Announcing the Fifth Southern National Congress

Since we are on the subject of secession:

Announcing The Fifth Southern National Congress

It is my pleasure to announce that the 2012 РFifth Southern National Congress Рwill be held in the Alabama LS culture center and headquarters in Wallsboro (Elmore County), Alabama, on 15-16 March 2013 (Friday-Saturday).

The LS building is located on US Hwy. 231 north of Montgomery, the first Capital of the Confederacy.

The Fifth Congress will be the most important yet. As our country continues to deteriorate right in front of eyes, we are reminded daily why we became delegate.

Click here to download a pdf format registration form and here to download a Microsoft Word registration form. Please complete form, attach check and mail to the address on the form.

Each delegate will make their own lodging reservations.

From: http://southernnationalcongress.org/truths/2012/fifth_congress.php

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

6 thoughts on “Announcing the Fifth Southern National Congress

  1. Sempronius

    Question for any legal scholar or historian regarding Lincoln’s tariffs: Were they constitutional? Does the accepted Southern understanding of the C allow for the imposition of tariffs?

  2. Weaver

    I believe they were constitutional. The South sold cotton to England and imported much else, though industry was growing. The North wanted to protect its industries, so they’d grow. I’m not sure if debt from the Mexican-American war was an issue. I grew up hearing the surplus money was used in or given to the North. South Carolina had wanted to secede before.

    Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery, which would have reduced the South’s power in the Union over time. The South wanted states to choose as they joined the Union.

    I rather like tariffs and the halting of slavery’s expansion. My complaints are the total war / invasion and the dramatic change in the constitution post-war relative to how it was prior. Also, secession should have been allowed.

    I wouldn’t consider myself an historian. I’ve read some things, but you’re seeking certainty. It’s not easy for me to see the justification for the North’s actions, since I’m a Southerner.

  3. Weaver

    President James Buchanan’s Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. December 3, 1860.

    The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not “necessary and proper for carrying into execution” any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.

    It appears from the proceedings of that body that on the 31st May, 1787, the clause “authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent State” came up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a single sentence. He observed:

    The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.

    Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed, and was never, I believe, again presented. Soon afterwards, on the 8th June, 1787, when incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: “Any government for the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress,” evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the old Confederation.

    Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of a State; how are we to govern it afterwards? Shall we hold it as a province and govern it by despotic power? In the nature of things, we could not by physical force control the will of the people and compel them to elect Senators and Representatives to Congress and to perform all the other duties depending upon their own volition and required from the free citizens of a free State as a constituent member of the Confederacy.

  4. Weaver

    Even if you decide slavery, or at least a fear of slave revolts and ultimately freed blacks who’d drive down wages and cause crime, as the ultimate cause for the South’s secession; the North didn’t want multiculturalism.

    I should probably study the matter further. But whatever my conclusion, it’s the war itself I don’t like.

  5. Sempronius

    Thanks Weaver. If Lincoln’s tariff was constitutional then that puts things in a somewhat different light.

    Maybe the South could have turned to smuggling…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>