Why was the CSA called the "Confederacy" when it wasn't confederal?

[fskimospy]

Only problem with that is that there was 0 chance of slavery ending by force in any of the states that formed the Confederacy if not for the Civil War. Lincoln himself was on record as saying that it would not be affected in any current slave holding state. I am not one that claims that the Civil War was not about slavery because in the end slavery was the issue that exposed the fractures that led to it. The secessionists were really driven by a vision of dwindling power in the Federal government and Lincoln was certainly opposed to the further expansion of slavery and that was the driving force behind the secessionist movement. And even that is really over simplification of what was a very complex set of issues that led to states that didn't even necessarily have the same interests other than permitting slavery to band together in a confederation. In the end the weakness of the central government of that confederation contributed to it's ultimate defeat which is what is so humorous about the OP's contention that the Confederacy was no different than the Federal system of the US.

They were pushed by a vision of dwindling power in the federal government that would let the other side use it to end slavery. There are of course many factors in play for a decision as large as the one they took, but slavery was far, far, far in excess of any other one.

 

[Murloc]

the swiss confederation has been a federation since 1848, and we're getting away with it. Whatchoo gonna do 'bout it?

 

[jhu]

And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither democratic nor a repblic. So what's your point?

 

[Anarchist420]

Yes it did fail, and no it wasn't illegally replaced. The easiest way to see that it failed was that eventually 100% of the states that adopted it decided to do something else.

As for the illegality, if the Constitution was illegal then so was the Declaration of Independence and any government it spawned. (ie: the Articles of Confederation themselves)

Don't you ever get tired of saying stupid things?

It took effect before the Articles of Confederation could be legally rescinded. RI didn't ratify until they had forceful sanctions placed on them and even then by a narrow margin.

Further, the Articles of Confederation was not a failure, because if there had been a national popular referendum on whether it should've been replaced, the Constitution would've lost, presumably in a landslide. The fact that more than 50% of the people in the Confederal Union would've voted to keep it indicates that it was not failure as does the demographics of the Constitutional Convention and the fact that it had to meet in secret. If the Constitution had been so great, then the Framers wouldn't have minded exposing their plans. Also, the Congress of the Confederation did not approve of replacing the Articles of Confederation. The framers of the Constitution went well beyond what they were told to do.

The Articles of Confederation were replaced in 1788, with the last state ratifying the the Constitution in 1790.

Contrary to Anarchist's assertions - Not only was the debate which initiated the change started by the SOUTH (SC Congressman Charles Pinckney), but also the VIRGINIA Legislature had invited all of the states to revise the articles in what was later called the Constitutional Convention (May 14 through Sept 17, 1787)

In the end, they decided they couldn't make the original Articles satisfy their needs (indeed, some delegates intended on starting over before the Convention began), so the delegates wrote the Constitution.

See above.

Charles Pinckney sucked ass and he was a southerner with northern sympathies.

 

[Thump553]

How do you bake whipped cream inside a waffle like that?

 

[Scotteq]

See above...

What I see is your opinions once again flying in the face of the actual History, and the usual dismissals of uncomfortable facts.

You said it was Northern Merchants.. Yet the reality is it was Southern legislators who initiated the process. You say Pickney was a northern tool.. If so, that flies in the fact of the fact that he was the one who wrote and introduced the Fugutive Slave clause?? Seems to me, if he was a tool of the North one would at the very least expect ambivalence towards Slavery rather than working to preserve it. So how about backing your assertions with some evidence, instead of BS?

You're also ignoring the fact that the state of Virgina were the ones to issue the call to debate. We're somehow to believe the most powerful state in the union at that time was a tool of Northern Merchants?!?! Really!?!?

****


You assert the Confederacy wasn't really a Confederacy... But it surely fits the very definition.

But you don't have to take my word for it, when we have *theirs*: Please feel free to read the Constitution Of The Confederate States Of America for yourself:

From Yale University
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

Please tell us how many times the word "Confederate' and it's derivatives are used. (The answer is 66, by the way... Since we all know you can't be bothered to actually read anything that refutes your delusions...) You *are* wrong, and the very people who created the Confederate States of America prove it by their own words.

****

Regarding our current Constitution -

The 13 States ratified the Constitution Unanimously. Period. End. This was done using the Exact Same Process (drafts created by state delegates sent to those states for adoption by that state's legislature) that created your precious Articles of Confederation in the first place.


That's right: Each and Every American did NOT have a hand in creating the Articles of Confederation in the first place. So why is it that you have this asinine idea that our current Constitution (which has been the law of the land for well over two hundred years) is somehow invalid, when the process that created it was the EXACT SAME PROCESS used to create the AoC?

Further - How in the hell is it possible to assert that you somehow know the outcome of a fictious event, some two hundred twenty two years after the fact? You know - Besides the fact you are making it up?


In Summation - All we're seeing from you is the usual bunch of revisionist bullshit.

 

[Anarchist420]

What I see is your opinions once again flying in the face of the actual History, and the usual dismissals of uncomfortable facts.

You said it was Northern Merchants.. Yet the reality is it was Southern legislators who initiated the process. You say Pickney was a northern tool.. If so, that flies in the fact of the fact that he was the one who wrote and introduced the Fugutive Slave clause?? Seems to me, if he was a tool of the North one would at the very least expect ambivalence. So how about backing your assertions with some evidence, instead of BS?

You're also ignoring the fact that the state of Virgina issued the call to debate on the issue. We're somehow to believe the most powerful state in the union at that time was a tool of Norther Merchants?!?! Really!?!?

****


You assert the Confederacy wasn't really a Confederacy... But it surely fits the very definition.

But you don't have to take my word for it, when we have *theirs*: Please feel free to read the Constitution Of The Confederate States Of America for yourself: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

Please tell us how many times the word "Confederate' and it's derivatives are used. (The answer is 66, by the way... Since we all know you can't be bothered to actually read anything that refutes your delusions...) You *are* wrong, and the very people who created the Confederate States of America prove it by their own words.

****

Regarding our current Constitution -

The 13 States ratified the Constitution Unanimously. Period. End. This was done using the Exact Same Process (drafts created by state delegates sent to those states for adoption by that state's legislature) that created your precious Articles of Confederation in the first place.


That's right: Each and Every American did NOT have a hand in creating the Articles of Confederation in the first place. So why is it that you have this asinine idea that our current Constitution (which has been the law of the land for well over two hundred years) is somehow invalid, when the process that created it was the EXACT SAME PROCESS used to create the AoC?

Further - How in the hell is it possible to assert that you somehow know the outcome of a fictious event, some two hundred twenty two years after the fact? You know - Besides the fact you are making it up?


In Summation - All we're seeing from you is the usual bunch of revisionist bullshit.

The Constitution was already in effect before RI ratified it, so it wasn't ratified by all 13 states until after the fact. And the only reason RI ratified it was because the Constitution was acting illegally. The Articles of Confederation was never legally rescinded because Rhode Island never wanted to rescind it.

The Constitution was not legal when it took effect. The first year it was in effect, it was not legal, as it had not been ratified by all 13 original colonies, as required by the 13th of the Articles of Confederation so that makes the whole thing illegal.

 

[Scotteq]

The Constitution was already in effect before RI ratified it, so it wasn't ratified by all 13 states until after the fact. And the only reason RI ratified it was because the Constitution was acting illegally. The Articles of Confederation was never legally rescinded because Rhode Island never wanted to rescind it.

The Constitution was not legal when it took effect. The first year it was in effect, it was not legal, as it had not been ratified by all 13 original colonies, as required by the 13th of the Articles of Confederation so that makes the whole thing illegal.

Waffle

Waffle

Waffle


The Library Of Congress Says You Are Wrong

September 13, 1788

WHEREAS the Convention assembled in Philadelphia, pursuant to the Resolution of Congress of the 12st February, 1787, did, on the 17th of September in the same year report to the United States in Congress assembled, a Constitution for the People of the United States; whereupon Congress, in the 28th of same September did resolve unanimously, “That said report, with the Resolutions and Letter accompanying the same, be transmitted to the several Legislatures in order to be submitted to a Convention of Delegates chosen in each State by the people thereof in conformity to the Resolves of the Convention so reported by the Convention, and by Congress transmitted to the several Legislatures, has been ratified in the matter therein declared to be sufficient for the establishment of the same, and such Ratifications duly authenticated have been received by Congress, and are filed in the office of the Secretary

You are Wrong.

The Law of the land for the last 220+ Years says so.

 

[shortylickens]

The same way you explain the poor and middle class in this country wanting lower taxes for the rich-- they believed they would someday be slaveowners. They were also desperately afraid of free blacks. Can you imagine what they'd do to white women with those enormous penises??

Yup. History is full of nations where the top 1% manipulated the bottom 99 into fighting their wars for them.

I think the America revolution was the last time a significant chunk of rich land owners personally fought for their country. And thats only because it wasnt technically their country, yet.

 

[fskimospy]

It took effect before the Articles of Confederation could be legally rescinded. RI didn't ratify until they had forceful sanctions placed on them and even then by a narrow margin.

Further, the Articles of Confederation was not a failure, because if there had been a national popular referendum on whether it should've been replaced, the Constitution would've lost, presumably in a landslide. The fact that more than 50% of the people in the Confederal Union would've voted to keep it indicates that it was not failure as does the demographics of the Constitutional Convention and the fact that it had to meet in secret. If the Constitution had been so great, then the Framers wouldn't have minded exposing their plans. Also, the Congress of the Confederation did not approve of replacing the Articles of Confederation. The framers of the Constitution went well beyond what they were told to do.


See above.

Charles Pinckney sucked ass and he was a southerner with northern sympathies.

You stupid piece of shit, you completely ignored the fact that if the Constitution was illegal then the Articles of Confederation were illegal. Both of them took place due to action that was outside of the prevailing legal authority that existed before them.

Seriously, stop posting.

 

[shortylickens]

You stupid piece of shit, you completely ignored the fact that if the Constitution was illegal then the Articles of Confederation were illegal. Both of them took place due to action that was outside of the prevailing legal authority that existed before them.

Seriously, stop posting.

I dont think we need personal attacks, regardless of this being a political thread.

 

[fskimospy]

I dont think we need personal attacks, regardless of this being a political thread.

Have you read what this retard writes? He is eminently deserving of personal attacks. All he does is make a new thread, ask a retarded and leading question, and then abandon it after his point is shown to be stupid.

Seriously, more people should be personally attacking him, not less.

 

[shortylickens]

Have you read what this retard writes? He is eminently deserving of personal attacks. All he does is make a new thread, ask a retarded and leading question, and then abandon it after his point is shown to be stupid.

Seriously, more people should be personally attacking him, not less.

I am not arguing his stupidity. I am saying calling him a stupid piece of shit in public is only going to make things worse.

 

[fskimospy]

I am not arguing his stupidity. I am saying calling him a stupid piece of shit in public is only going to make things worse.

We will agree to disagree. I think that he needs to be called a stupid piece of shit more often.

 

[shortylickens]

We will agree to disagree. I think that he needs to be called a stupid piece of shit more often.

You seem to be under a false assumption, that my opinion matters.
I assure you it does not.

The mods however.........

 

[Cheesetogo]

Hey, here's an idea: Stop click on his threads. In addition to thread crapping, you're also bumping his thread.