The righteousness of Confederate cause is SOOOO plain and clear, the wonder is HOW the war came about--what could possibly have been the motivation....

Below-copied by ap first submitted at comments, http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/the-de...omment-2753456

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

HOW Did 1860s War Arise?
(Apollonian, 11 Jan 19)

Coag: note the 10th Amendment:

<blockquote>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.</blockquote>

(a) Thus secession was NOT prohibited--and couldn't have been, otherwise states wouldn't have ratified in first place.

(b) Note also, only certain "POWERS"--not sovereignty--were "DELEGATED." Thus the union was subordinate to states, the union a creature made by states to serve the states.

(c) Several states noted along w. ratification that they would withdraw (practical secession) fm union if they determined it wasn't working-out--all in logical, natural accord w. Declaration of Independence.

(d) Note the states all seceded fm Great Britain (1), and (2) then the Articles Confederation--they could only have done this if they were sovereign, and NEVER gave up this sovereignty, which sovereignty is inalienable--only delegating "powers," as noted. To have given-up sovereignty, they would have had to repudiate original Declaration of Independence.

(e) There was serious talk, after the war of northern aggression, of putting Jeff Davis on trial for treason, and lawyers looked seriously into it, many lawyers, including fm northern states, volunteering to defend Davis. But the northern lawyers determined NOT to prosecute because they knew Davis would win, the states being (OBVIOUSLY) sovereign, states having MADE the union in the first place.

------------

But the problem still remains for explaining how and why the war began, the northerners otherwise having to be accounted utterly INSANE for their murderous aggression against all logic, reason, and ltr of law. And the answer seems to be in the implications of the Dred Scott Decision in which it verily seemed people could take their slaves anywhere within the union regardless the state laws, including into the territories, the northerners wanting to preserve the rights and privileges of their free labor and not to have to competing w. slave labor.


-----------------above by ap in response to below-copied----------------------

# 240, Coag says:
January 11, 2019 at 3:56 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Corvinus

“Actually, at the time when our nation was created, the perspective was…”

Actually, by the time of Lincoln the cultural destinies of north and south were completely divergent and foreign to each other, and sectional interests (including slavery) were felt to be untenable under the federal union. Your reading of your modern concept of an American nation into past eras is wildly anachronistic, and did not apply in 1860, in 1833 (Nullification Crisis), in 1815 (Hartford Convention), or even in 1789, when it was still unclear to which extent the 13 sovereign states abdicated their sovereignty.

“Please be more specific here.”

Read the Declaration of Independence. John Locke, Jefferson, etc.

Anyways, the legal quibbles are unimportant compared to the decision on the battlefield, and that’s what we must all submit to unless there are irresistible forces in the future that dissolve the union.