The South fought for freedom even though they were the slave states they fought for individual liberty and state's rights. The original intent of the Union was to preserve and enhance the sovereignty of the individual states. Otherwise there would have been very few signing the constitution four score and seven years prior to 1863. The right to sign into a union carries with it forever the right to secede. It is the same right as the right of divorce.
The "free states" of the North on the other hand forced their will on the states of the South with the lethal vigor of the tyrant. This was not a preservation of the Union but the ultimate perversion of the Union.
George Washington was on the Southern Seal and for good reason. He would have been a Confederate. He would always have fought for freedom.
I play the south to show they could have prevailed if not for the vanity of one R.L. Lee.
-
Major Dilemma
- Corporal
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:46 pm
Major Dilemma wrote:The South fought for freedom even though they were the slave states they fought for individual liberty and state's rights. The original intent of the Union was to preserve and enhance the sovereignty of the individual states. Otherwise there would have been very few signing the constitution four score and seven years prior to 1863. The right to sign into a union carries with it forever the right to secede. It is the same right as the right of divorce.
The "free states" of the North on the other hand forced their will on the states of the South with the lethal vigor of the tyrant. This was not a preservation of the Union but the ultimate perversion of the Union.
George Washington was on the Southern Seal and for good reason. He would have been a Confederate. He would always have fought for freedom.
I play the south to show they could have prevailed if not for the vanity of one R.L. Lee.
While I am currently arguing for the Souths right to secceed in the historical thread. It is a long stretch to equate the Souths struggle with individual freedom. They had this institution called slavery at the time which pretty much trashes that line of logic. States rights were a part of it to be sure. But you just can't realisticly equate the Souths cause with individual freedom. It wont wash.
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
Major Dilemma
- Corporal
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:46 pm
Nial wrote:While I am currently arguing for the Souths right to secceed in the historical thread. It is a long stretch to equate the Souths struggle with individual freedom. They had this institution called slavery at the time which pretty much trashes that line of logic. States rights were a part of it to be sure. But you just can't realisticly equate the Souths cause with individual freedom. It wont wash.
Nial
The south would have outgrown its use of slavery just as the north did earlier. Today we have the federals still ignoring our supreme law of freedom and still encroaching on our individual freedoms. It is an ongoing struggle which the founders were well aware of. State's rights preserved the strong possibility of protecting individual rights. Since the south lost we have continued to be at the mercy of misguided illegal federalism and the profiteers who run it.
How is it that slavery continues to confuse this issue? This was a ploy of the north to win their war against state sovereignty. Otherwise the north was not concerned with slavery. Slavery was not the reason for the war nor should the conflict be understood in terms of which states were opposed to it. Slavery was soon destined to be obsolete. If the south had won there would have been less Jim Crow and more awareness of freedom at the individual level. Our constitution would not have been mortally compromised as it has been and we would know what it is to be free and that innate knowledge would have translated into a better society for all people.
The North did not win the war the warmongering bankers won the war, against our common Union. Even if divided all peoples love freedom. The love of freedom is our common Union. To preserve the union the north assaulted the principles which defined it. Hence no union was preserved but the true principles of the Union were buried even deeper under a cloud of confusion of purpose. It is ironic that the pot calls the kettle black and nearly all continue to believe it.
Major Dilemma wrote:The south would have outgrown its use of slavery just as the north did earlier. Today we have the federals still ignoring our supreme law of freedom and still encroaching on our individual freedoms. It is an ongoing struggle which the founders were well aware of. State's rights preserved the strong possibility of protecting individual rights. Since the south lost we have continued to be at the mercy of misguided illegal federalism and the profiteers who run it.
How is it that slavery continues to confuse this issue? This was a ploy of the north to win their war against state sovereignty. Otherwise the north was not concerned with slavery. Slavery was not the reason for the war nor should the conflict be understood in terms of which states were opposed to it. Slavery was soon destined to be obsolete. If the south had won there would have been less Jim Crow and more awareness of freedom at the individual level. Our constitution would not have been mortally compromised as it has been and we would know what it is to be free and that innate knowledge would have translated into a better society for all people.
The North did not win the war the warmongering bankers won the war, against our common Union. Even if divided all peoples love freedom. The love of freedom is our common Union. To preserve the union the north assaulted the principles which defined it. Hence no union was preserved but the true principles of the Union were buried even deeper under a cloud of confusion of purpose. It is ironic that the pot calls the kettle black and nearly all continue to believe it.
Whether the south would or would not have ended slavery on it's own is a moot point since it was not allowed to do so. I am not arguing the Souths right to secceed, as I pointed out I believe they did have that right. I am only pointing out the ilogical statement that it seceeded to further individual rights. Like I said. States rights were certainly a part of the pie. But so was slavery. I will grant you that it wasn't the only issue. But to many in the north, it was of primary importance. Whether they were tricked or coerced into believing it? Is once again a moot point. Only that they believed it. I personal don't think that was the case. But it really doesn't matter. Since my family had members on both sides of the conflict. I can honestly say it was an issue. I know this from my great grandfathers writings. So at least for him it was an issue.
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Causes of secession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict likely. Lincoln did not propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction".[1] Much of the political battle in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery into the newly created territories.[2][3][4] All of the organized territories were likely to become free-soil states, which increased the Southern movement toward secession. Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.[5][6][7]
Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said[12][13] that slavery was the chief cause of secession[14] in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[15] There was a striking contrast [14][16] between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause secession[15] and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech. Confederate President Jefferson Davis also switched from saying the war was caused by slavery to saying that states' rights was the cause. While Southerners often used states' rights arguments to defend slavery, sometimes roles were reversed, as when Southerners demanded national laws to defend their interests with the Gag Rule and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. On these issues, it was Northerners who wanted to defend the rights of their states.[17]
Almost all of the inter-regional crises involved slavery, starting with debates on the three-fifths clause and a twenty year extension of the African slave trade in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There was controversy over adding the slave state of Missouri to the Union that led to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Nullification Crisis over the Tariff of 1828 (although the tariff was low after 1846,[18] and even the tariff issue was related to slavery),[19][20] [21] the gag rule that prevented discussion in Congress of petitions for ending slavery from 1835–1844, the acquisition of Texas as a slave state in 1845 and Manifest Destiny as an argument for gaining new territories where slavery would become an issue after the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), which resulted in the Compromise of 1850.[22] The Wilmot Proviso was an attempt by Northern politicians to exclude slavery from the territories conquered from Mexico. The extremely popular antislavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) by Harriet Beecher Stowe greatly increased Northern opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.[23][24]
The 1854 Ostend Manifesto was an unsuccessful Southern attempt to annex Cuba as a slave state. The Second Party System broke down after passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, which replaced the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery with popular sovereignty, allowing the people of a territory to vote for or against slavery. The Bleeding Kansas controversy over the status of slavery in the Kansas Territory included massive vote fraud perpetrated by Missouri pro-slavery Border Ruffians. Vote fraud led pro-South Presidents Pierce and Buchanan to make attempts (including support for the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution) to admit Kansas as a slave state.[25] Violence over the status of slavery in Kansas erupted with the Wakarusa War,[26] the Sacking of Lawrence,[27] the caning of Republican Charles Sumner by the Southerner Preston Brooks,[28] [29] the Pottawatomie Massacre,[30] the Battle of Black Jack, the Battle of Osawatomie and the Marais des Cygnes massacre. The 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision allowed slavery in the territories even where the majority opposed slavery, including Kansas. The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 included Northern Democratic leader Stephen Douglas' Freeport Doctrine. This doctrine was an argument for thwarting the Dred Scott decision which, along with Douglas' defeat of the Lecompton Constitution, divided the Democratic Party between North and South. Northern abolitionist John Brown's raid at Harpers Ferry Armory was an attempt to incite slave insurrections in 1859. [31] The North-South split in the Democratic Party in 1860 due to the Southern demand for a slave code for the territories completed polarization of the nation between North and South.
Other factors include sectionalism (caused by the growth of slavery in the lower South while slavery was gradually phased out in Northern states) and economic differences between North and South, although most modern historians disagree with the extreme economic determinism of historian Charles Beard and argue that Northern and Southern economies were largely complementary.[32] There was the polarizing effect of slavery that split the largest religious denominations (the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches)[33] and controversy caused by the worst cruelties of slavery (whippings, mutilations and families split apart). The fact that seven immigrants out of eight settled in the North, plus the fact that twice as many whites left the South for the North as vice versa, contributed to the South's defensive-aggressive political behavior.[34]
The election of Lincoln in 1860 was the final trigger for secession.[35] Efforts at compromise, including the "Corwin Amendment" and the "Crittenden Compromise", failed. Southern leaders feared that Lincoln would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward extinction. The slave states, which had already become a minority in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly powerful North.
Support for secession was strongly correlated to the number of plantations in the region; states of the deep South which had the greatest concentration of plantations were the first to secede. The upper South slave states of Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee had fewer plantations and rejected secession until the Fort Sumter crisis forced them to choose sides. Border states had fewer plantations still and never seceded.[36][37][38] As of 1850 the percentage of Southern whites living in families that owned slaves was 43 percent in the lower South, 36 percent in the upper South and 22 percent in the border states that fought mostly for the Union.[38] 85 percent of slaveowners who owned 100 or more slaves lived in the lower South, as opposed to one percent in the border states.[38] Ninety-five percent of blacks lived in the South, comprising one third of the population there as opposed to one percent of the population of the North. Consequently, fears of eventual emancipation were much greater in the South than in the North.[39]
The Supreme Court decision of 1857 in Dred Scott v. Sandford added to the controversy. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's decision said that slaves were "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect",[40] and that slavery could spread into the territories. Lincoln warned that "the next Dred Scott decision"[41] could threaten Northern states with slavery.
Northern politician Abraham Lincoln said, "this question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present."[42] The slavery issue was related to sectional competition for control of the territories,[43] and the Southern demand for a slave code for the territories was the issue used by Southern politicians to split the Democratic Party in two, which all but guaranteed the election of Lincoln and secession. When secession was an issue, South Carolina planter and state Senator John Townsend said that "our enemies are about to take possession of the Government, that they intend to rule us according to the caprices of their fanatical theories, and according to the declared purposes of abolishing slavery."[44] Similar opinions were expressed throughout the South in editorials, political speeches and declarations of reasons for secession. Even though Lincoln had no plans to outlaw slavery where it existed, Southerners throughout the South expressed fears for the future of slavery.
Southern concerns included not only economic loss but also fears of racial equality.[45][46][47][48] The Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession[49][50] said that the non-slave-holding states were "proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color", and that the African race "were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race". Alabama secessionist E. S. Dargan warned that whites and free blacks could not live together; if slaves were emancipated and remained in the South, “we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin.”[51]
Beginning in the 1830s, the U.S. Postmaster General refused to allow mail which carried abolition pamphlets to the South.[52] Northern teachers suspected of any tinge of abolitionism were expelled from the South, and abolitionist literature was banned. Southerners rejected the denials of Republicans that they were abolitionists.[53] The North felt threatened as well, for as Eric Foner concludes, "Northerners came to view slavery as the very antithesis of the good society, as well as a threat to their own fundamental values and interests".
South Carolina adopted the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" on December 24, 1860. It argued for states' rights for slave owners in the South, but contained a complaint about states' rights in the North in the form of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act, claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their federal obligations under the Constitution. All of the alleged violations of the rights of Southern states were related to slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict likely. Lincoln did not propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction".[1] Much of the political battle in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery into the newly created territories.[2][3][4] All of the organized territories were likely to become free-soil states, which increased the Southern movement toward secession. Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.[5][6][7]
Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said[12][13] that slavery was the chief cause of secession[14] in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[15] There was a striking contrast [14][16] between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause secession[15] and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech. Confederate President Jefferson Davis also switched from saying the war was caused by slavery to saying that states' rights was the cause. While Southerners often used states' rights arguments to defend slavery, sometimes roles were reversed, as when Southerners demanded national laws to defend their interests with the Gag Rule and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. On these issues, it was Northerners who wanted to defend the rights of their states.[17]
Almost all of the inter-regional crises involved slavery, starting with debates on the three-fifths clause and a twenty year extension of the African slave trade in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There was controversy over adding the slave state of Missouri to the Union that led to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Nullification Crisis over the Tariff of 1828 (although the tariff was low after 1846,[18] and even the tariff issue was related to slavery),[19][20] [21] the gag rule that prevented discussion in Congress of petitions for ending slavery from 1835–1844, the acquisition of Texas as a slave state in 1845 and Manifest Destiny as an argument for gaining new territories where slavery would become an issue after the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), which resulted in the Compromise of 1850.[22] The Wilmot Proviso was an attempt by Northern politicians to exclude slavery from the territories conquered from Mexico. The extremely popular antislavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) by Harriet Beecher Stowe greatly increased Northern opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.[23][24]
The 1854 Ostend Manifesto was an unsuccessful Southern attempt to annex Cuba as a slave state. The Second Party System broke down after passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, which replaced the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery with popular sovereignty, allowing the people of a territory to vote for or against slavery. The Bleeding Kansas controversy over the status of slavery in the Kansas Territory included massive vote fraud perpetrated by Missouri pro-slavery Border Ruffians. Vote fraud led pro-South Presidents Pierce and Buchanan to make attempts (including support for the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution) to admit Kansas as a slave state.[25] Violence over the status of slavery in Kansas erupted with the Wakarusa War,[26] the Sacking of Lawrence,[27] the caning of Republican Charles Sumner by the Southerner Preston Brooks,[28] [29] the Pottawatomie Massacre,[30] the Battle of Black Jack, the Battle of Osawatomie and the Marais des Cygnes massacre. The 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision allowed slavery in the territories even where the majority opposed slavery, including Kansas. The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 included Northern Democratic leader Stephen Douglas' Freeport Doctrine. This doctrine was an argument for thwarting the Dred Scott decision which, along with Douglas' defeat of the Lecompton Constitution, divided the Democratic Party between North and South. Northern abolitionist John Brown's raid at Harpers Ferry Armory was an attempt to incite slave insurrections in 1859. [31] The North-South split in the Democratic Party in 1860 due to the Southern demand for a slave code for the territories completed polarization of the nation between North and South.
Other factors include sectionalism (caused by the growth of slavery in the lower South while slavery was gradually phased out in Northern states) and economic differences between North and South, although most modern historians disagree with the extreme economic determinism of historian Charles Beard and argue that Northern and Southern economies were largely complementary.[32] There was the polarizing effect of slavery that split the largest religious denominations (the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches)[33] and controversy caused by the worst cruelties of slavery (whippings, mutilations and families split apart). The fact that seven immigrants out of eight settled in the North, plus the fact that twice as many whites left the South for the North as vice versa, contributed to the South's defensive-aggressive political behavior.[34]
The election of Lincoln in 1860 was the final trigger for secession.[35] Efforts at compromise, including the "Corwin Amendment" and the "Crittenden Compromise", failed. Southern leaders feared that Lincoln would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward extinction. The slave states, which had already become a minority in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly powerful North.
Support for secession was strongly correlated to the number of plantations in the region; states of the deep South which had the greatest concentration of plantations were the first to secede. The upper South slave states of Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee had fewer plantations and rejected secession until the Fort Sumter crisis forced them to choose sides. Border states had fewer plantations still and never seceded.[36][37][38] As of 1850 the percentage of Southern whites living in families that owned slaves was 43 percent in the lower South, 36 percent in the upper South and 22 percent in the border states that fought mostly for the Union.[38] 85 percent of slaveowners who owned 100 or more slaves lived in the lower South, as opposed to one percent in the border states.[38] Ninety-five percent of blacks lived in the South, comprising one third of the population there as opposed to one percent of the population of the North. Consequently, fears of eventual emancipation were much greater in the South than in the North.[39]
The Supreme Court decision of 1857 in Dred Scott v. Sandford added to the controversy. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's decision said that slaves were "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect",[40] and that slavery could spread into the territories. Lincoln warned that "the next Dred Scott decision"[41] could threaten Northern states with slavery.
Northern politician Abraham Lincoln said, "this question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present."[42] The slavery issue was related to sectional competition for control of the territories,[43] and the Southern demand for a slave code for the territories was the issue used by Southern politicians to split the Democratic Party in two, which all but guaranteed the election of Lincoln and secession. When secession was an issue, South Carolina planter and state Senator John Townsend said that "our enemies are about to take possession of the Government, that they intend to rule us according to the caprices of their fanatical theories, and according to the declared purposes of abolishing slavery."[44] Similar opinions were expressed throughout the South in editorials, political speeches and declarations of reasons for secession. Even though Lincoln had no plans to outlaw slavery where it existed, Southerners throughout the South expressed fears for the future of slavery.
Southern concerns included not only economic loss but also fears of racial equality.[45][46][47][48] The Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession[49][50] said that the non-slave-holding states were "proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color", and that the African race "were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race". Alabama secessionist E. S. Dargan warned that whites and free blacks could not live together; if slaves were emancipated and remained in the South, “we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin.”[51]
Beginning in the 1830s, the U.S. Postmaster General refused to allow mail which carried abolition pamphlets to the South.[52] Northern teachers suspected of any tinge of abolitionism were expelled from the South, and abolitionist literature was banned. Southerners rejected the denials of Republicans that they were abolitionists.[53] The North felt threatened as well, for as Eric Foner concludes, "Northerners came to view slavery as the very antithesis of the good society, as well as a threat to their own fundamental values and interests".
South Carolina adopted the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" on December 24, 1860. It argued for states' rights for slave owners in the South, but contained a complaint about states' rights in the North in the form of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act, claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their federal obligations under the Constitution. All of the alleged violations of the rights of Southern states were related to slavery.
Rafiki wrote:[color="Blue"]This discussion was split of from the discussion about which side people prefer to play and why - Rafiki
===================================================================[/color]
[color="Blue"]Brought over more posts that addressed the historic civil war without referring to anything related to the game[/color]
Major Dilemma wrote:The South fought for freedom even though they were the slave states they fought for individual liberty and state's rights. The original intent of the Union was to preserve and enhance the sovereignty of the individual states. Otherwise there would have been very few signing the constitution four score and seven years prior to 1863. The right to sign into a union carries with it forever the right to secede. It is the same right as the right of divorce.
The Declaration of Independence /= The Constitution.
That's all I'll say on the matter- others have argued far more lucidly than I could.
Political power and money were the motivations for fighting the American Civil War. Of course this should be painfully obvious, since every war in recorded history can be boiled down to either or both of these reasons. Slavery was not the disease, it was the primary symptom of the disease. Secretary Rice was exactly correct in her assessment of the Civil War, it was a foregone conclusion from the day the Constitution was signed. Political compromise forced the founding fathers to leave the Constitution silent on the legality of slavery in the new nation. Being an issue that represented such passion on both sides, and an issue that represented such economic impact, made it pre-destined to remain a hot-button issue for generations to come.
It is amazing to me that anyone can read the Declaration of Independence and not see where it justifies secession from the "more perfect union", even though this might be more of a philosophical justification than a legal one. Take off the blinders and simply read the words. Forget about the bargaining, legislative, and judicial history of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution for just a moment. Simply read the words through the eyes and experience of the common southern citizen. Then explain how they would not feel that the founding fathers not only said it was okay but a duty to secede under hostile threat from their government. "If you do that, we'll bring our army down there and kick your butts" would only serve to reinforce the comparison to the British crown.
This is exactly what led to the secession of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas. These states for the most part were neutrals with significant pro-Union factions, and all had chosen to delay or refuse special conventions, but the threat of invasion from the north to quell the secession or rebellion (as you prefer) allowed the secessionist factions in those states to gain enough power to bring about secession there. Had Lincoln not been so quick to call up 75,000 state militia to put down an "insurrection against lawful authority", it is quite possible that these 4 states in the upper south would have remained in the union. In that case the 1861 "rebellion" would most likely have withered on the vine. Why the hasty call to arms? Politics. Lincoln was expected to take more decisive (and more hard-line) action than Buchanan had done. Likewise, Jefferson Davis felt great political pressure to bring about decisive action quickly and to draw the upper south into the Confederacy. Davis was succcessful in pushing Lincoln over the line at Fort Sumter.
For those who still believe that this war was fought to end slavery, explain these simple facts:
First, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves; it very specifically applied only to states that had seceded. It did not free a single slave in the loyal border states or Confederate areas that had already come under Union control. How convenient! If slavery were the central issue, then why did the Union leadership start by cleaning up its own house? Politics, of course! While Lincoln was anti-slavery, he was not a hard-line abolitionist; he openly admitted that he would leave slavery alone if it meant preserving the Union.
Second, take a look at the ratification history of the 13th amendment to the Constitution. Three Union states outright rejected this amendment, while another did not ratify it until well after the required number of states had been reached. Again, I fail to see how people who are willing to fight and die for such a noble purpose as the abolition of slavery would then vote down a constitutional amendment that accomplished that very purpose! Could it be that there was more to it than abolishing slavery? How about economic concerns?
Don't get me wrong here! I am not a rabid secessionist myself, nor do I think that slavery was right. However, I really get tired of the south being portrayed as all evil slave-owning aristocrats, while the north gets portrayed as the valiant knights coming to the rescue. There was plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides, and we also have to remember that the winning side of a war gets to write the history!
It is amazing to me that anyone can read the Declaration of Independence and not see where it justifies secession from the "more perfect union", even though this might be more of a philosophical justification than a legal one. Take off the blinders and simply read the words. Forget about the bargaining, legislative, and judicial history of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution for just a moment. Simply read the words through the eyes and experience of the common southern citizen. Then explain how they would not feel that the founding fathers not only said it was okay but a duty to secede under hostile threat from their government. "If you do that, we'll bring our army down there and kick your butts" would only serve to reinforce the comparison to the British crown.
This is exactly what led to the secession of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas. These states for the most part were neutrals with significant pro-Union factions, and all had chosen to delay or refuse special conventions, but the threat of invasion from the north to quell the secession or rebellion (as you prefer) allowed the secessionist factions in those states to gain enough power to bring about secession there. Had Lincoln not been so quick to call up 75,000 state militia to put down an "insurrection against lawful authority", it is quite possible that these 4 states in the upper south would have remained in the union. In that case the 1861 "rebellion" would most likely have withered on the vine. Why the hasty call to arms? Politics. Lincoln was expected to take more decisive (and more hard-line) action than Buchanan had done. Likewise, Jefferson Davis felt great political pressure to bring about decisive action quickly and to draw the upper south into the Confederacy. Davis was succcessful in pushing Lincoln over the line at Fort Sumter.
For those who still believe that this war was fought to end slavery, explain these simple facts:
First, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves; it very specifically applied only to states that had seceded. It did not free a single slave in the loyal border states or Confederate areas that had already come under Union control. How convenient! If slavery were the central issue, then why did the Union leadership start by cleaning up its own house? Politics, of course! While Lincoln was anti-slavery, he was not a hard-line abolitionist; he openly admitted that he would leave slavery alone if it meant preserving the Union.
Second, take a look at the ratification history of the 13th amendment to the Constitution. Three Union states outright rejected this amendment, while another did not ratify it until well after the required number of states had been reached. Again, I fail to see how people who are willing to fight and die for such a noble purpose as the abolition of slavery would then vote down a constitutional amendment that accomplished that very purpose! Could it be that there was more to it than abolishing slavery? How about economic concerns?
Don't get me wrong here! I am not a rabid secessionist myself, nor do I think that slavery was right. However, I really get tired of the south being portrayed as all evil slave-owning aristocrats, while the north gets portrayed as the valiant knights coming to the rescue. There was plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides, and we also have to remember that the winning side of a war gets to write the history!
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
You are correct about Sumter being a success for Lincoln from a PR perspective, of course.
I was referring to the fact that Lincoln's response in calling up troops, which was obviously a prelude to invasion, led directly to the collapse of pro-Union sentiment in the upper south and the secession of the last 4 states. These states, especially Virginia, were considered critical to the survival of the CSA. I suppose both Lincoln and Davis could claim political victory from this single event.
Hypothetically, what do you suppose would have happened if Lincoln had taken a more passive stance after the attacks on Fort Sumter, choosing embargo, blockade, and isolation of the rebelling states? Personally, I don't think it would have mattered in the long run; the war was coming one way or another, just a matter of time.
I was referring to the fact that Lincoln's response in calling up troops, which was obviously a prelude to invasion, led directly to the collapse of pro-Union sentiment in the upper south and the secession of the last 4 states. These states, especially Virginia, were considered critical to the survival of the CSA. I suppose both Lincoln and Davis could claim political victory from this single event.
Hypothetically, what do you suppose would have happened if Lincoln had taken a more passive stance after the attacks on Fort Sumter, choosing embargo, blockade, and isolation of the rebelling states? Personally, I don't think it would have mattered in the long run; the war was coming one way or another, just a matter of time.
For those who still believe that this war was fought to end slavery, explain these simple facts:
Actually, I for one have not argued that the war was fought to end slavery, only that slavery was the cause of the war.
Here is another link. This one contains original source documents in the words of southerners themselves. Like the other link I posted it is well researched and referenced.
http://bessel.org/slavecw.htm
Regarding the right to secede, I guess strong arguments could be made both ways. It is doubtful any government would set itself up for its own dismemberment however and someone above made an excellent point regarding pro union counties in the South. They weren't allowed to go on their merry way.
There are many references of Lincoln's words that could be used to make the argument that he was a strong abolitionist. Indeed, in the link above it is clear what Southerner's thought of Lincoln and what they themselves admit as the cause of the war (in legal terms this is called damning evidence).
As he was taking office, Lincoln wanted to prevent a war. And when he determined that war was likely he was choosing his words to garner as much support at home and abroad as possible. His words need to be taken in that context rather than a "aha gotcha." There was a lot of psychology and rhetoric involved.
First, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves; it very specifically applied only to states that had seceded. It did not free a single slave in the loyal border states or Confederate areas that had already come under Union control. How convenient! If slavery were the central issue, then why did the Union leadership start by cleaning up its own house? Politics, of course! While Lincoln was anti-slavery, he was not a hard-line abolitionist; he openly admitted that he would leave slavery alone if it meant preserving the Union.
I know why Southern apologists point to this as another "gotcha" but he needed to win the war. The motivations and compromise were similar to the motivations and compromises that founded the nation that you mention. He was bound by the politcal realities of his time...he could not come out and proclaim an anti slavery crusade and to win the war he needed the support of the north as well as the ability to woo border states. Masterfully done if you ask me.
I have never said or believed the war was fought to end slavery. Lets be clear. The war was fought to stop the south from secceeding. Plain and simple. Slavery was just one of the reasons the south felt the need to secceed. Notice I said one of the reasons. I suspect like all conflicts of this nature, that different reasons were more or less important to different people/ factions. People fight for their own reasons. Sometimes they have an overridding common theme? Sometimes not. Goverments/ factions that are at or going to/ soliciting a war use whatever push button issue they believe will most rile up the citizenry to prosocute their war. It's called propoganda. It's very effective and has been used to one extent or the other since the first caveman hit another one over the head with a club. So pointing to fiery speeches on either side during the ramp up to war is really not making a point other than the speaker is trying to use a hot button issue to rile up the citizenry. People like to put things in a nice tidy box wrapped with a string and say, " See, this is what it was all about" Thats nice, but rarely is it even the majority of the issue much less the whole issue.
Nial
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Very well put. I can't help but grouse when I see people place all of their Civil War eggs in the slavery basket. So many people simply refuse to recognize that the war was fought over much larger issues, some of which were simple greed and power.
"States rights" often gets construed to mean just "the right to own slaves", which is not a fair interpretation. The term "states rights" more closely aligns with the term "limited government", which is something completely foreign to the politicians and policy-makers of today. Again, slavery was not the problem here, it was the most obvious symptom of the problem. A quick comparison of "The Federalist Papers" versus "The Anti-Federalist Papers" provides a much better overview of the factions, concerns, and contentions that had existed for nearly 80 years before the Civil War. A recurring warning from the anti-federalists was that too much was left unanswered in the new Constitution, which would later lead to the federal government becoming much too powerful and very much over-reaching its intended bounds. Don't think this has happened? What do you think the founding fathers would feel about Congress holding hearings on steroids in professional baseball or whether the NFL Network must provide the same programming to all of its affiliate companies? While "states rights" did indeed mean slavery rights to some, we would do well to recognize that it meant much more than that to a significant portion of the common population. Many of them felt it was worth fighting for, even if they didn't believe in slavery.
Economics and power (including the limitation thereof), that is what motivated the Civil War!
"States rights" often gets construed to mean just "the right to own slaves", which is not a fair interpretation. The term "states rights" more closely aligns with the term "limited government", which is something completely foreign to the politicians and policy-makers of today. Again, slavery was not the problem here, it was the most obvious symptom of the problem. A quick comparison of "The Federalist Papers" versus "The Anti-Federalist Papers" provides a much better overview of the factions, concerns, and contentions that had existed for nearly 80 years before the Civil War. A recurring warning from the anti-federalists was that too much was left unanswered in the new Constitution, which would later lead to the federal government becoming much too powerful and very much over-reaching its intended bounds. Don't think this has happened? What do you think the founding fathers would feel about Congress holding hearings on steroids in professional baseball or whether the NFL Network must provide the same programming to all of its affiliate companies? While "states rights" did indeed mean slavery rights to some, we would do well to recognize that it meant much more than that to a significant portion of the common population. Many of them felt it was worth fighting for, even if they didn't believe in slavery.
Economics and power (including the limitation thereof), that is what motivated the Civil War!
.Lets be clear. The war was fought to stop the south from secceeding
Well this is certainly true.
Slavery was just one of the reasons the south felt the need to secceed.
This, not so much. Just read their own words in the link above.
While what motivated individuals to fight was one thing...it usually wasn't slavery or state's rights or any abstractions (just ask a WWII vet)....what caused the war was slavery. Individual soldiers did not fight to end slavery, Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves (though it would be more on point to say the South went to war to preserve slavery...just read what they themselves, the people that were there, say above). Slavery was the sine qua non of the war, it was what brought the soldiers and politicians to the point of war.
Nial wrote:Yes they are both documents. But they are in no way equal or the same. One (the declaration) is a statement of priciples. The others ( Articles/ Constitution) are documents that create a governmental structure. Are you saying that there is no difference between these two different kinds of documents?
What the CSA did or didn't do in NO way effects the priciples set down by the Founders. You are just muddying the waters, and I believe you know it.
My last statement about viewing history through our modern morals and priciples was a general statement not aimed specificly at you. Sorry if that was confusing.
You seem to be avoiding the point that the Articles of Confederation post-date the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, as the same states signed both, it could be argued that the Articles supersede the Declaration. If two documents contain contradictary points, one would assume that the latest agreed document is the latest agreed position.
Ignoring the Articles and looking solely at the Declaration, I fail to see how it applies to the Southern situation in 1860. The preamble which defines the right of revolution states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
I am unclear how the Federal government had become destructive of the South's inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The election of Lincoln could not be justification as the preamble requires 'a long train of abuses and usurpations...' The states started seceeding before he even took office. The Buchanan and earlier administrations would need to be examined for abuses of Southern rights.
It would seem the phrase 'Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes' applies. Losing an election would definitely qualify as a light or transient cause, but seems to be the main reason for the Southern secession.
The Declaration goes on to list the abuses of the British government against the American colonies. There are 27 abuses and I would suggest that none of them apply to the 1860 Southern situation.
But, somehow, I suspect that you know all of this.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
Le Ricain wrote:You seem to be avoiding the point that the Articles of Confederation post-date the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, as the same states signed both, it could be argued that the Articles supersede the Declaration. If two documents contain contradictary points, one would assume that the latest agreed document is the latest agreed position.
Ignoring the Articles and looking solely at the Declaration, I fail to see how it applies to the Southern situation in 1860. The preamble which defines the right of revolution states:
I am unclear how the Federal government had become destructive of the South's inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The election of Lincoln could not be justification as the preamble requires 'a long train of abuses and usurpations...' The states started seceeding before he even took office. The Buchanan and earlier administrations would need to be examined for abuses of Southern rights.
It would seem the phrase 'Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes' applies. Losing an election would definitely qualify as a light or transient cause, but seems to be the main reason for the Southern secession.
The Declaration goes on to list the abuses of the British government against the American colonies. There are 27 abuses and I would suggest that none of them apply to the 1860 Southern situation.
But, somehow, I suspect that you know all of this.
I'm not ignoring the Articles. They were very important as a document creating the first govermental structure. They are a very important stepping stone to the Constitution. I understand your point. I just don't agree with your logic. For the same reason I constantly argue against a living Constitution, as if we can at this later date somehow understand what the Founders would want us to modify. Or that you can read between the lines as it were and come up with their true meaning. They say exactly what they mean. There are few if any ambiguities in their language unless you want there to be. I think you are misunderstanding my logic. The Declaration is a document of principle. But even without it? I would still argue that by the Founders very action of revolting from England, they inferred that same right on the South.
On the South: I am not going to bandy back and forth if the Norths supposed abuses against the South were in mine or your OPINION viable or valid reasons to secceed. It is a moot point. The majority of the people in the South thought they were. We are not talking about a town, or a county, or even one state secceeding here. We are talking about almost half the geographical territory of the country at the time. That would lead one to suppose that a huge amount of the country felt disinfranchised by the federal goverment. How they were led to that point is NOT relevant. If they were truly disinfranchised is not for us to decide. The only valid point is that THEY thought so.
Lets be honest; If the revolution had failed? We could very well be having this same convo about it. Only we would be doing so as British citizens, not Americans. The American colonies were really not that abused either. Except for the lack of true representation in parliment, they had it pretty good over all, campared to other colonial structures of the time. The American revolution was fought primarily over money and trade profits. My point being, that if the south had won? The history books would have said that they were in the right. So comparing one set of supposed abuses to another is meaningless.
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
Major Dilemma
- Corporal
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:46 pm
Ian Coote wrote:Did the North really free the slaves,or did thy change it from being slavery for life to slavery by the hour?
EXACTLY. We are now all slaves and cannot even recognize that freedom we lost.. what freedom we inherited and what slavery we have received from the Feds. We do not know what freedom or slavery are. We the people have forgotten. The victors write the history and our history has deliberately omitted what full and actual freedom meant as established in the constitution. Lincoln introduced slave labor for all in the form of income tax.
The Union lost the war just as much as the South.
Who won? The bankers. Look at the recent bailout and know they remain our slave owners.
Nial wrote: I'm not ignoring the Articles. They were very important as a document creating the first govermental structure. They are a very important stepping stone to the Constitution. I understand your point. I just don't agree with your logic. For the same reason I constantly argue against a living Constitution, as if we can at this later date somehow understand what the Founders would want us to modify. Or that you can read between the lines as it were and come up with their true meaning. They say exactly what they mean. There are few if any ambiguities in their language unless you want there to be. I think you are misunderstanding my logic. The Declaration is a document of principle. But even without it? I would still argue that by the Founders very action of revolting from England, they inferred that same right on the South.
I do not think that you accept that the Founding Fathers surrendered the right to secede when they signed the Articles of Confederation establishing a perpetual union.
Nial wrote:On the South: I am not going to bandy back and forth if the Norths supposed abuses against the South were in mine or your OPINION viable or valid reasons to secceed. It is a moot point. The majority of the people in the South thought they were. We are not talking about a town, or a county, or even one state secceeding here. We are talking about almost half the geographical territory of the country at the time. That would lead one to suppose that a huge amount of the country felt disinfranchised by the federal goverment. How they were led to that point is NOT relevant. If they were truly disinfranchised is not for us to decide. The only valid point is that THEY thought so.
I think that your statement that a majority of the people in the South believed they were being disinfranchised is unfounded. We shall never know the actual voter support for secession in the South in early 1861 as the secessionists opposed and frustrated any attempts to bring the secession issue to the voters' attention. Only in Texas, where the efforts of the secessionists were on very dubious legal and constitutional grounds, were the sucession ordinances submitted to public vote.
The preferred method of determining secession was to hold a convention where the number of delgates would be determined by county population. Of course, the county population would include the slave population. You could say that 100% of the slave population supported secession. The non-slave owning Unionist Southerner was at a disadvantage, needless to say.
In January 1861, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Georga held their elections on whether or not to call a convention to consider secession. The elections in Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia ended virtually tied. Modern scholarship has shown that Georgia actually voted against calling a convention (42,744 against - 41,717 for). I leave it to you to figure out why the 'official' result was 37,000 against and 50,000 for.
The February elections on whether or not to call a convention were a disaster for the secessionists. The states holding elections then were Arkansas, Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee & North Carolina. The states of Arkansas, Virginia and Missouri voted in Unionist majorities while Tennessee and North Carolina rejected holding any conventions altogether.
Only after South Carolina attacked Fort Sumter and Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to quell the insurrection did the February states decide to hold conventions. The Unionist majorities dissolved when the question was reduced to fighting with or against fellow Southerners.
It is worth repeating that only the State of Texas held a referendum on the secession issue.
Nial wrote:Lets be honest; If the revolution had failed? We could very well be having this same convo about it. Only we would be doing so as British citizens, not Americans. The American colonies were really not that abused either. Except for the lack of true representation in parliment, they had it pretty good over all, campared to other colonial structures of the time. The American revolution was fought primarily over money and trade profits. My point being, that if the south had won? The history books would have said that they were in the right. So comparing one set of supposed abuses to another is meaningless.
Nial
I agree that if the South had won, the history books would have shown that they were in the right. The fact that they lost has not stopped some from believing that the South was in fact right. Your argument is a case in point.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
Le Ricain wrote:I do not think that you accept that the Founding Fathers surrendered the right to secede when they signed the Articles of Confederation establishing a perpetual union.
I think that your statement that a majority of the people in the South believed they were being disinfranchised is unfounded. We shall never know the actual voter support for secession in the South in early 1861 as the secessionists opposed and frustrated any attempts to bring the secession issue to the voters' attention. Only in Texas, where the efforts of the secessionists were on very dubious legal and constitutional grounds, were the sucession ordinances submitted to public vote.
The preferred method of determining secession was to hold a convention where the number of delgates would be determined by county population. Of course, the county population would include the slave population. You could say that 100% of the slave population supported secession. The non-slave owning Unionist Southerner was at a disadvantage, needless to say.
In January 1861, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Georga held their elections on whether or not to call a convention to consider secession. The elections in Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia ended virtually tied. Modern scholarship has shown that Georgia actually voted against calling a convention (42,744 against - 41,717 for). I leave it to you to figure out why the 'official' result was 37,000 against and 50,000 for.
The February elections on whether or not to call a convention were a disaster for the secessionists. The states holding elections then were Arkansas, Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee & North Carolina. The states of Arkansas, Virginia and Missouri voted in Unionist majorities while Tennessee and North Carolina rejected holding any conventions altogether.
Only after South Carolina attacked Fort Sumter and Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to quell the insurrection did the February states decide to hold conventions. The Unionist majorities dissolved when the question was reduced to fighting with or against fellow Southerners.
It is worth repeating that only the State of Texas held a referendum on the secession issue.
I agree that if the South had won, the history books would have shown that they were in the right. The fact that they lost has not stopped some from believing that the South was in fact right. Your argument is a case in point.
You are aware that only 6 men that signed the declaration signed the Articles? And only 2 signed all three? Hamilton didn't sign any. So what Founding fathers are you talking about? I'm talking about the ones that signed the Declaration.
*laugh* I find it amusing that you use the state legislatures to make your point about justifing the Articles and Constitution arguments and then use the popular vote to say the majority of the South didn't want to secceed. Which is it? Do the state legislatures represent the people only when it suits your point?
Oh contraire dear sir. I never once said that the south was right. I fervently believe they were wrong. I only said they had the RIGHT to secceed. Not that their reasons for doing so were justified. In fact I believe I have stated before that whether they were justified or not is a moot point to me. Only that THEY believed they were right. They are two totaly different points.
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Nial wrote: You are aware that only 6 men that signed the declaration signed the Articles? And only 2 signed all three? Hamilton didn't sign any. So what Founding fathers are you talking about? I'm talking about the ones that signed the Declaration.
In point of fact 14 men signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (to use its correct title). They were Hancock, Adams, Gerry, Sherman, Wolcott, Huntington, Lewis, Witherspoon, Morris, McKean, RH Lee, FL Lee, Penn & Heywood.
As it was the state legislatures that chose the delgates in both instances, I am at a loss to understand your point that only these 14 men are to be followed when considering secession.
In both cases, the individual state legislatures approved the signing of the documents. The delegates could only sign with this approval. There was no personal choice involved.
It is probably worth pointing out that the title of the Articles spelled out exactly what was being agreed to. 'The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union' kinda says it all.
Nial wrote:
*laugh* I find it amusing that you use the state legislatures to make your point about justifing the Articles and Constitution arguments and then use the popular vote to say the majority of the South didn't want to secceed. Which is it? Do the state legislatures represent the people only when it suits your point?
While I am glad that you are amused, I am at a loss to understand my part. Until this post, I have made no references to state legislatures. It was your point that the majority of the South felt disenfranchised and that this was the justification for secession.
I was merely pointing out that there is no basis for claiming that a majority of Southern voters were in favour of secession. The secessionists realised this fact and for this reason fought to block any attempts at holding referendums. Only in Texas where the actions of the secessionists were so illegal and unconstitutional, that only a direct vote on secession could put a veneer of respectability on the process.
The rest of the states were allowed to vote on whether or not to hold a convention to decide on secession. Of the 11 states that held elections, only three approved holding a convention and voted in a secessionist majority (South Carolina, Mississippi, and Florida), three approved holding a convention but voted in a Unionist majority (Arkansas, Virginia & Missouri), two rejected holding a convention (Tennessee & North Carolina), two elections were virtual ties (Alabama & Louisiana) and one state's election was 'fixed' in order to overturn a no convention result (Georgia).
One could hardly claim that a majority of Southern voters favoured secession on the basis of the above. Rather, a claim could be better made that a determined and focused minority took the Southern states out of the Union.
Nial wrote:
Oh contraire dear sir. I never once said that the south was right. I fervently believe they were wrong. I only said they had the RIGHT to secceed. Not that their reasons for doing so were justified. In fact I believe I have stated before that whether they were justified or not is a moot point to me. Only that THEY believed they were right. They are two totaly different points.
Nial
OK
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
"The Founding Fathers of the United States are the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or otherwise participated in the American Revolution as leaders of the Patriots, or who participated in drafting the United States Constitution eleven years later. During the American Revolutionary War, the Founders were opposed by the Loyalists who supported the British monarchy and opposed independence (though most Loyalists remained in the U.S. after 1783 and supported the new government).[2] Some authors draw a distinction between the Founders, who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or participated in the Revolution, and the Framers, who drafted the United States Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, in 1787."
Some do consider the Framers also part of the Founders. But there is a distinct difference between the two. Many of the founders actualy fought against the Constitutions ratification. Case in point, the reason Hamilton was not allowed to vote or sign at the convention was due to the other two delegates from NY leaving the convention in protest. Patrick Henry was a vehement oponent. Many prominent and not so prominent people were against it. If half the colonies had not signed the Constitution? Would they have had the right to become their own nation?
I'll admit I was under the impression the southern legislatures voted for seccesion. If I was in error that is a lack of research on my part.
But by your own figures. More people were for the souths seccesion than were for the war of independence. Yet, you are not saying that the Founders had no right to revolt/ seccede from England. Most revolts throughout history are propelled by an average of a third of the populace. A vocal third to be sure. But the threshold for success is a third.
But I believe at this point that we are at an impasse. You will never acknowledge that the Founders gave an inferred right of seccesion by their revolt from England. And I will always believe they did so. I think we will have to agree to dissagree on this issue. Hell of a discussion though.
Nial
Some do consider the Framers also part of the Founders. But there is a distinct difference between the two. Many of the founders actualy fought against the Constitutions ratification. Case in point, the reason Hamilton was not allowed to vote or sign at the convention was due to the other two delegates from NY leaving the convention in protest. Patrick Henry was a vehement oponent. Many prominent and not so prominent people were against it. If half the colonies had not signed the Constitution? Would they have had the right to become their own nation?
I'll admit I was under the impression the southern legislatures voted for seccesion. If I was in error that is a lack of research on my part.
But by your own figures. More people were for the souths seccesion than were for the war of independence. Yet, you are not saying that the Founders had no right to revolt/ seccede from England. Most revolts throughout history are propelled by an average of a third of the populace. A vocal third to be sure. But the threshold for success is a third.
But I believe at this point that we are at an impasse. You will never acknowledge that the Founders gave an inferred right of seccesion by their revolt from England. And I will always believe they did so. I think we will have to agree to dissagree on this issue. Hell of a discussion though.
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
Major Dilemma
- Corporal
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:46 pm
..."Would they have had the right to become their own nation?'...
The right of autonomy begins at the level of the individual family unit and works its way up from there. Provision for autonomy extends to higher levels (geographically and in terms of population) so far as justice can be preserved. At the level of government where justice is necessarily compromised in order to maintain the construct that level becomes a tyranny of one form or another and loses its validity and purpose to serve the interests of the constituents. State governments are always potentially more legitimate than national governments and always have greater claim to sovereignty. Why? Because they are responsible to fewer people and are therefore more accountable.
The states began as soveriegn.. moreso than did the Union of them.
The right of autonomy begins at the level of the individual family unit and works its way up from there. Provision for autonomy extends to higher levels (geographically and in terms of population) so far as justice can be preserved. At the level of government where justice is necessarily compromised in order to maintain the construct that level becomes a tyranny of one form or another and loses its validity and purpose to serve the interests of the constituents. State governments are always potentially more legitimate than national governments and always have greater claim to sovereignty. Why? Because they are responsible to fewer people and are therefore more accountable.
The states began as soveriegn.. moreso than did the Union of them.
Nial wrote:"The Founding Fathers of the United States are the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or otherwise participated in the American Revolution as leaders of the Patriots, or who participated in drafting the United States Constitution eleven years later. During the American Revolutionary War, the Founders were opposed by the Loyalists who supported the British monarchy and opposed independence (though most Loyalists remained in the U.S. after 1783 and supported the new government).[2] Some authors draw a distinction between the Founders, who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or participated in the Revolution, and the Framers, who drafted the United States Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, in 1787."
Some do consider the Framers also part of the Founders. But there is a distinct difference between the two. Many of the founders actualy fought against the Constitutions ratification. Case in point, the reason Hamilton was not allowed to vote or sign at the convention was due to the other two delegates from NY leaving the convention in protest. Patrick Henry was a vehement oponent. Many prominent and not so prominent people were against it. If half the colonies had not signed the Constitution? Would they have had the right to become their own nation?
I'll admit I was under the impression the southern legislatures voted for seccesion. If I was in error that is a lack of research on my part.
But by your own figures. More people were for the souths seccesion than were for the war of independence. Yet, you are not saying that the Founders had no right to revolt/ seccede from England. Most revolts throughout history are propelled by an average of a third of the populace. A vocal third to be sure. But the threshold for success is a third.
But I believe at this point that we are at an impasse. You will never acknowledge that the Founders gave an inferred right of seccesion by their revolt from England. And I will always believe they did so. I think we will have to agree to dissagree on this issue. Hell of a discussion though.
Nial
I believe that you are correct in your inference. I will not accept that the later Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union should be ignored in favour of the earlier Declaration of Independence. I also believe that you will not accept the reverse.
I have not done the maths, but my impression is that Unionists were in a majority from the convention elections. The most populous Southern state, Virginia, voted something like 3 -1 for Unionist candidates. Only four of the 12 states chose by large margins to have conventions with a secessionist majority. The remaining eight states voted by large margins in favour of Unionist candidates, voted against holding conventions or had elections which were virtually tied.
I agree that we will have to agree to disagree, but I did enjoy the discussion.
Wishing you and yours a happy and prosperous New Year.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
Suppose one were to play devil's advocate with the "perpetual union" term. So we originally sign on to the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", then we later replace that and sign on to the "Constitution for the United States of America". Since we removed the "perpetual union" clause from the title and did not include it within the body of the new document, could the argument be made that the concept of a perpetual union was bargained away in the process? Even if you don't believe it is a valid argument, how much would you wager that secessionist political figures did not make this very argument in justifying secession?
Before you get too worked up about this point, I don't really believe or support it. I just find it an interesting argument that I am quite sure was used at the time. (Then again, I also once argued that "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" was about Santa Claus, just to (successfully) evoke a response from a professor!)
I would also like to see someone tackle my point about the ratification of the 13th amendment. While the South Carolina "Declaration of the Immediate Causes...." document is quite damning proof that secession was truly about slavery for at least that particular state, I believe that the ratification history of the 13th amendment is just as damning for Union states' claims that they were "fighting to end slavery". The post-war actions of some of these states, particularly in regards to this amendment, did indeed show that there had been an ongoing effort to reduce southern political power and force the will of northern states on the south. If slavery were truly such a divisive issue and the central cause for the north, then all of the northern states should have ratified the 13th amendment quickly and by much larger margins.
I have to say this has been the most intelligent and civil conversation I have seen on this topic in quite some time. It has been a pleasure to follow it.
Before you get too worked up about this point, I don't really believe or support it. I just find it an interesting argument that I am quite sure was used at the time. (Then again, I also once argued that "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" was about Santa Claus, just to (successfully) evoke a response from a professor!)
I would also like to see someone tackle my point about the ratification of the 13th amendment. While the South Carolina "Declaration of the Immediate Causes...." document is quite damning proof that secession was truly about slavery for at least that particular state, I believe that the ratification history of the 13th amendment is just as damning for Union states' claims that they were "fighting to end slavery". The post-war actions of some of these states, particularly in regards to this amendment, did indeed show that there had been an ongoing effort to reduce southern political power and force the will of northern states on the south. If slavery were truly such a divisive issue and the central cause for the north, then all of the northern states should have ratified the 13th amendment quickly and by much larger margins.
I have to say this has been the most intelligent and civil conversation I have seen on this topic in quite some time. It has been a pleasure to follow it.
All the legal wrangling about the right of states to secede seems beside the point to me. The deep south might have won the legal argument and seceded peacefully, but they gambled that war would bring the upper south to their side.
It seems to me that if a state were to secede lawfully, it should have a direct mandate from the voters. Secession by state legislators without a fresh election isn't good enough for me.
I also note the Confederate belief that Kentucky and Missouri rightfully belonged to their nation completely undermines the argument of state sovereignty.
It seems to me that if a state were to secede lawfully, it should have a direct mandate from the voters. Secession by state legislators without a fresh election isn't good enough for me.
I also note the Confederate belief that Kentucky and Missouri rightfully belonged to their nation completely undermines the argument of state sovereignty.
-
Coffee Sergeant
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
Has anyone responded to my point where in Section 10 of the Constitution, it says that the States can't form A "Confederation"? As well as the other rights expressly prohibited, like making treaties and raising armies (not militia), which when taken together would infer a prohibition for the States to act as sovereign entities.
Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests