Children of the Confederacy

I just heard about this group.  It’s a youth auxiliary of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and appears to be a service organization composed of children who are descendents of confederate soldiers.

They do some great work.  They raise money to fight cancer and to help wounded warriors.  They also raise money for St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital.  They have some scholarships they fund for students maintaining a good grade point average.  All in all, this is an outstanding organization that provides community service and leadership opportunities to young men and women.

So what’s my problem?  Their creed is based on historical lies.

It first came to my attention elsewhere with this photo of a plaque in Texas:


That wording, by the way, is still the current creed:

“Because we desire to perpetuate, in love and honor, the heroic deeds of those who enlisted in the Confederate Services, and upheld its flag during four years of war, we, the children of the South,  have united in an organization called the ‘Children of the Confederacy,’ in which our strength, enthusiasm and love of justice can exert its influence. We therefore pledge ourselves to preserve pure ideas: to honor the memory of our beloved Veterans; to study and teach the truths of history (one of the most important of which is, that the War Between the States was not a rebellion, nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery). And always to act in a manner that will reflect honor upon our noble patriotic ancestors.”

Yes, the Civil War was a war of rebellion.  The confederate states rebelled against the United States and the United States put down that rebellion.

And yes, the underlying cause was the determination on the part of the rebel states to sustain the institution of slavery.  There really is no argument about this among credible historians.  One cannot read the words of the secessionists in an honest manner without coming to this conclusion.

The “Historian’s Page” of their website is behind a password-protected wall, and they have a “Confederate Catechism” whose contents are not revealed at the website.  If it’s anything like this one, these children are being taught a bunch of lies about history.

Don’t get me wrong, this is an outstanding organization, and the kids are doing great things.  But it seems to me that telling these kids lies about history is not honoring their confederate ancestors.  The truth is the best way to honor them.  If they only had true history I’d be singing their praises to the moon.


  1. jfepperson · · Reply

    A friend who is in the UDC is very much into this organization. She had the sons of another good friend as the backbone of a (tiny) NoVa chapter, along with her own daughter, until they all “aged out” at 18. The kids do not appear to have been permanently harmed. I did cringe over the kinds of things they would have to say.

    1. Like I said, Jim, I think it’s a great organization, and these kids are doing great things. My problem is with what the adults are telling them about history.

      1. That was my snarky comment about the kids not being permanently harmed, although my friend’s daughter did spit on a picture of Sherman that is part of a Park Service plaque at the Wilderness Battlefield. (Totally true—I was gob-smacked when she did it. Now married to a Marine, and the mother of two.) As you well know, the UDC has a long history of trying to shape how the story of the Civil war was told.

        1. Yep. I’m sure Mildred Lewis Rutherford, the great defender of the KKK, still wields influence.

  2. UDC Karen · · Reply

    A few thoughts:

    1. The War for Southern Independence was the result of a lawless act of agression on behalf of the United States of America against the Confederate States of America.

    2. Inasmuch as some States chose to secede to protect the institution of slavery, and others States deliberately chose to remain in the United States to protectv slavery, slavery had absolutely no role in the War. Indeed, the States that chose to protect slavery by remaining in the Union were corrrect; their slavery was protected long after Lincoln had stolen the slave property of the seceded States.

    3. If it is simply a question of teaching historical truth, I am in full agreement. The children should be taught of Lincoln’s white supremacy; they should be taught Lincoln routinely used the “n” word; they should be taught Lincoln wanted to return blacks to Africa; they should be taught that Lincoln gave his full support to the fugitive slave laws; they should be taught that Lincoln wanted to keep the western territories exclusively for white people; they should be taught that Lincoln’s home State of Illinois made it illegal for blacks to live in the State; they should be that the ports of Newport, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia were actively engaged in the slave-trade; they should be taught that northern businessmen conducted an active, pervasive, and very profitable commerce with slavers; they should be taught that Lincoln repeatedly said the war was not over slavery; they should be taught that the U.S. Congress said the war was not over slavery; they should be taught that the United States admitted a new slave State during the war; they should be taught that U.S. Grant was a racist who owned slaves and that he used the “n” word; they should be taught that Union General William Harney beat a slave girl to death; they should be taught that Brown University was originally funded with profits from slave-trading; they should be taught that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were Southern slave-owners; they should be taught that the American colonial secession from the Great Britain was conducted by slave-owners and slave-traders; nor is that all

    3. The children should be taught that the U.S. Air Force burned hundred of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians alive; they shoud be taught that the U.S. Air Force burned tens of thousands of innocent German civilians alive; they should be taught that the man who ordered these slaughters, U.S. Air Force General Curtis Lemay, ran as a Vice President on the ticket of racist segregationist George Wallace;

    4. Don’t get me wrong, the Air Force has done some fine work. But we don’t want the adults telling the children a bunch of lies about history. They are entitled to the truth.

    1. Thanks for taking the time to comment, Ms. UDC Karen, and for providing a prime example of how the UDC has no credibility whatsoever when it comes to history. I hope you have a wonderful evening. By the way, the US Air Force didn’t come into existence until 1947. Oh, and if you happen to be involved with the Children of the Confederacy organization, thank you for your contributions to the Wounded Warriors and the fight against cancer.

      1. Do you have proof besides word-of-mouth that she is wrong? Do you doubt that Washington had slaves? When Washington was still in office, slavery was just a part of life. And about Lincoln, there are people that worked with him that said this stuff. Just because they didn’t think it important to put a racist quote in your 8th grade history books, doesn’t mean it never happened.

        1. Yes, it’s called actual history instead of ignorant mythology. Read a few books by actual historians instead of neoconfederate idiots. You might want to check out the book, Lincoln and Race, by Richard Striner, reviewed here. Also check out a real history of the Civil War. James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom is still a good choice.

          You also might find this post to be of interest.

    2. I’m always gobsmacked at the notion that the South is somehow exempt from the moral onus associated with any bad thing done under the aegis of the United States flag, at any point in history.

      1. Well, of course, Andy. They are pure as the driven snow, y’know.

      2. You had me at “gobsmacked.”

  3. James McPherson writes about the UDC and the Children of the Confederacy in an essay entitled “Long-Legged Yankee Lies”: The Southern Textbook Crusade,” which is in Alice Fahs and Joan Waugh, (editors) “The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture” (pgs. 64-78)

    McPherson states that the Children’s auxiliaries started to form in 1895. I think he overestimates the success of these efforts (and he fails to acknowledge that the GAR was doing pretty much the same thing during this time), but the essay is nevertheless an entertaining read.

    1. I have the book and the essay, Nick. Terrific stuff. I think the Children of the Confederacy of today is a bit different regarding their outreach to the community. I applaud them for their work with our wounded warriors and raising money for cancer.

      1. It sounds like they are doing some excellent work. I’m glad to have learned about their activities today and I thank you for writing about them!

        1. Thanks, Nick.

  4. Sara Lee · · Reply

    Of course the Southern people are exempted from any culpability insofar as evils committed after 1865 are concerned. They fought desperately to get out of the Union and are in it only through brutality, violence, and coercion. It would be like holding Latvia responsible for the evils of the Soviet Union, when Latvia was held by brute force in the Soviet Union by the Russians. The fault is with the Russians. But what I am gobsmacked at is the notion that the Northerners exempt themselves from the moral onus associated with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and their own history of slave ownership. What I am really, really gobsmacked about is the notion that Unionists howl in protest against the injustices of slavery in the Confederacy, and casually exempt themselves from the moral onus of slavery in the Union itself. Talk about being gobsmacked.

    1. Thank you for taking the time to comment, Ms. Sara. Are you in the UDC also? You display the same conditioning understanding of history that seems to be rampant there.

      Pray tell, which “Northerners” deny that folks in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York, for example, were involved in the slave trade? Let’s take a look at this from Brown University: Slavery and the Slave Trade in Rhode Island. And take a look at this: The Brown Family and the Slave Trade. This is from the NY Times: Brown University’s Debt to Slavery. This is from NPR: How Slavery Shaped America’s Oldest and Most Elite Colleges. This is from CNN: Colleges Come to Terms with Slave-owning Pasts.

      Here’s something from the Massachusetts Historical Society: African Americans and the End of Slavery in Massachusetts. This is from the Freedom Trail Foundation in Boston, Massachusetts: The Rise and Fall of the Slave Trade in Massachusetts.

      There are plenty more sites where slavery in “the North” is explored. There are books about the subject as well. It seems as though you are the victim of a cruel hoax played on you. Did the UDC tell you that “Northerners” ignore their own history of involvement with slavery and the slave trade? If so, it’s just another in a long line of historical falsehoods they purvey.

      I don’t see anyone who denies that slavery existed in Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware, four slave states that stayed loyal. I don’t see anyone who denies that when West Virginia was admitted [with gradual emancipation written into its constitution], slaves existed in that state. I don’t see anyone who denies that 18 slaves still existed in New Jersey in 1860. If you believe people are denying any of this, please let me know.

      The difference with the confederacy, though, is that they seceded and sought their independence in order to protect the institution of slavery from a perceived threat posed to it by the legal, fair, constitutional election of an antislavery president from an antislavery party.

      Don’t be a stranger, Ms. Sara. Please check back often. Also, if you are involved with the Children of the Confederacy, then I would like to offer a sincere thank you for the help provided to the wounded warriors and also for the help provided to the fight against cancer.

  5. Sara Lee · · Reply

    Sara Lee here, checking back. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the “Confederacy” didn’t secede from anything. Each State which ultimately joined the Confederate States of America seceded from the United States of America, and did so quite independently of any and all other States. And many that did secede made no mention of slavery at all. None. The Confederate States of America was formed, obviously, only after the respective States had seceded. Additionally, the slaves States certainly had no need to secede in order to protect the institution of slavery, as the Union slave State of Kentucky so ably demonstrates. While it can perhaps be argued that Mississippi seceded to defend slavery, Kentucky decided that the best way to defend slavery was to remain in the Union (they were correct-slavery was legal in Kentucky long after the slave property in Mississippi had been pilfered by Lincoln). So where are you bitter denunciations against the United States and Kentucky for protecting slavery?

    1. Hello again, Ms. Sara. Nice of you to stop by again. Of the seven states that first came together to form the confederacy:

      South Carolina published a Declaration of Causes that laid out why it seceded: to protect slavery.
      You can read it here.

      Mississippi published a Declaration of Causes that laid out why it seceded: to protect slavery.
      You can read it here.

      Georgia published a Declaration of Causes that laid out why it seceded: to protect slavery.
      You can read it here.

      Texas published a Declaration of Causes that laid out why it seceded: to protect slavery.
      You can read it here.

      Florida wrote a Declaration of Causes that laid out why it seceded: to protect slavery.
      You can read it here.

      In its ordnance of secession, Alabama told us why they were seceding: to protect slavery.
      You can read it here.

      The seceding states sent commissioners to the other slave states in order to convince them of the necessity for seceding. Louisiana’s official representative to Texas, George Williamson, gave Louisiana’s case for seceding to the Texas Secession Convention. You can read his speech here. Alabama’s commissioner to Louisiana reported back to his governor that Louisiana knew the necessity of seceding in order to protect slavery. You can read his report here.

      So there you have official statements from all seven of the original states of the confederacy that they had seceded in order to protect slavery. It’s their words, not mine and not some Yankee historian’s words. Seven out of seven. One hundred percent.

      Governor Isham Harris of Tennessee sent two messages to the Tennessee legislature asking for secession. His reason: to protect slavery.
      You can see the first message here, and the second message here.

      On January 1, 1861, both houses of the Virginia Legislature, your own state, unanimously passed a resolution telling the world that if the impasse couldn’t be resolved peacefully they would secede to be on the side of the slave states. You can read it here.

      Where are these “many states” of which you speak?

      Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the confederacy, said very clearly it was the disagreement over slavery that caused secession. You can read his speeches on this here and here.

      Jefferson Davis himself said slavery was the reason for secession and forming the confederacy. You can read him here.

      You may disagree, but the seceding states certainly felt they needed to be out of the Union in order to protect slavery. We know they felt that way because they told us very clearly.

      As to Kentucky, she did get to keep her slaves until the 13th Amendment was ratified, and then she lost her slaves against her will. Same with Delaware. Kentucky fought to preserve the Union, not to perpetuate slavery.

      The United States didn’t exist in order to protect slavery. The confederacy did. The United States fought to preserve the Union. The confederacy wanted its independence in order to protect slavery.

      As to bitter, may I say Ms. Sara, that you are the one who sounds bitter when you speak of Mr. Lincoln having “pilfered” the slave property of Mississippi.

      I hope you have a wonderful day.

    2. Oh, by the way, Ms. Sara. Your point about the confederacy is a distinction without a difference. The confederacy was made up of states that seceded, therefore every state in the confederacy had seceded, therefore we can talk about what the confederacy said about seceding.

  6. Sara Lee · · Reply

    Sara here.
    I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I HAVE NO INCLINATION TO DO SO..”

    -Abraham Lincoln

    “… There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
    No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
    It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other….”

    -Abraham Lincoln

    “… I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made EXPRESS AND IRREVOCABLE…”

    -Abraham Lincoln

    “… My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. IF I COULD SAVE THE UNION WITHOUT FREEING ANY SLAVE I WOULD DO IT..

    -Abraham Lincoln

    And then we remember that slavery was legal in the United States just as it was in the Confederate States, and still you persist in this silly nonsense that the war was fought over slavery? Would you really have us believe that the Kentucky slave owners were so outraged that slavery was a legal feature of the CSA they went to war over to defeat abolish and defeat slavery? Slavery clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with the war.

    PS- The “Confederacy” refers to the CSA. At no time ever, did it secede from anything.

    PPS- I repeat, many of the States that seceded made no mention at all of slavery in their ordinances of secession. None.

    1. Hello once again, Ms. Sara. You’ve been busy, haven’t you? 🙂

      Regarding Kentucky I’ll have to refer you to my last response. Kentucky wanted to preserve the Union.

      Regarding Lincoln: Lincoln was pledged to execute the laws of the United States. According to the prevailing constitutional interpretation of the time, slavery was purely a state matter. It did not exist outside the boundaries of the slave states. There was no federal law that made a person a slave. The Constitution did not recognize people could be held as property. It did recognize that people could be held to service, though. And the so-called “Fugitive Slave Law” was a United States law that had been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. Lincoln was therefore pledged to uphold that law.

      So slavery was a state matter, not a federal manner. Therefore, Lincoln, as the President of the United States, could do nothing about slavery in the states in which it existed. To try to do so, outside the Civil War, would be illegal. So Lincoln had no purpose or inclination to do something that was illegal.

      As to the Corwin Amendment, it did nothing more than to codify the existing constitutional interpretation as I stated above–that slavery was a state matter, not a federal matter, and the federal government had no authority over what was purely a state matter.

      However, the Corwin Amendment said nothing whatsoever about the expansion of slavery. Aye, Ms. Sara. That was the rub! You’ve quoted carefully excised sections of Lincoln’s First Inaugural. Here’s another: “One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.”

      You quote from Lincoln’s August of 1862 letter to Horace Greeley. I think it’s instructive to look at the entire letter.

      Hon. Horace Greely: Executive Mansion,
      Dear Sir Washington, August 22, 1862.

      I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

      As to the policy I ‘seem to be pursuing’ as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

      I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be ‘the Union as it was.’ If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever

      I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

      I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. Yours,

      A. LINCOLN
      [CWAL, Vol 5, pp. 388-389]

      Lincoln was a careful writer. If only his critics were as careful readers as he was a careful writer.

      Note he says his paramount object is to save the Union. It’s the objective that takes precedence over any other. As President of the United States, that must be his paramount object. Freeing slaves, for Lincoln, would be a tool to be used in saving the Union. It was a tool, though, that would only be used by a president who was antislavery, not proslavery. A proslavery president would do all he could to keep slavery intact. Not Lincoln. And notice what he says after the small part you excised from the letter: “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”

      Lincoln, by the way, wrote this letter with the Emancipation Proclamation in his desk, ready to issue after the next Union victory. He had already decided, when he wrote this letter, that he would free the slaves in the rebel states as a weapon in the struggle to save the Union.

      That slavery was legal in the United States really has no relevance. It was legal, for the time being, only in states that allowed it. By this time it was illegal in the District of Columbia. By this time it had been made illegal in the territories. By this time hundreds, if not thousands, of slaves had already been freed as a result of the two Confiscation Acts.

      You seem to think that both sides must be fighting for the same thing in order for the war to be about something. Not the case, ma’am. The Federals were fighting to preserve the Union. In the second half of the war, ending slavery was added as a war measure because it was deemed to be the best way to win the war and to prevent future civil wars. For the confederates, though, their desire to be independent was because of their desire to protect the institution of slavery. The confederacy existed for that purpose and no other purpose–independence in order to preserve slavery. Slavery, very clearly, had everything to do with the war–for the confederates. It determined everything from the secession of their states to their strategy to their manpower policies.

      Your adding the bit about “in their secession ordinances” is more than a little bit disingenuous. I showed you where nine of the eleven confederate states, in official pronouncements, told us they were seceding to protect slavery. Your claim about the ordinances is disingenuous because all but one of them simply said they were seceding and didn’t give a reason. The one that gave a reason, Alabama, gave the reason of protecting slavery. Your reliance on documents that didn’t talk about why they were seceding is a weak reed indeed. It’s like if you got a ticket for speeding and a ticket for illegal parking and you point to the ticket for illegal parking and say this shows you’ve never been caught speeding. Look at the documents where they said at the time why they were seceding. They did so to protect slavery.

      So was all of this information you were brainwashed into believing taught by the UDC? It’s a perfect example of why they can never be relied on for accurate history. Notice that in every case I’ve given you the words of the people involved, not some “liberal academic’s” views. I haven’t given you just small snippets taken out of context. I’ve led you to where you can read the full documents.

      You are still making a distinction with no difference. All the states in the confederacy attempted to secede from the United States. It is comprised of seceded states, so it’s okay to talk about why the confederacy seceded from the United States.

      Enjoy this wonderful afternoon.

  7. Sara Lee · · Reply

    Sara again. Now then, most of your reply directly supports the properly held view that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the war. You agree that under the constitution slavery was under the control of the states, and neither the President nor the Congress could lawfully interfere with it in any way. In fact, as you correctly observe, any effort on behalf of either Congress or the Lincoln administration to wage war against the States over an institution that was perfectly lawful, would have been a gross violation of the Constitution. What’s puzzling is that you seem to believe that an ordinance of secession is simultaneously a declaration of war. I would encourage you to read the ordinances of secession. Please tell me if any of these ordinances contained a declaration of war. When you discover that they most assuredly did not, you will see that the seceding States merely wished to peacefully leave a political Union and establish political independence. The war Lincoln waged was ultimately for the purpose of denying the seceding States the right to alter and abolish their system of government, and to simultaneously deny them the political independence to which they were rightfully entitled.

    1. Hi Ms. Sara. It’s always a pleasure to hear from you. What my reply shows is that there were two sides in the war. One side was the Federals, whose primary goal was to preserve the Union. They attacked slavery and added ending slavery as a war objective because they determined it was the best way to win the war, preserve the Union, and prevent future civil wars. They attacked slavery as part of their strategy. The other side was the confederates, who sought their independence in order to preserve the institution of slavery. Slavery affected almost everything they did. So what my reply shows was that slavery was central to the war. It was everything to the confederates, and it was an important strategic weapon for the Federals.

      I never even intimated that an ordinance of secession was a declaration of war. I specifically said the ordinances of secession, with one exception, simply said that the state seceded. The exception was Alabama, who used their ordinance of secession to also tell us they were trying to protect slavery. The war didn’t start with secession and I never posted anything that would even remotely imply it. The war started with the firing on Fort Sumter. I would like to know how you got the impression I believed an ordinance of secession was a declaration of war.

      The war the confederates waged was to pursue their independence in order to preserve slavery. Lincoln accepted the war they started in order to preserve the Union and the supremacy of the US Constitution. The confederates were not entitled to unilaterally secede from the United States. I go over that here.

      That UDC indoctrination education isn’t serving you well at all.

  8. Sara Lee · · Reply

    It’s Sara. Actually, the Confederates were fighting, once again, to maintain the political independence to which they were fully entitled. As far as protecting slavery is concerned, there was certainly no need to wage war to accomplish that. The states had, as you have firmly and explicitly stated, the full protection of the constitution and the emphatic reassurances of Lincoln and his administration to protect slavery. Clearly then, the best way to protect and defend slavery was simply to remain in the Union, where slavery had always been legal. And the slave states of Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and Delaware did just that. With slavery fully protected either in or out of the Union, it is very obvious that slavery had absolutely no role in the war. And I mean none whatsoever. The right of secession was the one and only issue.

    Now then, regarding the constitutional right of secession, you make demonstrably false and palpably mendacious claim when you say that the states were not entitled to unilaterally secede from the United States. Nevertheless, and in the interest of magnanimity, I will ask; can you please show me where the constitution prohibits secession?

    1. Hello once again, Ms. Sara. The reason the confederates wanted their independence was in order to protect slavery. As this is at least the third time I’ve explained this, I hope it will be the last. They were the ones who believed a war was necessary to accomplish it. You may disagree, but they were the ones who made the decision to go to war. Clearly, if they were afraid that cutting off the expansion of slavery, appointing antislavery officials to patronage jobs, and building up an antislavery Republican Party in the south was a danger to slavery, then the best way to protect slavery would be to leave the Union where they wouldn’t have to deal with any of that. If you read the items at the links I posted, you would have seen that. Your logic is lacking. They perceived a threat to slavery and acted on it. They wrote about slavery being their number one concern. It is quite obvious, then, that for the confederates the war was all about slavery.

      If you take a look at Article VI, Clause 2, it tells you that the US Constitution and US laws are the supreme law of the land. That means no state, on its own, can claim that US laws and the US Constitution no longer apply to it. The only way a state can legally secede is to have the permission of the other states in the Union. There is absolutely nothing mendacious about what I post, and I will thank you to no longer attempt to make such a claim. You cannot demonstrate what I have posted was false, so if any claim is mendacious it would be yours.

      Have a nice evening.

  9. Sara Lee · · Reply

    It’s Sara, and as I have repeatedly observed, and as you have emphatically agreed, slavery was thoroughly protected under the constitution, and no move to destroy it was possible. And as you have also agreed, the individual states that seceded most certainly did not declare war when they seceded; they merely declared their independence. Now then, as the CSA most assuredly had no intention of waging war against the USA, if the Lincoln administration had simply respected the unalienable right of a people to alter and abolish their system of government, no war would have been possible.

    So now we are back to the question of the constitutionality of secession. And here, I must say, you offer a most unsatisfactory explanation. More specifically, your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause is completely erroneous. What the supremacy clause means, in fact, is that if state legislation and federal legislation compete or conflict in some way, the state legislation must yield to the federal. Your problem, obviously, is that in order for the supremacy clause to apply as you wish to apply it, you would need either federal legislation or a constitutional provision which would prohibit secession. As of 1860, there was neither. In point of fact, as you have neither, and as the tenth amendment specifically reserves the power for the states to do all that is not prohibited to them, the supremacy clause is an additional guarantee of the right to secede. And you compound your errors by stating;

    “… The only way a state can legally secede is to have the permission of the other states in the Union…”

    Can you please show me where the constitution says that? Or, in the alternative, can you please show me the federal legislation which existed in 1860 which says that? Thanks so much.

    1. Hello again, Ms. Sara [or should I say Austin/Caldwell/Reed/Clarissa/Jennifer?]. Your logic is flawed because your input is flawed. The states believed slavery was in danger. Whether you agree with them or not, they believed it and acted on that belief. I’ve already told you this. I’m not going to repeat myself again. And the states did not have an unalienable right to alter or abolish their government in order to protect slavery.

      Doesn’t matter if you think the explanation was unsatisfactory or not, because it’s correct. Because of the Supremacy Clause, a state cannot claim any US laws or any part of the Constitution no longer apply to it–especially not the US law that declared that state a part of the United States. No legislation regarding secession is needed whatsoever because the Constitution itself automatically nullifies any ordinance of secession.

      As to needing the permission of the other states, it is quite obvious that a state cannot enter the United States without the permission of the other states, and so it can’t leave the United States without the permission of the other states.

      There is no error in my post whatsoever, especially since it’s confirmed by the US Supreme Court. Any claim to the contrary has no validity.

      1. Well I’ll be, perhaps I should have read on. Nicely played Al. Notice how it disappears once it’s caught?

        1. Well, it’s an enforced disappearance, placed into the troll bin.

          1. Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!

            Have you gotten any nasty emails for it yet? lol.

          2. Not at this point.

    2. Why my goodness is that Sarah Lee?

      The same Sarah Lee found here?

      The same Sara Lee that goes by the numerous aliases Caldwell/Austin/Clarissa/Jennifer Cotton/Reed etc. The same Sara Lee that posts under the name Caldwell on numerous White Supremacist websites.

      Now Al, surely you saw that one coming.

      1. The very same, Rob.

  10. [edit] that was possibly the most entertaining History exchange I’ve ever read, that altercation between you and “Sara Lee”. As Rob said, “well played.” That just made my day.

    1. Thanks. “Sara Lee” is a troll who has appeared in various places under several different names and has now been banished to the nether regions.

  11. Update for you. File under “Better Late Than Never”…

    Texas House Speaker Joe Straus requested on Tuesday that a contentious Confederate plaque be removed from the Capitol.

    The plaque, erected in 1959, asserts that the Civil War was “not a rebellion, nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery.”

    “This is not accurate, and Texans are not well-served by incorrect information about our history,” Straus said in a letter to the State Preservation Board, which oversees the Capitol grounds.

    Straus added in his letter that “Confederate monuments and plaques are understandably important to many Texans” but stressed the importance of such landmarks being “accurate and appropriate.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: