know what is coming, just that his understanding is less complete than the person looking back.

Maybe, maybe not.

Of course the danger of modern bias is very real. That is why I took pains to point out in my example that the southerners of the time knew slavery was oppression, in that they themselves would consider themselves oppressed if they were made slaves.

Yes, you did point that out. What I think may be missing is that, like animals, they looked at africans differently than they did others of european stock.

Here is another historical quote you may recognize about slavery in the south. "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever." I am willing to bet you know that Thomas Jefferson wrote that (Source - Notes on the State of Virginia). It is not modern bias to note that the southerners believed 2 contradictory things (that slavery upon them was oppression and they were not oppressors even though they had slaves), it is simply using the advantage of being "an outside observer". Jefferson is noting it here himself.

Yes, but he isn't necessarily representative of the south in that regard. He may have seen things differently, but clearly others did not.

Yes, I understand the southerners felt they were not oppressers because blacks were little better than animals. As I wrote in a previous post, "If you ask the question did the southerners of 1860 think they had the right to secede from the Union, it is a trivial question, obviously they thought they did." So the right question here is not "Did the southerners think they were oppressed and not oppressers." Of course they thought that. The question is "Were they right to think that?" That is why I keep asking you for one (just one!) good example of actual oppression.

I've given an example. When one's property isn't returned to him even though he is the rightful owner, but being denied due to someone else's moral beliefs, then that person is having his right to property being oppressed. We both know that the underground railroad existed and that many (not all by any stretch) in law enforcement looked the other way or turned a 'blind eye' to what was happening.

Even by 19th century standards they were not oppressed.

Sure they were. Hell, we started this country over taxes! Taxes that were being used to help pay for our own security at that. Yet we felt that this was a god awful tyranny and raised a big stink over it. The denial of property would easily fall under such a view as being oppressed, especially in the 19th century.

Let me ask you, were the southerners wrong in thinking they were not oppressors because blacks were just inferior beings meant to be used for slave labor?

Based on today's morals or the morals of their day? But even more importantly, who cares what I think regarding that question. It has little bearing on the point of the discussion, which is whether or not the south had the right to secede.

I know you didn't, but since it was the election of Lincoln that directly caused the southerners to secede, it seems fair to ask what exactly was he doing (or going to do) that was so oppressive it justified secession.

I believe this was more a case of the 'straw that broke the camels back' so to speak rather than his election being the sole reason.

Well, since I have mentioned earlier my skepticism that the oppression of the American colonists was great enough to justify violent revolt, I am perfectly willing to go against the winning side (and my own side) if I think the arguments go that way. In this case I do not see that they do.

No problem, everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter. But clearly, like the revolutionary generation, the civil war generation did feel that they were being oppressed and acted upon the matter. I try to steer away from the moral issues surrouding the question as to me they are irrelevant to the main question, which is, 'Did the south have the right to secede?' In my view and clearly theirs, the answer is yes. They were only wrong because they lost the war. [;)] Had they won, then the prevailing answer if one lived in the south would be that states had the right given that it was the states who ratified the constitution in the first place.

The argument almost reminds me of the difference between who would crown the holy roman emperor, the emperor elect crowning himself or the pope? Depending on who was doing the crowning, the stronger power was inferred.

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: lvaces

Reiyrc - Jefferson is saying that people who are being oppressed have the right to rebel. I, and most people, would agree. This does not mean that anybody has the right to rebel just because of an election result they do not like (otherwise no democracy could ever exist).

He is saying that people who feel they are living under tyranny have the right to form a new government. The question is, what constitutes tyranny? Would the unjust loss of property constitute a reason? I would argue that he would think so.

You point out to me the oppression that Lincoln as President was going to place on the south and then your Jefferson quote from the Declaration of Independence becomes applicable.

The unwillingness of many in the north to uphold the 1850 fugitives slave law concerning runaway slaves comes to mind.

Otherwise it is not. The only real oppression in the Jefferson meaning being done here is by white southerners against their slaves. So what your quote actually proves is that the slaves had a right to rebel, not the white southerners.

No, it shows that the south had a right to rebel.

You didnt write this? Exactly what property was unjustly removed, stolen or taken?

The Paris Peace Treaty of September 3, 1783

Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

D. HARTLEY (SEAL)
JOHN ADAMS (SEAL)
B. FRANKLIN (SEAL)
JOHN JAY (SEAL)

Reading Reiryc's response to my post moves me to discuss a bit more the correct use of judging the past from the present.  The point in my posts has not been that the moral beliefs of the southerners were wrong because our current morality is better.  It is the very different point that what they saw as facts which they combined with their morality to build their society were wrong, and this lead them into error.  Let me state the basis of southern society as I see it.  They believed:
1) Superior races are entitled to enslave inferior races, and if they do so, this is not oppression but just the natural order of things (this is a moral judgement).
2) Whites are superior to blacks in mental and moral capabilities and so are the superior race (this is a belief about facts).
Putting these two points together leads to the conclusion southern society was based on:
3) Whites are entitled to enslave blacks and this is not oppression.

When I speak of pre-war southern society being wrong, I do not mean that their morality as expressed in point 1 is wrong, I mean that in believing point 2 they are wrong just as a matter of scientific fact.  And we know that better now than they did then, just as we know other scientific facts now better than they did.  Interestingly enough, some southerners realized this.  When the Confederacy considered making slaves into soldiers near the end of the war, Howell Cobb (who was President of the convention of seceded states which drafted the constitution for the new Confederacy) wrote "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." (source - 'Never Call Retreat' by Bruce Catton).  Exactly, because point 2 goes out the window, and when point 2 goes, point 3 goes out the window right behind it.  Slavery becomes wrong and oppressive not just according to a later morality, but wrong even according to their earlier morality because a crucial fact they relied on turns out not to be true so you can no longer get from point 1 to point 3. 

I found Reiyrc's post replying to mine well written and reasoned.  Not to say that I am convinced that he is right but I don't feel the need to quarrel with it.  I have stated my case (I hope well) and he has stated his case well and readers can make up their own minds.  However there was one answer I did find unsatisfying.  I asked him "were the southerners wrong in thinking they were not oppressors because blacks were just inferior beings meant to be used for slave labor?".  He answered "According to today's morality or the morality of the day?"  He overlooked that this is not a morality question, it is a factual question.  Perhaps that is because I phrased it badly, so let me try again.  If you care to answer Reiyrc (and of course you have no obligation to do so), can I ask you "Do you think the southerners were wrong in thinking that blacks were sufficiently lower in mental and moral capabilities as to to constitute an inferior race?"  And if the answer to this is yes, then I go ahead and ask, "If they were factually wrong about this, then were they not also wrong in the logical deduction they drew from this 'fact', namely that black slavery was not oppression (that is, being wrong on point 2, were they not also wrong on point 3)?"  Again we can answer yes or no without having to just throw up our hands and say it depends on whose morality.  These are fact and logic questions with answers that are either true or not true across time, not morality questions whose answers sway with the tides.

So you see, we can look back at some things in history and say that in light of what we now know, those people were wrong.  And one area we can do this is the southern belief that black slavery was not oppression.  Now I am sure some will point out that the southerners disagreed with us and thought point 2 was true.  Yes, they did, but they were wrong.  Not wrong from the viewpoint of modern morality but maybe right according to their morality but just plain factually wrong.  And so conclusion 3 based on it is wrong also, again not wrong according to modern morality but just wrong as a matter of logic.

So to sum up, it is not just a matter of morality in judging if the southerners were oppressing the slaves.  The main justification the southerners had as to why their slavery of the blacks was not oppressive but slavery imposed on them would have been oppressive was the supposed inferiority of the blacks.  If that inferiority did not exist, then the southern position was wrong and they were oppressing the blacks (as Cobb said, "If the slaves make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong."  Well guess what, blacks do make good soldiers.) 

I might guess Reiyrc might say that none of this matters because the south was entitled to secede anyway, but I disagree.  The Constition says nothing about secession.  That is why we find ourselves continously going back to the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration gives 2 reasons for "breaking the political bonds" holding one group to another.  One reason is the group is oppressed, or in other words the contract is being broken by the other side.  The other is based on the consent of the governed idea.  Taking the second one first.  I think we can all agree that a group of people who wish to withdraw their consent in order to go off and oppress another group without its consent do not really have a leg to stand on.  Reiryc has said this does not apply to the Confederacy as the southerners really were blind to the fact of their oppression, but the fact they were blind to it does not mean it did not exist.  Their belief that they were not oppressing the blacks was an error (or at least I believe I have established that in my above discussion), we might, at best, call it an understandable error made in good faith, but an understandable error made in good faith is still an error.

Thus we look at the other road to morally right secession.  If the northerners truly did practice unconstitional oppression against the south, then I would agree the south had a right to secede.  For example, if Lincoln had issued an excutive order banning slavery in the southern states, this certainly would have justified the south.  But he did no such thing.  I don't think that the fugitive slave law cuts it as an example of federal government oppression in that the feds did try to enforce the law and Lincoln did promise to enforce the law when he was President.  The federal government couldn't help the fact that many individual northerners would not cooperate, but did the best they could given that problem.  This is not government oppression in most senses of the word.  And anyway, secession could not help the south here at all, for as Lincoln pointed out, could the south really expect a foreign country to be more helpful in returning runaway slaves than the national governement.  But let's be accurate here.  The southern states did not leave because of the fugitive slave law problems.  They left because they expected Lincoln to do all manner of horrible things to them.  If they had waited for Lincoln's government to actually do something unconstitutional or illegal and oppressive to the south, that could have justified their secession.  But just like choosing to fire on Fort Sumter, they lacked the patience necessary to follow the right course.   

Nevermind [:D]

That's a well-written statement and I at least found nothing to disagree with. But I have something to add.

ORIGINAL: lvaces
I think we can all agree that a group of people who wish to withdraw their consent in order to go off and oppress another group without its consent do not really have a leg to stand on.

Right: if the USA had fought the war in order to free the slaves, I would have said fine, that's a good and sufficient cause.

What bothers me is that the USA didn't fight the war to free the slaves; and few in the USA at the time would have been willing to fight a war for that reason. It fought the war to bring the southern states back into the Union by force; and it would have done so whatever the reason for secession had been.

The Southerners believed they were entitled to coerce their slaves into working for them, the Northerners believed they were entitled to coerce the Southerners into staying in the Union. Both sides were wrong. The sad thing is that many people on both sides managed to convince themselves that they were 100% right; hence the bloodiness of the struggle.

ORIGINAL: lvaces

If the northerners truly did practice unconstitional oppression against the south, then I would agree the south had a right to secede.

I think you are confusing the issues. Whether or not the southern states had the LEGAL right to secede is a question that is entirely unaffected by whether or not they were suffering 'unconstitutional oppression' at the hands of the northerners (although such oppression might give rise to a MORAL right to secede).

If [the southern states] had waited for Lincoln's government to actually do something unconstitutional or illegal and oppressive to the south, that could have justified their secession.

Again I question the point about 'justifying' a right. If the southern states had the right to secede then they had no need to justify their exercise of that right in 1860. If they didn't have that right to secede then they certainly couldn't justify that action.

Greyshaft - Let me ask you this, if the question before the house was "The Holocaust - right or wrong?" would you be satisfied by saying, well according to the laws of Germany in place in 1944 it was legal, so who are we to come around later and say it was wrong? 
 
But the thing about secession is that it also was not legal.  I did not talk about this too much in my previous post as it was already overlong, but now that you bring it up     The constitution nowhere says it is legal.  It also nowhere says it is illegal.  So where in American tradition and political thought do the southerners get the idea it is legal?  From the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence.  Look at the Declaration, what is it mostly?  It is mostly a list of grievances against the King of England.  Why did the Americans emphasize all those grievances?  Because they considered that it was by those moral and legal offenses that the King had lost his legal right to govern the colonies.  Suppose we went through the grievances listed in the Declaration one by one and found each of them was a crock, would the colonists still have had the legal right to secede from the British Empire?  By the logic of the document, no. 
 
In other words, by the American thinking of the time, the King (or government) lost his legal authority when he lost his moral authority by oppressing his subjects.  Here is the Declaration's wording.  
Prudence indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government ...    
 
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid world ... (and now comes the lists of grievences).
 
America was founded on the idea that it is by improper moral and legal action that a government loses its legal right to govern.  If the federal government in Washington was acting in such a way as to oppress (reduce to despotism) the southern states, then they had the right to "declare independence".  That is why I look for their comparable list of grievances to justify their actions.  But if you look for it, you look in vain.  I don't know that you can argue the southerners' case better than Reiryc has done, it has certainly challenged me and my thinking on the matter (thanks for that Reiryc), but reading through it all, when you think of it in Declaration of Independence terms, the only actual grievance seems to be that the fugitive slave law was imperfectly enforced.  Imagine the Declaration of Independence with its towering words of resisting despotism, preventing tyranny, and repeated injury; and then you come to the great thundering list of grievances against the King and all they write is "well, sometimes he hasn't been been very good at returning our slaves."  At that point the legality of the American Revolution collapses into the nearest trash can.  And the same thing happens to the "Southern Revolution of 1860".   

ORIGINAL: lvaces
Greyshaft - Let me ask you this, if the question before the house was "The Holocaust - right or wrong?" would you be satisfied by saying, well according to the laws of Germany in place in 1944 it was legal, so who are we to come around later and say it was wrong?

Excellent. This is why I prefer to argue about morality than about legality. Laws are written by governments and have no more moral status than the politicians who write them.

I'm not sure whether the Holocaust was actually legal according to German law at the time; but, if it wasn't, it was only because the German government couldn't be bothered to make it so.

ORIGINAL: lvaces
But the thing about secession is that it also was not legal ... The constitution nowhere says it is legal. It also nowhere says it is illegal.

I've said this before and I'm sorry to say it again, but the fact is that anything is legal unless it's explicitly forbidden by law. Otherwise you'd need a law authorizing you to tie your own shoelaces or clean your own teeth.

I'm surprised at the way people wriggle around trying to find hints that secession was intended to be illegal. Hell with this. If the writers of the US constitution had intended secession to be illegal, they should have said so plainly and in writing. Otherwise it's legal by default, like anything else.

As I've just said above, the legal argument isn't very important to me. But on this subject, what legal argument are you talking about? I don't see any.

ORIGINAL: lvaces
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid world ...

This was a load of bovine excrement. Neither the colonists in the 18th century nor the Confederates in the 19th century had any genuine grievances about oppression. They were disgruntled at not getting their own way in every respect, and so they decided that they were oppressed. My six-year-old son reacts the same way at times.

This document alone gives any state the right to secession PERIOD, morally is a moot point in this debate and a different question altogether.



The Articles of Confederation
Nov. 15, 1777

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

III.
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

IV.
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.

V.
For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a powerreserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while they act as members of the committee of the States.

In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote.

Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

VI.
No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.

VII.
When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

VIII.
All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.

IX.
The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article

of sending and receiving ambassadors
entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever
of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated
of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace
appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies commited on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.
The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, 'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward': provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.

All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before presecribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States

fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States
regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated
establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office
appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers
appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States
making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.
The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction

to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses
to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted
to build and equip a navy
to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a solid-like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled. But if the United States in Congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of each State, unless the legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spread out in the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judeg can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled.
The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled.

The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgement require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State on any question shall be entered on the journal, when it is desired by any delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several States.

X.
The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite.

XI.
Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

XII.
All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pleged.

XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.

Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777

Sarge. Someone is going to point out to you that the "Articals of Confederation" were SUPERCEEDED by the "Constitution of the United States" about 10 years after they were written. Might as well be me.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Sarge. Someone is going to point out to you that the "Articals of Confederation" were SUPERCEEDED by the "Constitution of the United States" about 10 years after they were written. Might as well be me.

[:D]

ratified and in force, March 1, 1781

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Sarge. Someone is going to point out to you that the "Articals of Confederation" were SUPERCEEDED by the "Constitution of the United States" about 10 years after they were written. Might as well be me.

[:D]

ratified and in force, March 1, 1781

But REPLACED by the Constitution and no longer relevant in 1861

The Ratification of Constitutional Amendments was a attempt by individual states to retain their original rights under the Articles of Confederation.

Which in turn set the fondation of the ACW.

Your missing my point [;)]

Jonathan - To people like us with libertarian political leanings, consent of the governed is enough, but southern society then (or now) was certainly not libertarian.  Reiyrc's challange was to say why the southern revolution of 1860 was wrong in the southerners' own terms.  The southerners of that time saw themselves as following in the 1776 tradition and were always saying since all right-thinking Americans agree the 1776 revolution was legal, how can ours be illegal?  One way of putting the answer is that according to the Declaration of Independence, revolutions are like the "Seinfeld" holiday of Festivus, a proper one contains a good airing of the grievances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus). Since their list of grievances was ridiculously small, it is not up to the Declaration's standard to be proper (legal).         

Be so kind as to show us ANY amendment proposal for the Constitution that included the language that the States could leave anytime they wanted?

And as was pointed out the Articles of Confederation are NOT nor were they in 1861, the law of the land. They were REPLACED entirely by the US Constitution.

Using your arguement I guess we can go back to slavery cause, well it exsisted legally at one time too. Who cares if it was repelled and replaced by another law or document.

ORIGINAL: Sarge

The Ratification of Constitutional Amendments was a attempt by individual states to retain their original rights under the Articles of Confederation.

Which in turn set the fondation of the ACW.

Your missing my point [;)]

While I agree the Constitution rendered the Articles of Confederation void (pointed it out myself earlier), did the states see it as such? The states may have felt that since it was in the Articles of Confederation, they still retained any such rights provided there in.