Le Ricain wrote:At which date did the slave states hoid the majority of the Senate? In 1848 there were 15 free states and 15 slave states giving a completely balanced Senate.
I stand corrected.
-
Irish Guards
- Private
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:26 pm
Revision and Revision of
OK if this was "why we fight" or "why the war was started" here is my two cents or even a Nickel.
Slavery.
Slavery was a curse of the United states up until the thirteenth amendment.
While it was one of many reasons that the war was started it is folly to think it was not the largest. It was also the one issue that compromise failed. It led to a range war in Kansas where blood was spilled on both sides as well precipitated the Harpers Ferry incident. While there were other States rights vs Central Government issues..the one that caused the clevage of the Southern States and the North was slavery.
It was also the primary social and economic structure of the deep south and gradiated northwards. The plantation economy was based on slavery as was the aristocratic culture that it spawned. While this upper class was not the most populous it was by far the most influential and powerful in the south. To say that slavery was being phased out is false. While technology may have made it impractical down the road. at the time Cotton was the biggest export in the United states. Mills north of the MD line depended on it as well as did England and France. Which is why Davis gambled on the embargo at the beginning. The Plantation export economy also kept the South well off when the panics hurt the north.
The rabid secessionists were very pro slavery. To say they were not is folly.
Now were all Union supporters pro emancipation and all the Southerners evil..Of course not.. In such a big event like the Civil war there were all different reasons for fighting. Some did it for their own noble causes while others wanted to fight and earn glory..some were running away from their wives lol. But Lincoln and most patriotic northerners were fighting because they viewed secessionists as traitors. And there were a significant abolitionist movement in the north..and some in the south..but most people viewed abolitionists as radicals.
Perception changes much quicker during war than during peace. And the movement to end slavery moved the congress ...few southerners in it then...and the mind of lincoln to free slaves. He did issue the Emancipation Proclamation both as a noble event as well as a war measure. Lincoln was also pro relocation. So his mind was probably in the center of the north when it came to slavery..some Like Stevens were very pro civil rights, and others were proslavery. The manumission of the south was not a noble sentiment but happened so late due to man power shortage. Yes some african americans fought for the south..but not that many and you could make the case that slavery was so institutionalized that they would do what their master said...and if you wanted proof on that..after the war ended many of them stayed on their former masters plantations as rent farmers ..even taking their ex masters sir names.
So i guess the short answer is its silly to say slavery was the only reason explanation of the civil war..but to say it was not the major reason is just as silly.
My opinion...unfiltered is slavery and the plantation economy in the US needed to die. And the country ...especially the south..is better for it.
Slavery.
Slavery was a curse of the United states up until the thirteenth amendment.
While it was one of many reasons that the war was started it is folly to think it was not the largest. It was also the one issue that compromise failed. It led to a range war in Kansas where blood was spilled on both sides as well precipitated the Harpers Ferry incident. While there were other States rights vs Central Government issues..the one that caused the clevage of the Southern States and the North was slavery.
It was also the primary social and economic structure of the deep south and gradiated northwards. The plantation economy was based on slavery as was the aristocratic culture that it spawned. While this upper class was not the most populous it was by far the most influential and powerful in the south. To say that slavery was being phased out is false. While technology may have made it impractical down the road. at the time Cotton was the biggest export in the United states. Mills north of the MD line depended on it as well as did England and France. Which is why Davis gambled on the embargo at the beginning. The Plantation export economy also kept the South well off when the panics hurt the north.
The rabid secessionists were very pro slavery. To say they were not is folly.
Now were all Union supporters pro emancipation and all the Southerners evil..Of course not.. In such a big event like the Civil war there were all different reasons for fighting. Some did it for their own noble causes while others wanted to fight and earn glory..some were running away from their wives lol. But Lincoln and most patriotic northerners were fighting because they viewed secessionists as traitors. And there were a significant abolitionist movement in the north..and some in the south..but most people viewed abolitionists as radicals.
Perception changes much quicker during war than during peace. And the movement to end slavery moved the congress ...few southerners in it then...and the mind of lincoln to free slaves. He did issue the Emancipation Proclamation both as a noble event as well as a war measure. Lincoln was also pro relocation. So his mind was probably in the center of the north when it came to slavery..some Like Stevens were very pro civil rights, and others were proslavery. The manumission of the south was not a noble sentiment but happened so late due to man power shortage. Yes some african americans fought for the south..but not that many and you could make the case that slavery was so institutionalized that they would do what their master said...and if you wanted proof on that..after the war ended many of them stayed on their former masters plantations as rent farmers ..even taking their ex masters sir names.
So i guess the short answer is its silly to say slavery was the only reason explanation of the civil war..but to say it was not the major reason is just as silly.
My opinion...unfiltered is slavery and the plantation economy in the US needed to die. And the country ...especially the south..is better for it.
-
Irish Guards
- Private
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:26 pm
Immigration was definitely one of the hot button issues of the day (tottally unlike today 
)
Since most immigrants were on the poor end of the spectrum and were working class not propertied class they had little interest in living in areas with slave labor or having the areas they settled turning into slave areas around them. This attitude was only reinforced by the general European antipathy towards slavery.
In fact during the war the North had immigration in excess of its total war losses. Of course the South was under embargo but pre-war Southern immigration numbers were much lower then the North as well.
As to the fact that some African Americans served for the South: while true the relative handful pales in comparison to the 200,000+ the union put under arms. Its entirely clear from the historical record that most African Americans were not happy being slaves and did view the North as liberators, even before this was technically the case.
)
Since most immigrants were on the poor end of the spectrum and were working class not propertied class they had little interest in living in areas with slave labor or having the areas they settled turning into slave areas around them. This attitude was only reinforced by the general European antipathy towards slavery.
In fact during the war the North had immigration in excess of its total war losses. Of course the South was under embargo but pre-war Southern immigration numbers were much lower then the North as well.
As to the fact that some African Americans served for the South: while true the relative handful pales in comparison to the 200,000+ the union put under arms. Its entirely clear from the historical record that most African Americans were not happy being slaves and did view the North as liberators, even before this was technically the case.
I am not pro either North or South. Our half of my mothers family moved to CA before 1849 so only half of our family was involved in the war. And the other half split and fought on both sides. I do find it interesting that two points have been totaly ignored or given short shift.
First, northern interests were very upset that the south refused to sell the north cotton at a discount rate. The south was getting a much better price from England. There were interests that actualy proposed a tarrif on exporting cotton. This was a serious issue to the south. And is just one of several economic factors that helped drive the nation to war.
Second. The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and the principles that they espouse are based on the writings of John Locke, who Jefferson, Franklin, and other of our founding fathers admired greatly. Locke wrote and believed that If a citizen or group of citizens truely believed that their government was not representative of their best interests? It was not only their right, but their DUTY to seccede. It was the principle that our founding fathers used to justify their revolt against England.
Right or wrong, good or bad. The south had the right to seccede.
Lincoln more than any other President before or since almost destroyed the Constitution. One can say he did the wrong thing for the right reason, or the moral reason if you like. But the suspension of citizens most basic rights is expressly forbidden by the highest document in the land. And this nation has paid the price in the years since.
Nial
First, northern interests were very upset that the south refused to sell the north cotton at a discount rate. The south was getting a much better price from England. There were interests that actualy proposed a tarrif on exporting cotton. This was a serious issue to the south. And is just one of several economic factors that helped drive the nation to war.
Second. The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and the principles that they espouse are based on the writings of John Locke, who Jefferson, Franklin, and other of our founding fathers admired greatly. Locke wrote and believed that If a citizen or group of citizens truely believed that their government was not representative of their best interests? It was not only their right, but their DUTY to seccede. It was the principle that our founding fathers used to justify their revolt against England.
Right or wrong, good or bad. The south had the right to seccede.
Lincoln more than any other President before or since almost destroyed the Constitution. One can say he did the wrong thing for the right reason, or the moral reason if you like. But the suspension of citizens most basic rights is expressly forbidden by the highest document in the land. And this nation has paid the price in the years since.
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Nial wrote: I am not pro either North or South. Our half of my mothers family moved to CA before 1849 so only half of our family was involved in the war. And the other half split and fought on both sides. I do find it interesting that two points have been totaly ignored or given short shift.
First, northern interests were very upset that the south refused to sell the north cotton at a discount rate. The south was getting a much better price from England. There were interests that actualy proposed a tarrif on exporting cotton. This was a serious issue to the south. And is just one of several economic factors that helped drive the nation to war.
I am afraid that this argument for explaining how the nation was driven to war is weak. Had Congress actually imposed a tarrif on exporting cotton - fair enough. In fact Congress' policy was to lower tarrifs on imported good in order to appease the South. I find it hard to credit that Congress was simultaneously lowering duties on imported goods while considering raising duties on exported goods.
Nial wrote:
Second. The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and the principles that they espouse are based on the writings of John Locke, who Jefferson, Franklin, and other of our founding fathers admired greatly. Locke wrote and believed that If a citizen or group of citizens truely believed that their government was not representative of their best interests? It was not only their right, but their DUTY to seccede. It was the principle that our founding fathers used to justify their revolt against England.
Right or wrong, good or bad. The south had the right to seccede.
Lincoln more than any other President before or since almost destroyed the Constitution. One can say he did the wrong thing for the right reason, or the moral reason if you like. But the suspension of citizens most basic rights is expressly forbidden by the highest document in the land. And this nation has paid the price in the years since.
Nial
Had the Founding Fathers believed that the states had a right to secede from the Union, that right would have been explicitly stated in the Constitution together with the process of achieving secession.
[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 am afraid that this argument for explaining how the nation was driven to war is weak. Had Congress actually imposed a tarrif on exporting cotton - fair enough. In fact Congress' policy was to lower tarrifs on imported good in order to appease the South. I find it hard to credit that Congress was simultaneously lowering duties on imported goods while considering raising duties on exported goods.
Had the Founding Fathers believed that the states had a right to secede from the Union, that right would have been explicitly stated in the Constitution together with the process of achieving secession.
I said that the tarrif was one of several economic reasons. Not the only one. Nor was I diminishing the slavery aspect.
Of course they believed in the right to seccede. How else could they justify their own rebellion? These men were great thinkers. They needed and wanted a valid reason to go against hundreds of years tradition. Having a bad monarch was not in and of itself a right to seccede/ revolt. What is the Declaration other than a document declaring their reasons for and right to seccede from the authority of England?
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
Franciscus
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
- Location: Portugal
Nial wrote:I said that the tarrif was one of several economic reasons. Not the only one. Nor was I diminishing the slavery aspect.
Of course they believed in the right to seccede. How else could they justify their own rebellion? These men were great thinkers. They needed and wanted a valid reason to go against hundreds of years tradition. Having a bad monarch was not in and of itself a right to seccede/ revolt. What is the Declaration other than a document declaring their reasons for and right to seccede from the authority of England?
Nial
ditto ! and I quote:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
(...)"
Franciscus wrote:ditto ! and I quote:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
(...)"
Jefferson did have a way with words.
It is worth noting that it took three years for the constitution to be ratified. One guess what the number one concern among the states was? Thats right, ceeding individual state power to a strong central government. But I must state, my personal opinion is that the country couldn't have survived under the existing articles of confederation. Something that Hamilton forsaw and constantly preached to anyone that would listen. One has to wonder how different this country might have been had Aarron Burr been a bad shot?
Food for thought.
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Jefferson did have a way with words.
Yes, he did at that. He also had some words in the original declaration regarding slavery and the slave trade which were deleted by the representatives of South Carolina and Georgia.
Southern apologists and revisionists conveniently quote passages about states rights but seem to forget these deleted words and words in the declaration and constitution regarding the rights and equality of individuals and the duty of the governement to secure those equalities and rights.
So I guess if the southern states had a right to secede, the northern states had a right to prevent it.
BTW has anyone read the Proximate Causes for Secession as outlined by South Carolina? It clearly and explicitly states that it was all about slavery.
-
Jabberwock
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA
- Contact: ICQ
Nial wrote:Jefferson did have a way with words.
It is worth noting that it took three years for the constitution to be ratified. One guess what the number one concern among the states was? Thats right, ceeding individual state power to a strong central government. But I must state, my personal opinion is that the country couldn't have survived under the existing articles of confederation. Something that Hamilton forsaw and constantly preached to anyone that would listen. One has to wonder how different this country might have been had Aarron Burr been a bad shot?
Food for thought.
Nial
So does the question becomes one of whether the last few states to ratify the Constitution should have declared war on the ones that seceded from the Articles of Confederation government?
Here's a what if ... what if the Hartford Convention had succeeded in taking New England out of the Union during the War of 1812? Nobody was arguing against New England's right to secede at the time. It was only after the great influx of immigrants (used to living under strong central governments) during the 1840's and 50's that the right of secession was questioned.
Side note - One of my ancestors, William VanNess, was Aaron Burr's second.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]
-
Jabberwock
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA
- Contact: ICQ
Nial wrote:I said that the tarrif was one of several economic reasons. Not the only one. Nor was I diminishing the slavery aspect.
Of course they believed in the right to seccede. How else could they justify their own rebellion? These men were great thinkers. They needed and wanted a valid reason to go against hundreds of years tradition. Having a bad monarch was not in and of itself a right to seccede/ revolt. What is the Declaration other than a document declaring their reasons for and right to seccede from the authority of England?
Nial
I fully accept the role played by tarrifs in the ACW. I believe that the repealing of the imports tarrifs by South Carolina after secession killed any effort by the Union to allow the Southern states to leave in peace.
My problem with your argument was the idea that a proposed, but not yet passed, bill to impose a duty on exported cotton would have had any additional effect on the southern states.
I believe that you are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution. They are two totally separate documents. The Constitutional Union was freely joined by the individual states who accepted the terms and conditions of the document. Missing from these terms and conditions was any reference to secession. If this right was important to the founding fathers, it seems odd that they would have forgotten to mention it.
[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
-
Coffee Sergeant
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
US Constitution, Article I
This above section is fairly strong evidence against an implicit legal right of secession in the US Consitution. Especially that part about "Confederation" States were basically prohibited from doing anything that would allow them to act as sovereign entities. Seceding and then doing any of the above would seem to be a huge loophole that goes against the spirit of the Constitution.
As for Locke, I believe he was referring to a "majority" being opressed by a tyrannical "minority" (like an aristocracy). The South wasn't in the majority, its debatable they were being "oppressed", and they were oppressing a class of people themselves. I don't think Locke would have supported the CSA.
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
This above section is fairly strong evidence against an implicit legal right of secession in the US Consitution. Especially that part about "Confederation"
States were basically prohibited from doing anything that would allow them to act as sovereign entities. Seceding and then doing any of the above would seem to be a huge loophole that goes against the spirit of the Constitution.
As for Locke, I believe he was referring to a "majority" being opressed by a tyrannical "minority" (like an aristocracy). The South wasn't in the majority, its debatable they were being "oppressed", and they were oppressing a class of people themselves. I don't think Locke would have supported the CSA.
Le Ricain wrote:I fully accept the role played by tarrifs in the ACW. I believe that the repealing of the imports tarrifs by South Carolina after secession killed any effort by the Union to allow the Southern states to leave in peace.
My problem with your argument was the idea that a proposed, but not yet passed, bill to impose a duty on exported cotton would have had any additional effect on the southern states.
I believe that you are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution. They are two totally separate documents. The Constitutional Union was freely joined by the individual states who accepted the terms and conditions of the document. Missing from these terms and conditions was any reference to secession. If this right was important to the founding fathers, it seems odd that they would have forgotten to mention it.
*chuckle* I'm not confusing anything. I stated that the founding fathers believed in seccession. You said they would have included it in the Constitution. I stated the Declaration is a Document of succession which is inherently an approval of such by said founders. You act as if everyone involved was just so pleased with the Constitution as drafted? There was much acrimony during and after the convention. Many believed, Madison among them, that the document that would come to be named the Constitution was "The best that could be achieved" Not the best that could be written. Funny that Coffee Sargeant would include section 10 of the Constitution. After all, those are the only powers granted to the Federal Goverment in the Contitution. Foriegn Policy, Raising Armies, and Interstate Commerce. The ONLY powers. All other powers are supposed to be inherent of the states. But in reality this is not an argument that can be solved one way or the other.
Coffee Sargeant:
If Locke was talking about the majority? Then you can't use his writings as a reason for the revolution. The colonies were hardly a majority of the English holdings. Nor was there even a majority of colonists FOR the revolution. It was about a third for, a third against and a third that could care less. On that I'll trust Jefferson, Franklin, et al. They were much smarter than I will ever be. But in reality it doesn't matter what Locke meant. Only what the Founders thought he meant. I am by no means calling the South oppressed. But the South made the case and a majority of them believed it. That meets your criteria.
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Nial wrote:*chuckle* I'm not confusing anything. I stated that the founding fathers believed in seccession. You said they would have included it in the Constitution. I stated the Declaration is a Document of succession which is inherently an approval of such by said founders. You act as if everyone involved was just so pleased with the Constitution as drafted? There was much acrimony during and after the convention. Many believed, Madison among them, that the document that would come to be named the Constitution was "The best that could be achieved" Not the best that could be written. Funny that Coffee Sargeant would include section 10 of the Constitution. After all, those are the only powers granted to the Federal Goverment in the Contitution. Foriegn Policy, Raising Armies, and Interstate Commerce. The ONLY powers. All other powers are supposed to be inherent of the states. But in reality this is not an argument that can be solved one way or the other.
Coffee Sargeant:
If Locke was talking about the majority? Then you can't use his writings as a reason for the revolution. The colonies were hardly a majority of the English holdings. Nor was there even a majority of colonists FOR the revolution. It was about a third for, a third against and a third that could care less. On that I'll trust Jefferson, Franklin, et al. They were much smarter than I will ever be. But in reality it doesn't matter what Locke meant. Only what the Founders thought he meant. I am by no means calling the South oppressed. But the South made the case and a majority of them believed it. That meets your criteria.
Nial
You have used the Declaration of Independence to justify secession as a constitutional right. It is probably worthwhile to consult the Articles of Confederation. This document was ratified on March 1, 1781. The most significant fact about the Articles is that they specify, both in the preamble and in Article XIII, that the union thus created is "perpetual." Article XIII states:
"The Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state."
The concept of perpetual union was agreed in 1781.
The preamble of the US Constitution reads:
We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."
The 'United' States refers to the perpetual union of the Articles of Confederation. 'Forming a more perfect union' from the union of the Articles of Confederation would not be achieved by allowing (by implication) secession.
[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
-
Jabberwock
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA
- Contact: ICQ
Presented for discussion. Does this, as claimed, clearly and explicitly state that it was all about slavery?
[CENTER]Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
C. G. Memminger[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
C. G. Memminger[/CENTER]
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.
The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.
If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "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."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]
-
Jabberwock
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA
- Contact: ICQ
The Founder's Constitution Chapter 8, words of Patrick Henry
some additional background provided in [url="http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=81357]this thread[/url]
some additional background provided in [url="http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=81357]this thread[/url]
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]
Definitions:
How are they defining themselves? States with a southern accent? Episcopalian states?
Paragraphs 2-9 review their perspective of the history of the relations and duties between and among the states and the federal government. It emphasizes the compact. In it they are attempting to lay the "legal" framework that enables secession.
What broke the compact? What is the cause that violated the framework?
Encroaching the right to do what?
What was the material part?
Why, these fourteen states have violated the compact, just look at their statutes. To what do those statutes refer? What were the frequent violations and encroachments? They reference one thing and one thing only and the following reference to the Constitution (we must keep it legal now) is meant to show that the fourteen states were in the wrong. To what purpose do they refer to this article?
So material.
Paragraphs 14-26, the bulk of the document, are about slavery. Slavery, by their own arguments and definitions, is the cause of secession.
Servile insurrection, oh dear. Irony is so ironic.
(Paragraph 25) The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
(Paragraph 1)...but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
How are they defining themselves? States with a southern accent? Episcopalian states?
Paragraphs 2-9 review their perspective of the history of the relations and duties between and among the states and the federal government. It emphasizes the compact. In it they are attempting to lay the "legal" framework that enables secession.
What broke the compact? What is the cause that violated the framework?
3. (Paragraph 1)....declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union
Encroaching the right to do what?
(Paragraph 13) ....a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
What was the material part?
(Paragraph 14) We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
Why, these fourteen states have violated the compact, just look at their statutes. To what do those statutes refer? What were the frequent violations and encroachments? They reference one thing and one thing only and the following reference to the Constitution (we must keep it legal now) is meant to show that the fourteen states were in the wrong. To what purpose do they refer to this article?
(Paragraphs 15 and 16) The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "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."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
So material.
Paragraphs 14-26, the bulk of the document, are about slavery. Slavery, by their own arguments and definitions, is the cause of secession.
....but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals....
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
Servile insurrection, oh dear. Irony is so ironic.
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.
-
Franciscus
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
- Location: Portugal
Very interesting discussion, and of a level of erudition rarely seen in gaming forums.
Some thoughts:
The issue of indivisibliity of the USA, independently of any past or present arguments, has been settled permanently by sword and bullets - at least as permanently as other "permanent" human institutions in the past (Egypt's Pharaoh's rule; Pax Romana; Holy Roman Empire, etc, etc).
And os course we all tend to view in a favorable way the victorious side - specially in this age of manicheistic - good vs evil - hollywood-type of "good side allways winning in the end" way of seeing history. We must not forget that IF the south had won the war - and it just might could have - slavery in the end would be abolished, sooner or later, but we would be living in a very different world - but maybe also playing a game about the CSA War of Independence and debating why the northern states were so foolish as going to a war that all could see now as unfounded and unwinnable...
Some thoughts:
The issue of indivisibliity of the USA, independently of any past or present arguments, has been settled permanently by sword and bullets - at least as permanently as other "permanent" human institutions in the past (Egypt's Pharaoh's rule; Pax Romana; Holy Roman Empire, etc, etc).
And os course we all tend to view in a favorable way the victorious side - specially in this age of manicheistic - good vs evil - hollywood-type of "good side allways winning in the end" way of seeing history. We must not forget that IF the south had won the war - and it just might could have - slavery in the end would be abolished, sooner or later, but we would be living in a very different world - but maybe also playing a game about the CSA War of Independence and debating why the northern states were so foolish as going to a war that all could see now as unfounded and unwinnable...
Jabberwock wrote:So does the question becomes one of whether the last few states to ratify the Constitution should have declared war on the ones that seceded from the Articles of Confederation government?
Here's a what if ... what if the Hartford Convention had succeeded in taking New England out of the Union during the War of 1812? Nobody was arguing against New England's right to secede at the time. It was only after the great influx of immigrants (used to living under strong central governments) during the 1840's and 50's that the right of secession was questioned.
Side note - One of my ancestors, William VanNess, was Aaron Burr's second.
Good points.
That is way cool about VanNess. Though I still think he was on the wrong side.
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
Jabberwock
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA
- Contact: ICQ
Magver:
But ... Is it clearly and explicitly about slavery, or is it primarily a hypocritical constitutional argument based on the idea that northern states were following a southern (specifically South Carolinian) tactic in nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act, the primary specific complaints being that the northern states had passed laws that were in violation of the Constitution, and said act was in fact a federal law and not that said act was in regards to slavery?
BTW - My thesis is that slavery was an immediate and sufficient casus belli, but that the party and spoils system of government as applied to a bicultural society was the primary underlying cassus belli.
But ... Is it clearly and explicitly about slavery, or is it primarily a hypocritical constitutional argument based on the idea that northern states were following a southern (specifically South Carolinian) tactic in nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act, the primary specific complaints being that the northern states had passed laws that were in violation of the Constitution, and said act was in fact a federal law and not that said act was in regards to slavery?
BTW - My thesis is that slavery was an immediate and sufficient casus belli, but that the party and spoils system of government as applied to a bicultural society was the primary underlying cassus belli.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]
I know where you are coming from but I think you have the cart before the horse. Sure they are making a "hypocritical" constitutional argument - you are correct - but it never would have arisen without slavery. The constitutional argument is mere framework and rhetoric. It is an argument they have to make. Everyone is jockeying for rhetorical positioning and "justification" at this stage but the justifying framework is not the cause.
In all my time in academia (here comes the old guy "yup sir, I remember when" bit), I have finally understood a couple of things. The second is that academics have their own language and they talk amonst themselves usually believing what they tell themselves and hence counting angels on the head of a pin - they often refuse to believe that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks that it is a duck. The first is that they are like modern entertainers, particularly singers. You can't sing old songs and you need to top the people who came before you...new music and ever more, ah, pushing the behavioral envelope. It is very much like publishing something new about the Civil War, particularly a thesis.
I would say that the duck was slavery since the foundation of the nation and that the spoils system of government - a time of weak federal government when provincialism, cronyism, etc was the norm - was something that excacerbated and accelerated the cancer. That would be a thesis I would like to read.
BTW - have you ever read Cousin's Wars? ( I think that was the title anyway). Excellent read that traces the English Civil War, Amer. Revolution and Civil War and the connections among them, including names of towns - right up your alley I think.
In all my time in academia (here comes the old guy "yup sir, I remember when" bit), I have finally understood a couple of things. The second is that academics have their own language and they talk amonst themselves usually believing what they tell themselves and hence counting angels on the head of a pin - they often refuse to believe that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks that it is a duck. The first is that they are like modern entertainers, particularly singers. You can't sing old songs and you need to top the people who came before you...new music and ever more, ah, pushing the behavioral envelope. It is very much like publishing something new about the Civil War, particularly a thesis.
I would say that the duck was slavery since the foundation of the nation and that the spoils system of government - a time of weak federal government when provincialism, cronyism, etc was the norm - was something that excacerbated and accelerated the cancer. That would be a thesis I would like to read.
BTW - have you ever read Cousin's Wars? ( I think that was the title anyway). Excellent read that traces the English Civil War, Amer. Revolution and Civil War and the connections among them, including names of towns - right up your alley I think.
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Maqver wrote:I know where you are coming from but I think you have the cart before the horse. Sure they are making a "hypocritical" constitutional argument - you are correct - but it never would have arisen without slavery. The constitutional argument is mere framework and rhetoric. It is an argument they have to make. Everyone is jockeying for rhetorical positioning and "justification" at this stage but the justifying framework is not the cause.
In all my time in academia (here comes the old guy "yup sir, I remember when" bit), I have finally understood a couple of things. The second is that academics have their own language and they talk amonst themselves usually believing what they tell themselves and hence counting angels on the head of a pin - they often refuse to believe that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks that it is a duck. The first is that they are like modern entertainers, particularly singers. You can't sing old songs and you need to top the people who came before you...new music and ever more, ah, pushing the behavioral envelope. It is very much like publishing something new about the Civil War, particularly a thesis.
I would say that the duck was slavery since the foundation of the nation and that the spoils system of government - a time of weak federal government when provincialism, cronyism, etc was the norm - was something that excacerbated and accelerated the cancer. That would be a thesis I would like to read.
BTW - have you ever read Cousin's Wars? ( I think that was the title anyway). Excellent read that traces the English Civil War, Amer. Revolution and Civil War and the connections among them, including names of towns - right up your alley I think.
Yes, 'The Cousins' Wars' by Kevin Phillips is an excellent read. I have referenced the book quite a few times in these forums.
[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
-
Jabberwock
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA
- Contact: ICQ
Cousins' Wars looks interesting, I'll have to find a copy.
Yes, I'm arguing that without slavery, there still would have been secession. It might not have happened in the early 1860's. There were plenty of excuses to fight, just none as powerful - none that could quite become the massive crusade that the slavery issue became.
We had two different cultures vying for power from before the Revolutionary War. By the 1820's, communication was already breaking down over other economic and political issues, both sides were reacting defensively to the other sides arguments and radicals were attaining leadership positions. The slavery argument was exascerbated by the congressional "gag rule" which went into effect in the 1830's, the abolitionists were a minor group until then. They gained followers and power in a northern defensive reaction after it went into effect. The abolitionist threat was created by southern radicals. The cart isn't before the horse.
Whether secession was a valid Constitutional or legal argument is moot. (I'll argue it was, but heck, I'd argue the Marxist viewpoint to keep this conversation going.) Secession was the method by which this country was founded. It's in the Declaration of Independance. The Declaration is not law, and it's not a Constitution, but it is the most revered statement of our founding principles. Americans have proven many times that they were willing to fight and die for it - quite a few before we ever had a Constitution.
It wasn't about states rights. Both sides argued for or against states rights when it was convenient. Both sides felt the Constitution was perfectly safe in their hands, as long as they were in power. State legislatures on both sides tried to nullify federal laws they saw as unjust or merely disadvantageous. When new states were added and immigration increased, the balance of governmental power fell apart, which added fuel to the fire.
That's why the southern elites felt so threatened by the election of Lincoln. The Republican Party, representing only northern interests, had the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and they were about to get a majority in the Senate. They weren't reacting to a direct threat against slavery, Lincoln repeatedly assured everyone there was no threat. They were reacting to a loss of power that they saw as threatening to their entire culture.
Yes, I'm arguing that without slavery, there still would have been secession. It might not have happened in the early 1860's. There were plenty of excuses to fight, just none as powerful - none that could quite become the massive crusade that the slavery issue became.
We had two different cultures vying for power from before the Revolutionary War. By the 1820's, communication was already breaking down over other economic and political issues, both sides were reacting defensively to the other sides arguments and radicals were attaining leadership positions. The slavery argument was exascerbated by the congressional "gag rule" which went into effect in the 1830's, the abolitionists were a minor group until then. They gained followers and power in a northern defensive reaction after it went into effect. The abolitionist threat was created by southern radicals. The cart isn't before the horse.
Whether secession was a valid Constitutional or legal argument is moot. (I'll argue it was, but heck, I'd argue the Marxist viewpoint to keep this conversation going.) Secession was the method by which this country was founded. It's in the Declaration of Independance. The Declaration is not law, and it's not a Constitution, but it is the most revered statement of our founding principles. Americans have proven many times that they were willing to fight and die for it - quite a few before we ever had a Constitution.
It wasn't about states rights. Both sides argued for or against states rights when it was convenient. Both sides felt the Constitution was perfectly safe in their hands, as long as they were in power. State legislatures on both sides tried to nullify federal laws they saw as unjust or merely disadvantageous. When new states were added and immigration increased, the balance of governmental power fell apart, which added fuel to the fire.
That's why the southern elites felt so threatened by the election of Lincoln. The Republican Party, representing only northern interests, had the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and they were about to get a majority in the Senate. They weren't reacting to a direct threat against slavery, Lincoln repeatedly assured everyone there was no threat. They were reacting to a loss of power that they saw as threatening to their entire culture.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]
Le Ricain wrote:You have used the Declaration of Independence to justify secession as a constitutional right. It is probably worthwhile to consult the Articles of Confederation. This document was ratified on March 1, 1781. The most significant fact about the Articles is that they specify, both in the preamble and in Article XIII, that the union thus created is "perpetual." Article XIII states:
"The Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state."
The concept of perpetual union was agreed in 1781.
The preamble of the US Constitution reads:
We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."
The 'United' States refers to the perpetual union of the Articles of Confederation. 'Forming a more perfect union' from the union of the Articles of Confederation would not be achieved by allowing (by implication) secession.
So by your logic? Since there was no document in English law giving the colonists the right to secceed? They had no right to secceed? What I'm saying is that the founding fathers gave themselves that right. They did so with their Declaration of Independence. They stated their reasons for and willingness to die for those reasons. Using the writings of Locke and others to justify to themselves and convince others of the rightness of their decision.
By their words and actions they in the same breath inherently gave their blessing to any others that would take up that same fight. You talk about the Constitution and the articles of confederation. Both of those are goverment making documents. Only a fool would include the right of revolt in a document that creates a government.
I, on the other hand talk about the words and deeds of the men that found the courage, some at great personal sacrifice, to revolt against the greatest nation of their age. I am astounded that you don't see the difference?
Am I saying the Souths reasons for revolt were right? No. Am I saying slavery was a good thing? Of course not. But this Nation was built on the right that they tried to excercise. And a majority of the population in the south was for revolt. So, by the example, words and deeds of their and our forefathers? They had that right.
Too many people judge people in history by our own modern standards of morality. You have to look past that, otherwise it becomes impossible to have a clear understanding of why people did what they did.
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Jabberwock wrote:Cousins' Wars looks interesting, I'll have to find a copy.
Yes, I'm arguing that without slavery, there still would have been secession. It might not have happened in the early 1860's. There were plenty of excuses to fight, just none as powerful - none that could quite become the massive crusade that the slavery issue became.
We had two different cultures vying for power from before the Revolutionary War. By the 1820's, communication was already breaking down over other economic and political issues, both sides were reacting defensively to the other sides arguments and radicals were attaining leadership positions. The slavery argument was exascerbated by the congressional "gag rule" which went into effect in the 1830's, the abolitionists were a minor group until then. They gained followers and power in a northern defensive reaction after it went into effect. The abolitionist threat was created by southern radicals. The cart isn't before the horse.
Whether secession was a valid Constitutional or legal argument is moot. (I'll argue it was, but heck, I'd argue the Marxist viewpoint to keep this conversation going.) Secession was the method by which this country was founded. It's in the Declaration of Independance. The Declaration is not law, and it's not a Constitution, but it is the most revered statement of our founding principles. Americans have proven many times that they were willing to fight and die for it - quite a few before we ever had a Constitution.
It wasn't about states rights. Both sides argued for or against states rights when it was convenient. Both sides felt the Constitution was perfectly safe in their hands, as long as they were in power. State legislatures on both sides tried to nullify federal laws they saw as unjust or merely disadvantageous. When new states were added and immigration increased, the balance of governmental power fell apart, which added fuel to the fire.
That's why the southern elites felt so threatened by the election of Lincoln. The Republican Party, representing only northern interests, had the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and they were about to get a majority in the Senate. They weren't reacting to a direct threat against slavery, Lincoln repeatedly assured everyone there was no threat. They were reacting to a loss of power that they saw as threatening to their entire culture.
Your argument tells me that you need to get ahold of a copy of 'The Cousins' Wars'. The crux of the author's argument is that the vying of power by the two different cultures predates the AWI and actually starts with the English Civil War. You could say that the AWI and the ACW were the English Civil War II & the English Civil War III respectively. In all three wars Great Britain and America were divided almost exactly the same in terms of geography, religion and class.
Some examples:
The last battle of the English Civil War was fought in Maryland at the Battle of the Great Severn. The Puritan Roundheads defeated the Royalist Cavalier forces commanded by Lord Baltimore.
In Britain:
The south and east of England supported the Parliamentarians (ECW), the Americans (AWI) and the USA (ACW).
The north and west of England supported the Royalists (ECW), the UK government (AWI) and the CSA (ACW).
Catholic Ireland supported the Royalists (ECW), the UK government (AWI) and the CSA (ACW).
Protestant Ireland supported the Parliamentarians (ECW), the Americans (AWI) and the USA (ACW).
Scotland is the odd one as it supported the Parliamentarians (ECW), the UK government (AWI) and the CSA (ACW). The failed rebellion of 1745 was most likely responsible for Scotland's change in attitude. The city of Glasgow, however, followed the trend by supporting the Parliamentarians (ECW), the Americans (AWI) and the USA (ACW).
[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
Nial wrote:So by your logic? Since there was no document in English law giving the colonists the right to secceed? They had no right to secceed? What I'm saying is that the founding fathers gave themselves that right. They did so with their Declaration of Independence. They stated their reasons for and willingness to die for those reasons. Using the writings of Locke and others to justify to themselves and convince others of the rightness of their decision.
By their words and actions they in the same breath inherently gave their blessing to any others that would take up that same fight. You talk about the Constitution and the articles of confederation. Both of those are goverment making documents. Only a fool would include the right of revolt in a document that creates a government.
I, on the other hand talk about the words and deeds of the men that found the courage, some at great personal sacrifice, to revolt against the greatest nation of their age. I am astounded that you don't see the difference?
Am I saying the Souths reasons for revolt were right? No. Am I saying slavery was a good thing? Of course not. But this Nation was built on the right that they tried to excercise. And a majority of the population in the south was for revolt. So, by the example, words and deeds of their and our forefathers? They had that right.
Too many people judge people in history by our own modern standards of morality. You have to look past that, otherwise it becomes impossible to have a clear understanding of why people did what they did.
Nial
You point to a document dated 1776, the Declaration of Independence, and claim it justifies secession. I point to a later document, the Articles of Confederation, dated 1781, signed by the same states that signed the Declaration of Independence in which the right of secession is given up in order to create the United States.
The relationship between the American colonies and the UK was considerably different than the relationship between the states and the federal government.
Firstly, the colonies did not join the British Empire by choice. The colonies were not represented in Parliament. As the colonies evolved and grew in power, independence from the restrictions of a distant government made sense. Hence, the Declaration of Independence.
After the AWI, these same colonies, now states, voluntarily enter into a union of which one of the conditions is that the union is perpetual.
Also, the states are represented in Congress.
The other argument against secession being a fundamental right is that the CSA refused to recognise the secession of the Unionist counties within the South. For example, Winston County, Alabama, had to fight to keep its independence.
You make some statements on the morality of the secession and that we should not make judgements based on a modern perspective. As I made no moral judgement on the situation, I am at a loss on how to reply.
[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 point to a document dated 1776, the Declaration of Independence, and claim it justifies secession. I point to a later document, the Articles of Confederation, dated 1781, signed by the same states that signed the Declaration of Independence in which the right of secession is given up in order to create the United States.
The relationship between the American colonies and the UK was considerably different than the relationship between the states and the federal government.
Firstly, the colonies did not join the British Empire by choice. The colonies were not represented in Parliament. As the colonies evolved and grew in power, independence from the restrictions of a distant government made sense. Hence, the Declaration of Independence.
After the AWI, these same colonies, now states, voluntarily enter into a union of which one of the conditions is that the union is perpetual.
Also, the states are represented in Congress.
The other argument against secession being a fundamental right is that the CSA refused to recognise the secession of the Unionist counties within the South. For example, Winston County, Alabama, had to fight to keep its independence.
You make some statements on the morality of the secession and that we should not make judgements based on a modern perspective. As I made no moral judgement on the situation, I am at a loss on how to reply.
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.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests