Originally Posted by George

Texas was technically not a Slave State, only allowing Indentured Servants. The official position of the US Govt was the Southern States didn't legally secede(Then why did they have to be re-admitted after the War?) So...the creation of W.V. was at best on shakey legal ground, if not out right illegal. The Constitution says the Fed. Govt. can't create a State from an existing State with out the permission of the State losing the area. Where the Govt. of Virginia wasn't going to give permission, the Fed. Govt. created a "Va. State Govt. in exile" out of thin air to give "Permission" to the Fed. Govt. that created it to create the State of W. Va. Seems like out right fraud.

No more fraudulent than treason....no more morally bankrupt than slavery.

Originally Posted by brinktk

No more fraudulent than treason....no more morally bankrupt than slavery.

Then why was no Treason charges ever brought? And every group in the world has practiced Slavery, including every Northern State that had been a Colony.

Sure, and they didn't need a war to get rid of it did they? Or is that justification to own slaves? What are you trying to say with that cop out?

Turning your back on your country so the rich 2% of huge plantation owners can continue to make loads of money is treason as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention, they fired the first shots.

Originally Posted by brinktk

Sure, and they didn't need a war to get rid of it did they? Or is that justification to own slaves? What are you trying to say with that cop out?

Turning your back on your country so the rich 2% of huge plantation owners can continue to make loads of money is treason as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention, they fired the first shots.

Hmmmm, Treason, you mean like the New England States attempt to secede during the War of 1812 because they couldn't Trade with the enemy during wartime? Nothing in the Constitution says States can't secede. South Carolina wanted out, tried to use taxes in the 1830s, just happened to be slavery that got other States to support, something would have come along sooner or later.

The war was going to happen sooner or later, agreed. I just don't fall for the BS "northern aggression" line. The south was as culpable, or more so, in creating the conditions that started the war in the first place.

There's a lot of things that aren't in the constitution that are implied. I'm simply not a fan of fair weather citizens, loyalty still means something to me.

Originally Posted by brinktk

There's a lot of things that aren't in the constitution that are implied. I'm simply not a fan of fair weather citizens, loyalty still means something to me.

I believe that secession isn't banned in the Constitution as another check on Federal power. I'm sure the FF would be sevearly disappointed @ the current state of Fed. power.

Robert e. Lee a great general but an expensive man to have around , 19000 casualties in the 7 days , 15000 Antietam and 12000 at Chancellorsville , Gettysburg 22-23000 , the South in reality could not afford such loses but Lee was a killer and he went for the kill .