Youtube comments of Patrick Cleburne (@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558).
-
74
-
37
-
32
-
30
-
26
-
24
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
@TheStapleGunKid Madison in Federalist #39, pointing out the content of the Constitution itself, disproves that nonsense: "That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."
16
-
16
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
@qcthesxientist Are you suggesting that the North wasn't willing to allow plantation owners to continue holding humans as cattle? If so, what evidence is there of that? If not, how could there have been a war over it?
As the London (England) Spectator said after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, “The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”
Lincoln himself had said in 1861, after the the original 7 Confederate states had seceded but before the start of the war, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@careyfreeman5056 "There are ways to go about being recognized as a separate country."
Not when the North refused to even negotiate.
Here's what a couple northern abolitionists said about it at the time:
"...the advocates of "unbroken Union" abruptly refuse to negotiate with the receding party (who offer compensation for what they must take with them), thereby finally denying their right to become a separate party, and pronouncing the final word that the Union recognizes no two parties who can negotiate with each other; which is equivalent to saying that the political Union (or clanship) is more sacred than persons, or property, or freedom, or any other inalienable human right. Thus completely destroying the last vestige of union between the parties, and forcing both into hostile attitudes, and both prepare to destroy each other."
"It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation.
"In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?" -George Bassett
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
There were Ohioans (and plenty of other Northerners) that believed in America's great founding principles, that just government rests on the consent of the governed. As Lincoln said in 1848: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
As the abolitionist, George Bassett, wrote in 1861: "But it is forgotten, that the true glory of our government—the queen beauty of our system is, that it ceases with the will of the people... Their is the old European, and not the American, idea of government... A government which is strong by the exercise of military power over its own citizens, is not a free government, but a despotism."
As far as Ohioans, in particular, hardly any ever directly sympathized with the Confederacy, but there were plenty that opposed the war and Lincoln's suppression of political dissent, including a former US congressman, that had been imprisoned purely for political dissent, which wasn't uncommon during the war but because of his prominence as a former congressman people objected to his imprisonment, so Lincoln then had him deported from the country, and despite being an exile he was nominated in absentia for governor and won right at the percentage of votes for governor in 1863 that Lincoln had won in his presidential election.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
@cadenvanvalkenburg6718 It was clearly an independence war, right? The South fought for the right to self-government. The North fought to destroy the principles the United States were founded on, that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, that no men have a natural right to rule over any other men, that people have a right to alter or abolish their form of government whenever it to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
And the North fought to destroy the constitution: "to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, it’s co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress." Thomas Jefferson
6
-
6
-
6
-
@N0noy1989 If the South was "obviously wrong," why did so many Northerners, abolitionists, foreigners, etc. at the time (including all those I mentioned in my last comment and lots more) fail to see the "obvious"?
As for names, if you want to call it the Southern Revolutionary War or the Second Revolutionary War or the Second Independence War or the Southern Independence War, those are all good names, too.
However, the 13 colonies didn't really have a legal argument for independence. Their claim to a right to independence was based on the inalienable right of all people, regardless of the existing laws and political structures, "to alter or to abolish it [the existing government], 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." And, of course, the southern states had that inalienable right, too, but on top of that inalienable right (which was more than sufficient) they also had a legal (constitutional) right, and that was the primary argument they made, and that legal argument was valid, too.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@justintime1343 OK, it's fair enough to call the shelling of Fort Sumter the start of the war, but that didn't happen until after the southern states gave the northern states multiple months to negotiate a peaceful separation. The southern states peacefully voted to secede, then gave the other states multiple months to peacefully negotiate terms, then gave the occupying forces multiple warnings, and only then fired on the occupying forces.
As the northern abolitionist George Bassett wrote before the shelling of Fort Sumter:
"...the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?"
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@@happamiatkettu > Like Konstantin said:
1. Ukrainians want to defend their homeland
Zelensky was elected on a platform of negotiating peace, not a hardliner. And even if Ukrainians have been radicalized since 2014, the idea that they would otherwise be strongly pro-Kiev and anti-Russia is disproved by the absence of resistance to Russia in Crimea and the strong resistance to Kiev in the Donbas for the last 9 years. Those pro-Russia and anti-Maidan sentiments surely characterized substantial minorities in the rest of Ukraine in 2014, too.
And it's not as if Ukrainians want to (1) "defend their homeland" at all; denying self-determination to the people of the Donbas isn't "defending their homeland." And (2) it's not as if Ukrainians want to "defend their homeland" in a vacuum. They want to defend their homeland so long as the West pays for it. If the West stayed out of it, they'd be making very different choices.
> 2. There is no option for peace without NATO membership.
Other than absurd "Putin is Hitler" propaganda nonsense, Russia never would have invaded in the first place if the West hadn't helped overthrow the democratically elected -- yes, politics in Ukraine are highly corrupt, but that doesn't ultimately matter -- government in order to establish a more anti-Russian government (that proceeded to abuse the rights of the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine) and if the US hadn't been trying to gain effective military dominance over Ukraine. Finland wasn't a member of NATO, and at no point since the collapse of the USSR has Finland had any more reason to fear a Russian invasion than Poland has had reason to fear another German invasion. Obviously, NATO membership wasn't necessary to peace for Russia's neighbors.
> 3. the money going into Ukraine would not fix any domestic issues in the US
No, but it's significantly exacerbating most domestic issues.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheStapleGunKid Sure, in the midst of his war, Lincoln was able to get away with simply defying the Supreme Court, just as he said he believed: "if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal..."
And prior to 1862, Lincoln had already with the suspension of habeus corpus led the Chief Justice to say, "I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome."
So do you think presidents should be able to do things that the Supreme Court has already ruled are unconstitutional, and what recourse, if any, should there be in such situations?
4
-
@TheStapleGunKid First I'll repeat the questions you didn't answer: "When they said it was slavery..." what does that even mean? "When they said it was slavery..." First of all, what does that even mean? For example, if the Constitution was supposed to guarantee the extradition of murderers that escaped to another state, and the northern states refused to honor their constitutional obligations, if terrorist murderers murdered random southern civilians (beginning even with a free black man that was just minding his own business) under abolitionist pretenses and the southern states cited that as a reason for secession, is that the kind of thing you would summarize by saying "they said it was slavery"? (You can answer the first question with a sentence that begins, "When I say they said it was slavery, I mean..." You can answer the second question with a yes or no, and I'll follow up from there.)
To continue repeating unanswered questions/challenges: Secondly, quote any part of any of the official declarations of causes where a seceding state said whatever it is that you mean when you say, "they said it was slavery." And if the declarations were all so clear and all said essentially the same thing, I'll take a quote from South Carolina's declaration, which was the first and offered plenty of detail.
And repeating yet another unanswered question: Do you defend presidents defying the Supreme Court and pursuing their own interpretation of the Constitution whenever they say the Supreme Court is wrong? (A yes or no would answer that question.)
And in case my previous comment wasn't clear enough, if "Confederate leaders openly said secession was necessary to preserve slavery because Lincoln was going to ban its expansion," let's see at least one quote from one of the seceding states' declarations of causes or at least one from Jefferson Davis, or if there's no evidence for your case in those most definitive sources, let's see whatever you've got.
I recognize that Lincoln tried to spin things after the fact so as to misrepresent what he stood for when he committed the northern states to all-out war and in the preceding months, but nothing he said in the lead-up to the war or within the first few months of the war (when the critical decisions were made) comes remotely close (even in hindsight) to a pronouncement that the war was about slavery (whatever you even mean by that), and there were definitive declarations at that time that the war wasn't at all about slavery. And misleading spin is all he offered even after the fact. And even up until the end of the war, there was nothing the South could have done with regards to slavery that would have brought the North to the table to negotiate a peace, certainly not conceding what you're suggesting was "the only substantial dispute," namely the right to take slaves to the territories, nor anything else related to slavery, and Lincoln was consistently and unequivocally clear that nothing the South did with regards to slavery would make a bit of difference to him in prosecuting the war, so it's ridiculous to say the war was about slavery. And you surely know all this.
"You say your position is consistent, but yet you are refusing to say secession was illegal even though that's what the Supreme Court ruled. Either you accept them as the arbiter of the constitution or you don't." I already told you -- and I quote from what I already said -- "I believe the final say should be determined about like Jefferson laid out in his first draft of the Kentucky Resolutions..." If that went over your head, look it up. It's short, and it's well worth the read.
How bout you? Do you believe the Supreme Court's rulings on the Constitution should be authoritative? I've already quoted Lincoln and the chief justice at the time to you showing that Lincoln didn't believe or respect that idea. If you believe the Supreme Court should be the ultimate arbiter, how then do you deal with Lincoln's disrespect for that idea. And are you suggesting that there aren't any decisions that should be overturned because they were wrongly decided?
And not that I really care what the Supreme Court said after the fact when there was no practical way they could have declared the central objective of the whole tremendously costly war the North had just waged wrong, even if they had been so inclined, but if you want to talk about that ruling, let's at least see a specific quote addressing the relevant point to our discussion.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@mrdan2898 NATO should have just settled for Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, etc., etc., but no, the West got greedy!
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Of Ty Seidule the founding generation said, "The soldiery, who are generally composed of the dregs of the people, when disbanded, or unfit for military service, being equally unfit for any other employment, become extremely burthensome. As they are a body of men exempt from the common occupations of social life, having an interest different from the rest of the community, they wanton in the lap of ease and indolence, without feeling the duties, which arise from the political connection, though drawing their subsistence from the bosom of the state. The severity of discipline necessary to be observed reduces them to a degree of slavery; the unconditional submission to the commands of their superiors, to which they are bound, renders them the fit instruments of tyranny and oppression. — Hence they have in all ages afforded striking examples of contributing, more or less, to enslave mankind; — and whoever will take the trouble to examine, will find that by far the greater part of the different nations, who have fallen from the glorious state of liberty, owe their ruin to standing armies.” “Impartial Examiner,” Virginia Independent Chronicle, 1788
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Michael Rogers Slavery had been around since 1776. Slavery wasn't the cause of anything that happened in 1860/61. Northern states trashing the constitution and the rule of law was what led to secession.
"Do we not all know that the cause of our casualties is the vicious intermeddling of too many of the citizens of the Northern States with the constitutional rights of the Southern States, cooperating with the discontents of the people of those states? Do we not know that the disregard of the Constitution, and of the security that it affords to the rights of States and of individuals, has been the cause of the calamity which our country is called to undergo?” -President Franklin Pierce (from New Hampshire) 1863
And as to the Republicans' reasons for trashing the constitution and the rule of law, another New Englander, the famous abolitionist Lysander Spooner wrote, "The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have 'Abolished Slavery!' That they have 'Saved the Country!' That they have 'Preserved our Glorious Union!'"
3
-
@farmsalot1233 "the southern constitution was an exact copy of the usa constitution except it added slavery."
So where are the following clauses (from the Confederate constitution) in the US constitution?
"To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry..."
"...but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@thankyoucaptainobvious7707 You ask, "The South wanted to leave the Union in order to continue the practice of what" as if the South wouldn't have been able to continue practicing slavery in the union, but that's the historically baseless propaganda of the Righteous Cause Myth. How are you imagining the South's desire to practice slavery was threatened by remaining in the union? What are you imagining the North was going to do to prevent the southern states from continuing to practice slavery?
As to the question of "freedom to do what," is like asking what slaves that tried to escape slavery wanted to do with their freedom. Asking "freedom to do what" completely misses the point. Even if they wanted to continue working on the same plantations where they had worked as slaves, they had a right to freedom. Even if they wanted to lie to the public in order to get elected to office and use their salary to waste their lives away in drunkenness, they still had a right to freedom. Freedom doesn't depend on what you want to do with your freedom. If your freedom depends on whether someone else approves of what you want to do with your freedom, then you're not free.
So, no, it's not at all true that the South wanted to leave the union in order to continue practicing slavery, although it is true that the South wanted to leave the union and that the South wanted to continue practicing slavery, just like it's true that the South wanted to leave the union and wanted to continue drinking water. If you want to add an "in order to" to that sentence, then you need to answer the questions: How are you imagining the South's desire to practice slavery was threatened by remaining in the union? What are you imagining the North was going to do to prevent the southern states from continuing to practice slavery?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@The.Rooster The OP's comment was about "the Northern army." First of all, none of the things you mentioned represented the Northern army. Secondly, not one of the documents you cited said anything about the war. Want to try again?
But let's make it easy on you. Show me any document from either government or from any prominent leader from either side that actually directly talks about the war to back up your case.
I'll give you a few, one from each side:
Official Union declaration, passed by a nearly unanimous vote of both chambers of the US Congress: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
Alexander Stephens, whom you've already referenced, except actually speaking directly about the war at the time of the war (1864): "Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@orpsman76 "It has ever been held that standing armies in times of peace are dangerous to a free country; and no observation seems to contain more reason in it. Besides being useless, as having no object of employment, they are inconvenient and expensive. The soldiery, who are generally composed of the dregs of the people, when disbanded, or unfit for military service, being equally unfit for any other employment, become extremely burthensome. As they are a body of men exempt from the common occupations of social life, having an interest different from the rest of the community, they wanton in the lap of ease and indolence, without feeling the duties, which arise from the political connection, though drawing their subsistence from the bosom of the state. The severity of discipline necessary to be observed reduces them to a degree of slavery; the unconditional submission to the commands of their superiors, to which they are bound, renders them the fit instruments of tyranny and oppression. — Hence they have in all ages afforded striking examples of contributing, more or less, to enslave mankind; — and whoever will take the trouble to examine, will find that by far the greater part of the different nations, who have fallen from the glorious state of liberty, owe their ruin to standing armies." Virginia Independent Chronicle 1788 -- still true today
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mackmckinney5206 There have always been Americans with imperialist/expansionist ambitions (the French and Indian War, the War of 1812, the Indian wars, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, the Vietnam War, the proxy war in Ukraine... and that's not even close to a comprehensive list of wars supported by Americans with imperialist aims), but the Confederacy didn't fight for imperialism, and it's absurd to characterize the Confederate cause as imperialist just because some of America's many imperialist hawks happened to be Southerners; the Confederacy only fought one war, and it was an anti-imperialist war, fought against the North's imperialist ambitions. As the London (England) Times said in November of 1861: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces."
And as Jefferson Davis said in his presidential inaugural speech: "An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth. We have entered upon the career of independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sbnwnc What David Wenger says is true, and the differences between the Confederate constitution and US constitution provide proof on multiple points. The Confederate constitution, for example, does away with the US constitution's "general welfare" clause, specifically limits Congress' taxing power to "revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States …" (contrary to the taxing power that the Supreme Court used to justify the individual mandate, for example), the Confederate constitution added a clause that “… no bounties … shall be granted from the Treasury…”, disallowed any tariffs to “promote or foster any branch of industry”, prevented Congress' power to regulate commerce from being "construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce” except along waterways and harbors, added a line item veto in opposition to pork barrel spending... and I could go on, but that's more than enough to show you need to do a whole lot more reading on your own and not from your usual propaganda sources.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@woodrowcall3158 > Armed with knowledge you have in this day and time, would you push for the abolition of slavery if you found yourself back in the mid-1800s?
I would take the position that the following abolitionists took at the time:
George Bassett: "It is constantly said... that if our government cannot prevent a State from seceding at will, it is no government at all. But it is forgotten, that the true glory of our government—the queen beauty of our system is, that it ceases with the will of the people. Its true strength lies not in navies and battalions, but in the affections of the people. Numbers in our midst... are vainly boasting that we propose to show the world that we have a government that is strong enough to meet the exigency and to suppress rebellion. But they fail entirely to apprehend and appreciate the true theory of the American system. Their is the old European, and not the American, idea of government. ...
"The true strength of a free government—and they are the strongest of all, is in the devoted attachment of its citizen sovereigns. Let this be forfeited, and the government falls.
"A government which is strong by the exercise of military power over its own citizens, is not a free government, but a despotism.
"Instead of the peaceful separation of these States being a disgrace to our government in the eyes of the world, it will constitute in all coming time its truest glory, and will demonstrate the infinite superiority of the voluntary system of self-government over the despotic usurpations of the past."
Bassett: "Those are false abolitionists, and selfish as slavery itself, who use the anti-slavery sentiment merely as their political capital; who subordinate and sacrifice the true principles of freedom to party success and personal aggrandizement. Such have no moral power over slavery, and the political power they obtain they use for themselves."
Joshua Blanchard, writing in The Liberator, March 1861: "The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world.
"...But the harmonious union of the people of this nation, on the principle of general consent, can never be maintained where the sentiments of the two great sections of it are at such irreconcilable variance on the vital question of the right to slavery... The only plan, then, for national reputation, for safety, for justice, and even for humanity, is to give each section an independent government, confirmed to its own ideas of right – that is, peaceable separation from each other."
Josiah Warren: "The right of self-sovereignty in every human being, which gives you [the southern states] the supreme right to leave us without asking our leave gives to your slaves the same right to leave you..." And, of course, the inverse is equally true: the right of self-sovereignty which gives slaves the right to freedom gave (even if the North violated the right) the southern states the right to separate from the northern states without asking leave of the northern states/DC.
Lysander Spooner: "The whole affair... has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. ... And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” That they have “Saved the Country!” ...
"The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ...in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. ...
"This, too, they call “Preserving our Glorious Union”; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sbnwnc He could hardly have said what he was fighting for before he was fighting, but as to what he would fight for, he said in his inaugural address: "An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth. We have entered upon the career of independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Bored_Overthinker > you can’t just wake up one day and decide that you don’t like that your old country is doing something you don’t like so it’s time to form a new one
In other words, you don't think you can do what Americans did in 1776?
> The states made an agreement by entering the union that they will not try to leave the union
As Daniel Webster (from Massachusetts) said in 1851, "...if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side."
But that's not to say the states were bound forever in union with each other even if the northern states hadn't broken the compact. A union is by definition a consensual relationship, and even if the states had tried to bind their future descendants into a political relationship with each other forever, they had no right to do so, and any such attempt would have been invalid, but there isn't a shred of historical evidence to support your claim that the states ever intended such a thing and abundant evidence to the contrary.
2
-
@ As one abolitionist wrote in The Liberator just before the start of the war, "The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
But yes, the North succeeded where England failed. Do you likewise celebrate beeeting your girlfriend back into submission when she refused to consensually continue in a relationship with you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aaronfleming9426 > 1. Was established by the People, not the States
In what sense? You didn't read the Madison quote I just shared explaining how the constitution was actually established, did you?
> 2. Removes earlier language codifying the sovereignty of the States
Whatever powers the states had under the Articles that weren't delegated to the federal government or prohibited by the constitution to the state were explicitly reserved by the constitution to the states (not that they wouldn't have been implicitly reserved otherwise.)
> 3. Explicitly denies the States certain powers normally enjoyed by sovereign nations
None of which have any relevance to the issues at play in the secession of the southern states' secession (or you'd actually be able to make a relevant argument instead of just hinting at an argument that can't actually be made.)
> their masters who, far from being an oppressed party, were actually OVER-represented in their own government
That's why Republicans were able to win an outright majority in the electoral college with only thirty-some percent of the electorate (which is to say before counting any blacks at all), right? Tell me again who was over-represented?
> northern whites had more claim to being oppressed
Those people that the constitution allowed to win elections with only thirty-some percent of the electorate, that's who you're calling "oppressed" by the constitutional system, right?
> The secessionists did not for one moment believe in the right to revolution as a principle.
They certainly believed in the right of states to secede and maintaining the Confederacy only on the basis of the voluntary consent of the member states.
Alexander Stephens: "Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty. If, with this great truth ever before them, a majority of her people should prefer despotism to liberty, I would say to her, as to a wayward sister, 'depart in peace.'"
Jefferson Davis: "The experiment instituted by our revolutionary fathers, of a voluntary Union of sovereign States for purposes specified in a solemn compact, had been perverted by those who, feeling power and forgetting right, were determined to respect no law but their own will...
"...never was there a people whose interests and principles committed them so fully to a peaceful policy as those of the Confederate States. By the character of their productions they are too deeply interested in foreign commerce wantonly to disturb it. War of conquest they cannot wage, because the Constitution of their Confederacy admits of no coerced association. Civil war there cannot be between States held together by their volition only. The rule of voluntary association..."
2
-
@aaronfleming9426 > I read the Madison quote, I just don't agree with him.
Do you have any reason for disagreeing with what he said? If so, explain why what he said isn't factually correct. Or do you just not like the facts he laid out?
> reserved to the states or the people
And why do you think that's relevant? Why do you think you have a point here? Remember the context of this part of the discussion was what you said about the sovereignty of the states under the Articles.
> Hey, when the vote splits 4 ways, you can win a majority in the EC without 50% of the electorate
Do you think that's how Republicans won in the electoral college in 1860? It wasn't. Republicans won over 50% of the vote in enough states to win a majority in the electoral college with only thirty-some percent of the entire electorate. Republicans would have won exactly the same if the other sixty-some percent of the electorate had united behind a single candidate. And part of the reason they didn't unite behind a single candidate is because the rules didn't incentivize them to do so. If Northern Democrats had won enough northern states to block Republicans from winning a majority in the electoral college, then Republicans wouldn't have won. Those are the rules, and those are the rules Democrats played by. You may be ignorant enough to think the presidency can be won with a plurality in the electoral college, but that's not how it is.
> You may not like the rules, but that's how it is.
How convenient of you to forget what the point was. The point wasn't to complain about the rules. The point was that you said the South was over-represented when in reality it was the North's sectional party, Republicans, that the rules allowed to win a majority in the electoral college with only thirty-some percent of the electorate.
> any representative government where people can secede just because they don't like the results of a free and fair election is more anarchist than republican
First of all, any relationship that's based on violence and threats of violence rather than on continued voluntary consent isn't a union. It may be an empire, a despotism, a democratic kleptocracy... but a union can only be a union if it's based on the continued voluntary consent of the members. That's what a real union is, and that's what the United States began as and what Republicans continued to pretend they wanted to preserve, but you can no more preserve a political union through violence and threats of violence than you can preserve a marriage by beating your wife. If you're using violence and threats of violence, whatever you're preserving isn't a union, and that change in the nature of DC is very significant.
Secondly, while the election itself may have been free and fair, the issue was that the party that won the election had already proven that its willingness to disregard the constitutional rules. If Candidate Smith from Party X runs for president promising to disregard the constitution in order to advance an agenda that his constituency supports and he's able to win a free and fair election (even with just thirty-some percent of the electorate) and his party is able to win enough seats in Congress to block any attempt to impeach him, and if Party X is willing to destroy the constitution, would you summarize that as a "free and fair election." That's missing the point, isn't it?
> Obviously Davis and Stevens believed in the right to secession (for themselves, at least)
But those quotes were both from after secession and the establishment of the Confederate constitution. They weren't talking about the right of secession under the US constitution. They were talking about the Confederate constitution and the rights of the Confederate states under it. You can ignore the fact or pretend it doesn't matter, but the clear historical fact is that the leaders of the Confederacy believed in the right of Confederate states to secede and in maintaining the Confederacy only on the basis of the voluntary consent of the member states, and that's obviously a stark difference from what the "Union" [sic] stood for.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Crispr_CAS9 You have a million excuses for avoiding the principle that separation isn't an act of violence, don't you? If I were trying to hold the positions you hold, I'd avoid principle like the plague, too.
Yes, violence, depending on the context, isn't always called war. So why don't you even try to tell me what's different in principle about violently subjugating your girlfriend for trying to break up with you and violently subjugating other states of the union for trying to break up with your states? Are you too stupid to even address the question of principle? Or are you smart enough to know that the principle condemns you?
> "...obviously there were wars in Yugoslavia following the various secession movements." ...you said there were not.
And what are you interpreting as me saying there weren't wars over the break-up of Yugoslavia? Or can you just not read?
And why don't you address the question I'm obviously asking? Obviously I wasn't asking you about Yugoslavian laws (or whatever you mean by political justification) when I asked you if you think Yugoslavia would have been justified in subjugating Slovenia and continuing to rule over Slovenia forever (if they had been able to successfully do so) because Slovenia committed an "act of war" against Yugoslavia? Are you so ashamed of the moral principles you're defending that you can only play word games to try to hide them?
> The EU is a treaty with a clause governing exit which the UK used.
And if hypothetically everything else had been the same except that the EU hadn't had an explicit clause governing secession, you think Brexit would because of that difference alone have constituted an "act of war"? And the EU would have by that difference alone have been justified in forcibly subjugating the UK to EU rule forever?
> "What do you think would have happened with slavery if Mississippi hadn't seceded" Probably nothing, but that's not what they thought, based on their explicit statements.
All you do is play evasive word games! What do you think Mississippi thought would have happened with slavery if Mississippi hadn't seceded? What did Mississippi think Republicans could have done that you're calling "ban[ning] slavery"? Are you talking about a completely unconstitutional executive order? Lincoln completely disregarding constitutional limits and making a dictator of himself? A constitutional amendment? What are you talking about? You don't want to provide a straight answer to those questions because you want to defend vague, unintelligible myths, don't you?
And why the focus on Mississippi, by the way? Are you trying to suggest that there was some significant difference between Mississippi and the other 6 original Confederate states?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andrewdolokhov5408 "It was a vast bloodletting of the Communist aggressors." Does that make you happy?
"As for Korea, the kill ratio vastly favoured the UN forces." I'm sure that's true of our recent defeat in Afghanistan, too. Do you count that a victory, too? How about Vietnam? Do you support bloodletting wherever and whenever possible so long as whoever the US picks a fight or a proxy fight with suffers a vastly unfavorable kill ratio? And if you knew precisely how many people were dying in Ukraine, how would you calculate the kill ratio there? Do you count civilians? Do Ukrainians matter at all, or are you indifferent to the number of Ukrainians that have to die to kill those young Russian men that you're happy to see die?
"Decent people support Ukraine." Decent people don't support their friends (no matter how innocent they may or may not be) getting killed, their property destroyed, etc., etc. simply because their enemy can be judged wrong. When a well armed gang of robbers says to a much weaker group of completely innocent victims, "give us your wallets or we'll kill you," decent people don't tell the victims from a safe distance on their cell phones, "fight to the death, because the muggers are 'plainly the unjust aggressor.'" Decent people show concern for others' lives (not to mention land, homes, etc.) regardless of whether there's a plain, unjust aggressor. Decent people can encourage their friends to forfeit things even to unjust aggressors.
"Victory for Ukraine is its survival as a state." But if that could have been had at the bargaining table at the start of the war or before the war even started or if it could be had at the bargaining table now, you'd turn down an offer in which Ukraine gets to survive as a state, because why? Because you're happy that Russians are dying and you're indifferent to Ukrainian losses of life and property?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Fr99763 Have you read the first part of South Carolina's declaration of causes of secession, the part that deals with the historical and legal basis for the right to secession (including the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the peace treaty with Great Britain, the process by which 11 of 13 states established a new government under the constitution initially without the other 2 (even though, although South Carolina's declaration doesn't mention it, the Articles required unanimity for any amendments), and the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights which "to remove all doubt... 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"? It's only 10 short paragraphs, just one or two sentences each. I'll quote that whole section in a separate comment. Do you disagree with anything South Carolina said there?
And was the constitution itself not established by the same legal principles as the southern states seceded in 1860-61? You say there is no legal due process in the constitution about secession, but there was no legal due process in the Articles about secession either.
And is it not true as Thomas Jefferson said in 1798 that, "the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress"? If that's true, how could there have been any legal due process for secession anyway? Such a process would have required a judge, but the constitution was as Jefferson said, a "compact among powers having no common judge".
2
-
@Fr99763 Quoting from South Carolina's declaration of causes of secession:
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.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheStapleGunKid "...it really doesn't matter what Stephens said. The actions of CSA proved his claim was a lie." The Stephens quote proves that Southerners respected the principle of just government resting on the consent of the governed in a way that Lincoln and the Republicans decidedly did not. And, as I already said (adding emphasis), "I don't know enough about the details of the history to say, but I assume you're right when you note that there isn't a history in the North or South of respecting the principles of the Declaration of Independence with respect to PARTS OF STATES -- I think that's unfortunate -- but there's very much a tradition, particularly in the South, of respecting those principles at the STATE LEVEL."
I never said Jefferson was pro-secession. He wasn't, but he was strongly pro-right of secession.
As to the quote about the Missouri compromise, he was clearly condemning the Missouri compromise. Are you really so ideologically blinded that you can't recognize that?
"Whose making the 'argument from silence' now?" Do you mean who's defending 10th amendment principles now? Neither I nor the constitution is opposed to arguments from silence; I and the constitution are only opposed to arguments from silence in favor of federal government power.
"If what you are saying is true, and this statement does confer a right to secession..." I said no such thing. As I said of the Confederate constitution counterparts to the 9th and 10th amendments, "You might say those are really insignificant little changes, and they are in one sense, but the fact that the Confederacy made such minor changes on those points shows they were points where they wanted to be abundantly clear about those foundational points." Preambles never confer anything, but they do help clarify, and the Confederate constitution added clarity to the US constitution.
"Under the CSA constitution, the Confederate states were not allowed to pass ANY anti-slavery laws."
BS. There was nothing in the Confederate constitution to stop states from abolishing slavery or otherwise passing anti-slavery laws except as related to citizens of other states and their slaves.
"All Confederate territory had to be slave territory."
True, but that's no different than what the Supreme Court had already ruled the US Constitution said less directly.
"All Confederate states had to be slave states."
BS again.
"They were totally centralized in regard to slavery. The notion that the CSA was in any way opposed to a big strong central government is a sham."
BS, both with regards to slavery and more generally. I already quoted several parts of the Confederate constitution that added specific limitations to the central government. And even the slavery provisions were limitations on the central government with regards to interference in slavery-related questions.
"And yes the "perpetual Union" part of the Articles..."
Did you not see where I said I wasn't yet saying anything about your perpetual BS? That I had a question for you first? A question you didn't answer: I'd like to know what difference it would make to you if those words hadn't been in the Articles or the constitution. Would your position change substantially?
2
-
@TheStapleGunKid You should also look at the US constitution. It mirrors the Confederate constitution in terms of the sections that applied to the federal government and the sections that applied to the states. If you do a search for "constitution text," for example, the first link that should come up (or that came up for me anyway) was a link from the National Constitution Center, and if you look at the US constitution you'll notice their heading on article 1, section 9, "Powers Denied Congress," and their heading on article 1, section 10, "Powers Denied to the States." This is precisely mirrored in the Confederate constitution, and the section you're trying to tell me is a blanket ban is from article 1, section 9, the "Powers Denied Congress" section. If that isn't sufficient to get you to admit that all the related arguments I previously called BS were indeed BS, then I have to believe you know you're making a dishonest case that can't stand on the truth but depends entirely on a foundation of lies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RageTyrannosaurus What other honest defense of the union and the constitution was there?
“If there are provisions in the Constitution of your country not consistent with your views of principle or expediency, remember that in the nature of things that instrument could only have had its origin in compromise,” Pierce explained to a New York City audience in 1853. “[A]nd remember, too, that you will be faithless to honor and common honesty if you consent to enjoy the principles it confers, and seek to avoid, if any, the burdens it imposes. It cannot be accepted in parts; it is a whole or nothing, and as a whole, with all the right it secures, and the duties it requires, it is to be sacredly maintained... It is no matter what our peculiar views may be, or what prejudices may take possession of our minds or hearts. If, as American citizens, we find ourselves constrained by a law higher or more imperative than this law, we then deny the obligations which the Constitution imposes, and can have no just claim to the protection and blessings which it confers.”
Personally, I side with the abolitionists that wanted to ditch the union and the constitution. As Wendell Phillips said in 1844, expressing a sentiment shared by overwhelming majorities of abolitionists (at least those active in the leading abolitionist organization, the American Anti-Slavery Society), then and for many years after (including the 1857 Worcester Convention of abolitionists, for another example), "[T]he abolitionists of this country should make it one of the primary objects of their agitation, to dissolve the American Union….[S]ecession from the present United States Government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the U.S. Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin."
2
-
@metal_fusion Not sure what you meant to reference with that quote from the Russian foreign minister, but here's a quote from the time that mentions Russia and another that describes it more generally:
“If Northerners... had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg... Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” London Times, September 13, 1862
"It is constantly said... that if our government cannot prevent a State from seceding at will, it is no government at all. But it is forgotten, that the true glory of our government—the queen beauty of our system is, that it ceases with the will of the people. Its true strength lies not in navies and battalions, but in the affections of the people. Numbers in our midst... are vainly boasting that we propose to show the world that we have a government that is strong enough to meet the exigency and to suppress rebellion. But they fail entirely to apprehend and appreciate the true theory of the American system. Their is the old European, and not the American, idea of government...
:The true strength of a free government—and they are the strongest of all, is in the devoted attachment of its citizen sovereigns. Let this be forfeited, and the government falls.
:A government which is strong by the exercise of military power over its own citizens, is not a free government, but a despotism." George Bassett
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@evanhunt1863 Do you realize that presidents aren't elected by popular vote? That coming in second place in a state is no better than not getting a single vote?
Like you said, if they hadn't seceded, there's a good chance that slavery would not have been abolished as soon. If you think they were fighting for slavery -- as if the North had been fighting for abolition -- then you can say "whoops." But what they were actually fighting for was summed up by the northern abolitionist George Bassett in 1861 before the war even began:
“But remember, that when South Carolina falls, she falls not alone. The suicidal hand which strikes down the sovereignty of the people of South Carolina, demolishes that of Massachusetts with it, and the whole fabric of American Liberty falls by the same stroke. Then not one star escapes from the galaxy of free sovereignties, but all are blotted out by this sweeping stroke of despotic usurpation. We are no longer a voluntary confederation of sovereign States, but each and all of us conquered provinces of a centralized and consolidated despotism. We of the North may be voluntary in this subjection, like the more degraded of slaves—yea, we may be the unnatural agents of it; but it is subjection still.”
Whoops!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@answerman9933 No, I haven't actually read any of her books, so nothing I've said is based on any real knowledge of her books. I've been a little curious about her books based on recommendations from friends, but the plot summaries and the little things I've read about Rand's philosophy and the length of the books (especially given that I'm not sure I want to read them at all) have kept me from ever reading any of her books. I know she fits into the libertarian camp, but there's a part of the libertarian camp that I associate with Rand that I very much disagree with, specifically the part that thinks good will automatically come out of a free market propelled by selfishness and greed and vanity, a part that uses freedom as an excuse for evil rather than a means for good. I think E. F. Schumacher made some very valid criticisms of more or less that philosophy. And so, too, did Solzhenitsyn, as I already mentioned. Here, for example, is something from his speech which I already mentioned:
"Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually, but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature. The world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems, which must be corrected. Strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in the pauper and lawless Soviet society.
The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word press to include all media.) But what sort of use does it make of this freedom?
Here again, the main concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no true moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist or a newspaper have to his readers, or to his history -- or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? It hardly ever happens because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist usually always gets away with it. One may -- One may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance.
Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors, and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none -- and none of them will ever be rectified; they will stay on in the readers' memories. How many hasty, immature, superficial, and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The confederate constitution not only permitted states to allow slavery, but took it a step further, forbidding them from banning it."
No, it didn't. (It banned the central government of the Confederacy from abolishing slavery -- which the US constitution at the time implicitly did, too, according to Lincoln and practically everyone else, and Lincoln likewise said he had "no objection to" a constitutional amendment which would have made that protection of slavery "express and [going beyond the Confederate constitution, even] irrevocable" -- but the Confederate constitution made a point of not prohibiting states from abolishing slavery, and it even provided for issues that would arise in states that would abolish slavery.)
And you're advancing an absurd re-definition of states rights, too. States rights are the constitutional rights of states. If the constitution prohibits states from granting titles of nobility, it's not anti-states rights to oppose states granting titles of nobility, because it's explicitly not a state's right.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The tide very much seems to be going the direction of Ukraine since Russia was forced to withdraw from most of Kharkiv Oblast, but like you say, how much the two sides are willing to escalate could make a big difference going forward. Russia is clearly beginning another level of escalation by calling up two or three hundred thousand reservists and could potentially escalate in other ways, e.g. it seems it could take greater risks with its air force to use it more aggressively. On the other side, it's hard to see how Ukraine can escalate further. The West could send more and newer weapons to Ukraine, but that would require a much bigger commitment than giving Ukraine older weapons that more or less needed to be replaced anyway plus some limited weapons that the West already had in relative abundance. It seems like giving Ukraine more weapons at this point is going to mean seriously depleting the West's own militaries. The West could commit to rapidly manufacturing replacements, but that would come at a much steeper cost than what the West has done so far, and meanwhile the West's attention span is short. And if we add to the fact that the West is already losing interest in the war (excluding, of course, the military-industrial complex), inflation, recession, and the costs and hardships the European West will face this winter without regular supplies of Russian natural gas, it seems very possible that Western leaders will be forced to take other priorities. So it seems Ukraine may be forced to de-escalate before long, all while Russia escalates, assuming the war doesn't come to an end first.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheStapleGunKid "...the Confederate states seceded and fought the war to preserve slavery" So what would have happened to slavery (and particularly what would Lincoln and the Republicans have done) if they hadn't seceded that seceding offered any hope of avoiding? It might help a lot if you could explain that in a little detail.
I'll repeat my earlier question: when the seceding states cited in their declarations of causes of secession the northern states' refusal to extradite escaped murderous terrorists despite the states' constitutional obligation to do so, is that the sort of thing you would summarize as "it was slavery"? Because if what you mean by "it was slavery" is broad enough to encompass northern support of anti-southern terrorism against random civilians under abolitionist pretenses, then we may agree about the facts but only disagree about whether it is misleading and deceptive to do the equivalent of summarizing the war between Hitler's Germany and the USSR by saying communism was bad and Germany was opposed to communism or to summarize the 9/11 attacks as it was US abuse of Palestinian rights.
And how can one side fight a war to preserve slavery when the other side isn't fighting to abolish it? You ask why it's hard to understand. When Congress by a practically unanimous vote shortly after the first major battle of the war, declares, "this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of... nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery]..." does that not seem to contradict your assertion that the war was fought over slavery? Do you just ignore everything Lincoln and Congress said about the war in explaining what it was about? How do you reconcile that declaration of Congress to your summary of what the war was about? It certainly contradicts any straightforward explanation of the war that "it was slavery."
I'd like to discuss those quotes you shared from Mississippi and South Carolina's declarations of causes with you, but you'll have to explain what you think they prove that contradicts anything I'm saying, or you'll have to explain what they prove that you think I'm not recognizing.
If your answer to my question of whether you support presidents defying the Supreme Court and pursuing their own interpretation of the Constitution whenever they say the Supreme Court is wrong is no, then what remedies do you think are justified when such situations arise? I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he wrote "that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress."
"Do you accept that secession is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it was?" No, I definitely don't believe that whatever the Supreme Court says the Constitution says is what the Constitution actually says. Do you? I don't understand how anybody could. (I assume there is no way to accept that something is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it was without believing that whatever the Supreme Court says the Constitution says is what the Constitution actually says.)
But whether or not you believe that the majority opinion in Texas v White (and every other decision the court has ever ruled on) tells us as clearly what the Constitution means as if God Himself told us what it means, if that ruling in any case captures your view on the constitutionality of secession, please quote, as I've already asked, the part of that decision that captures your view on that question. I'm not familiar enough with that decision to know of anything they actually said that I disagree with.
It seems there are basically two ways -- if there's another way, please explain -- to approach questions of constitutionality. One way was summarized by Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions. According to that interpretation the states that seceded were clearly within their "right to judge for [themselves], as well as infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress." Some people reject Jefferson's approach to the Constitution, but it seems that everyone that accepts his approach accepts that the states that seceded had a right to secede (and that the North was wrong to try to stop them.)
The other way to approach questions of constitutionality is to say that the Supreme Court has the final say, and whatever they say goes. But if that's the proper way to decide constitutional disputes, then the fact remains that Lincoln said he was going to ban slavery in US territories even after the Supreme Court had ruled that "the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void..." which is to say (according to this second approach) that Lincoln ran for office promising to defy the Constitution. And he not only said he was going to defy the Constitution (to the extent the Supreme Court decisions are definitive), he explicitly rejected the authority of the Supreme Court to broadly decide questions of constitutionality (as I already quoted him as saying.) So if the Supreme Court is supposed to have the final say but a president gets elected promising to defy the Supreme Court and, as you say, "We can see that was the case because that's exactly what Lincoln did: He banned the expansion of slavery," then that raises the question of what remedies there are when a president simply and openly defies the Constitution. That's not a problem if you follow Jefferson, but that's a problem that demands an answer if you reject Jefferson's path.
Lincoln obviously didn't follow either path. If he had a coherent approach to the Constitution, you'll have to explain it to me. All I see in Lincoln is dishonest excuses for defying and undermining the Constitution.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheStapleGunKid I'm inclined to believe that just government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. I don't believe great-grandparents can give any meaningful consent for the government of their great-grandchildren, especially not after the great-grandparents are dead and gone. I don't believe majorities can give their consent for the government of political minorities. I believe if majorities could give their consent for minorities, then slave masters could give their consent for their slaves (and even potentially let them have a losing vote.) I don't believe that if someone is making or would make evil choices about how to govern himself that he has any less right to govern himself. I think evil people have as much right to govern themselves as anyone else. Maybe it's possible that wars could be justified to stop other people from doing evil within their own borders but only if there's a very direct campaign to stop a clearly defined evil and then go back to minding one's own business, and I'd be pretty skeptical even at that. I certainly don't believe that other people doing evil gives me any justification to rule over them. If I tried to enslave someone else in order to prevent him from doing evil (even immediately, let alone at some uncertain time in the future), I believe he would be justified in defending himself against my attempts to rule over him/enslave him, even if he were doing evil and I genuinely wanted to enslave him for the purpose of preventing him from doing evil. I believe accusations of evil, especially when used as justification for subjugating other peoples and/or wars, are frequently either false or pot calling the kettle black kind of situations. I believe there are lots of things that can be done in response to evil that aren't at all justified, so just because something in response to evil definitely doesn't mean that the person responding to the evil is justified in what he's doing, nor that the person doing the evil wouldn't be justified in defending himself.
2
-
2
-
@TheStapleGunKid Since you said my previous response doesn't really answer your question, I'll try again. Obviously we're not seeing eye to eye on the historical facts and how to describe and summarize them, so I can't really answer a question based on a false premise, but hypothetically if the North had been on the verge of taking some sort of constitutionally legitimate governmental action that the South wanted to avoid, and in order to avoid the consequences of that governmental action the South had unilaterally seceded (and taken possession of military defenses, etc. in the South), no matter how much I might have supported that governmental action and no matter how much I might object to the way the South wanted to continue governing itself, I would recognize the South's right to self-government, and I would condemn any attempt to subjugate the South. Why wouldn't I? Am I supposed to believe that the right to self-government should be contingent on the seceding group not governing itself according to its own ideas? Am I supposed to believe that freedom means freedom to direct your own affairs so long as you direct them in ways that meet my minimum standards?
But it's not as if the North was asking the South to meet any standards in order to secede anyway. Nor was the North threatening any constitutionally legitimate government action that the secession offered any path to avoiding, especially not short term, but not even long term. Are you arguing that because the North might, however many decades later, have had enough votes to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery -- there's no way the North would have had enough votes to ratify a constitutional amendment before the southern states would have chosen to abolish slavery on their own, but even hypothetically granting that nonsense -- and that based on the assumption that they would do that however many decades later and the assumption that the South would continue to resist it, that that has any bearing on the justifications of the war? Even after the Republicans in Congress passed (without any objections from Lincoln) a constitutional amendment irrevocably protecting slavery from any such future amendment, you think they still retained enough high ground to justify their war on the basis of the constitutional amendment to abolish slavery that they might have passed at some point in the unforeseeable future?
My latest attempt to answer your question isn't to say, however, that I would necessarily have opposed a war to free the slaves if the North had clearly recognized the right of the southern states to secede and govern themselves, which would have been the opposite of what actually happened. In other words, instead of saying, "You can keep your slaves (even short term), but you can't secede," the North had said, "You can secede so long as you free the slaves," and if the North's war efforts had clearly been limited to freeing the slaves, then that would be a totally different question.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@richardcaves3601 How was slavery an issue in the war?
Jefferson Davis, April 29, 1861 (emphasis added): "...we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; *all we ask is to be let alone*; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms. This we will, this we must, resist to the direst extremity. The moment that this pretension is abandoned the sword will drop from our grasp, and we shall be ready to enter into treaties of amity and commerce that cannot but be mutually beneficial. So long as this pretension is maintained, with a firm reliance on that Divine Power which covers with its protection the just cause, we will continue to struggle for our inherent right to *freedom, independence, and self-government.*"
And that's exactly the opposite of the Union's position, as Congress officially declared: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
2
-
I really wonder how someone like Konstantin can be such an apologist for the post-Christian West. He seems sincere, but how could he be so blind to the obvious holes in his arguments for the "incomparable freedom" of the West?
Yes, freedom of speech is relatively very strong in the US, but in Konstantin's own country I saw a video clip of a woman getting arrested for praying quietly to herself near an abortion business, another video of a man getting arrested for reading Bible verses on a public sidewalk that were offensive to woke people, and a video of the British cops forcing a man out of a public square because a pro-Palestinian crowd was threatening him (and his message didn't even have anything to do with the Middle East -- I think it had to do with vaccines or something similarly unrelated.) And hate speech laws in EU countries are the basis of atrocious violations of speech rights, e.g. prosecution of politicians like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. Overall I think the difference in free speech between Russia and the Netherlands or the UK isn't really so big at all.
And there are so many other points of comparison besides free speech where Russia looks significantly more free, for example Wuhan pandemic lockdowns, mask requirements, shutting down churchers, etc., etc. Was Russia not a lot less bad than Australia or lots of states and cities in the US? There weren't any "green passes" in Russia like there were in some EU countries or Israel, were there?
Or what about homeschooling rights? Is there not more freedom to homeschool in Russia than most EU countries? Is the freedom to educate one's own children according to one's own values in an affordable way not a critically fundamental freedom?
Or what about all the regulations and bureaucracy that stifles small business in America? I bet it's a lot easier to milk a few cows in Russia, make cheese in one's own kitchen or another building that didn't cost the equivalent of 20 years of cheese sales from those cows, and sell it at a local market in Russia than most states in the US. Is there even a single state in the US where a person can cut someone else's hair professionally without a license? These sorts of license requirements, regulations, and other such red tape are probably more extensive in the US than anywhere else in the world.
There are a lot of such comparisons (on points critically important to freedom) that destroy the myth of the "incomparable freedom" of the NATO sphere. The abuses of freedom, although of different sorts in different parts of the world, are (with some notable exceptions like China, North Korea...) not incomparably different overall.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Fought and died to free the slaves? Nice myth! But the reality is, as my namesakes said in the middle of the war, that slavery was "merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
And that same reality was recognized by abolitionists like Lysander Spooner who said, "And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sbnwnc The following accounts are all from the South Carolina WPA slaves narratives collected in the 1930's from former slaves that were still alive at that time. These quotes are all from parts of their narratives about the arrival of the Union army:
Heddie Davis: "Yes ma’am, the Yankees, I hear my daddy talk about when they come through old Master’s plantation and everything what they do... Oh, they was the worst people there ever was, Pa say. Took all the hams and shoulders out the smokehouse and like I tell you, what they never carried off, they made a scaffold and burned it up. Lord, have mercy, I hopes I ain’t going never have to meet no Yankees."
Louisa Davis: "When the Yankees come they took off all they couldn’t eat or burn, but don’t let’s talk about that. Maybe if our folks had beat them and get up into their country our folks would have done just like they did. Who knows?"
Lewis Evans: "The Yankees come. First thing they look for was money. They put a pistol right in my forehead and say: ‘I got to have your money, where is it?’ There was a gal, Caroline, who had some money; they took it away from her. They took the geese, the chickens and all that was worth taking off the place, stripped it. Took all the meat out the smoke-house, corn out the crib, cattle out the pasture, burnt the gin-house and cotton. When they left, they shot some cows and hogs and left them lying right there. There was a awful smell round there for weeks after."
Victoria Adams: "The Yankees asked us if we want to be free. I never say I did; I tell them I want to stay with my missus and they went on and let me alone. They destroyed most everything we had except a little vittles; took all the stock and take them with them. They burned all the buildings except the one the master and missus was living in."
Frances Andrews: "I married Allen Andrews after the war. He went to the war with his master. He was at Columbia with the Confederate troops when Sherman burnt the place."
Charley Barber: "When the Yankees come they seem to have special vengeance for my white folks. They took everything they could carry off and burnt everything they couldn’t carry off."
Anderson Bates: "I was fifteen when the Yankees come thru. They took off everything, horses, mules, cows, sheep, goats, turkeys, geese, and chickens. Hogs? Yes sir, they kill hogs and take off what parts they want and leave other parts bleeding on the yard."
Adeline Jackson: "The Yankees that I remembers was not gentlefolks. They stole everything they could take and the meanest thing I ever see was shoats they half killed, cut off the hams, and left the other parts quivering on the ground."
2
-
@sbnwnc ...continuing...
Amos Gadsden: "Sherman set fire everywhere he went—didn’t do much fighting, just wanted to destroy as he went."
Adeline Grey: "I remember when they shoot down the hog. I remember when they shoot the two geese in the yard. They choked my Ma. They went to her and they say; ‘Where is all the white people gold and silver?’ My Ma say she don’t know. ‘You does know!’ they say, and choke her till she couldn’t talk...
"I remember when my Ma saw the Yankees coming that morning she grab the sweet potatoes that been in that oven and throw them in the barrel of feathers that stayed by the kitchen fireplace. Just a barrel to hold chicken feathers when you pick them. That’s all we had to eat that day. Them Yankees put the meat in the sack and go on off. It was late then, about dusk. I remember how the Missus bring us all around the fire. It was dark then. ‘Well children,’ she say, ‘I is sorry to tell you, but the Yankees has carry off your Ma. I don’t know if you’ll ever see her any more.’ Then we children all start crying. We still a sitting there when my Ma come back. She say she slip behind, and slip behind, slip behind, and when she come to a little pine thicket by the side of the road, she dart into it, drop the sack of meat they had her carrying, and start out for home. When we had all make over her, we say to her then: ‘Well why didn’t you bring the sack of meat along with you?’
…Ole Miss had give my Ma a good moss mattress. But the Yankees had carry that off. Rip it up, throw out the moss, and put meat in it."
Fannie Griffin: "The worst time we ever had was when the Yankee men come thru. We had heard they was coming and the missus tell us to put on a big pot of peas to cook, so we put some white peas in a big pot and put a whole ham in it, so that we’d have plenty for the Yankees to eat. Then when they come, they kicked the pot over and the peas went one way and the ham another. The Yankees destroyed almost everything we had. They come in the house and told the missus to give them her money and jewels. She started crying and told them she ain’t got no money or jewels, excepting the ring she had on her finger. They got awfully mad and started destroying everything. They took the cows and horses, burned the gin, the barn, and all the houses except the one master and missus was living in. They didn’t leave us a thing except some big hominy and two banks of sweet potatoes. We chipped up some sweet potatoes and dried them in the sun, then we parched them and ground them up and that’s all we had to use for coffee. It taste pretty good too. For a good while we just live on hominy and coffee."
Hester Hunter: "Oh, my God, them Yankees never bring nothing but trouble and destructiveness when they come here, child."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hadara69 "Define "states' rights" without slavery."
Thomas Jefferson's 1798 Kentucky Resolutions had nothing to do with slavery:
"Resolved that the several states composing the US. of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style & title of a Constitution for the US. and of Amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are unauthoritative, void, & of no force. that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, it’s co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@EPUEPUEPUEPU > The south attacked first, literally destroying your analogy.
No, it doesn't. The South didn't attack the North in the North. The North refused to leave the South and the South only attacked northern forces in the South, only to the point of expelling them from the South.
If a husband and wife have separate houses and continue to live in their separate houses after they get married and while they're married they jointly hire a security company to provide armed security for their houses, the husband has no absolutely no valid reason and no right to try to control the security of his wife's house after she splits up with him, and she has every right to evict, with force if necessary, his armed agents from her property.
But even if she had overstepped her rights and done something wrong in evicting her husband's armed agents from her house, in any case it most certainly doesn't give the husband the right to send more armed agents back to take control of everything that belonged to his ex-wife and force her back into a relationship with him forever.
Obviously it's over-the-top absurd to suggest that a woman would have to let her husband's armed agents control who enters and leaves her house after she splits up with him, but that's exactly what you're suggesting in denying a woman's right to have those armed agents evicted after she splits up with her husband.
> Second lets change your analogy and replace Husband with master and wife with slave and that would fit your scenario better.
Indeed it would! A husband can't beat his wife in order to prevent her from leaving him; that's the relationship of a master and slave, not any relationship that can rightly be called a union.
> Finally all states left because of slavery.
What kind of vague, meaningless nonsense is that? The first 7 states that seceded left because of what Republicans, the party that won the votes of the North in 1860, had done and were doing. Can you even say what that was? Or can you only hide behind vague, one-word nonsense like "slavery" that in no way summarizes what the northern states had done and were doing? The next 4 states decided not to secede for the reasons the first 7 states seceded, but seceded in opposition to Lincoln's call to go to war and destroy the union, destroy government by the consent of the governed, and destroy any accountability by the federal government to the constitution.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Dr.TJ1 "even though that right had yet to be taken away from the southern states"
As if Republicans in DC were going to! As if they had any constitutional authority to do so even if they had wanted to! What BS!
Douglass and Brown had no authority to do anything to alter the legal status of slavery. And the South didn't wage war against Douglass and Brown. The South waged war against the Union. And neither Lincoln nor Congress nor the Supreme Court, which is to say no one with any power to challenge the legal right of the southern states to continue practicing slavery was challenging that right.
As I already said to the person that started this thread, sure, slavery was threatened (as it was threatened everywhere inside and outside the union, in Cuba, Brazil, etc.), but you seem to be saying that slavery in the southern states was threatened particularly by remaining in the union. Is that indeed what you're suggesting? And if so, how do you think the union threatened slavery? And how do you think seceding offered any hope of protecting against those threats?
Righteous Causers never have any real answers to those questions, which is to say they can't explain their own Righteous Cause Myth. It's inexplicable nonsense, BS propaganda, historically baseless myth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheStapleGunKid Federal taxes did not apply to everyone everywhere. They applied only to the people of the United States, people that, until Lincoln and the Republicans upended the constitutional order, were members of that union by the free choice of the people of each state.
But further, it's absurd to say Lincoln wasn't trying to tax the South just because he was trying to tax other people, too.
And it's further absurd to suggest that taxes are equitable simply because they "apply to everyone." A tax on tanning beds might "apply to everyone" but it will be borne far more by white people than black people. Similarly, a tax on international trade would disproportionately burden those sectors most dependent on international trade. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad, but the fact that it "applies to everyone" is irrelevant and misleading.
And, of course, how taxes can not only be raised inequitably, but they can be spent inequitably, too, as, for example, on infrastructure projects that disproportionately benefit certain places and sectors over others.
And the South's secession was neither a rebellion nor was it done to "preserve slavery." If the southern states' secession had been for the sake of "preserving slavery," there would have been some threat that seceding promised to "preserve" slavery against, but there was none, nothing but inexplicable myths.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ And the southern states try everything they could to peacefully secede.
As one northern abolitionist said shortly before the start of the war, "In reference to this [the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States], as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?"
The impartial record of history does indeed condemn the North for declining all the thorough attempts made by the southern states to secede peacefully.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The fact that the slave economy was integral to the production of cotton and the vast majority of America's exports and therefore particularly inclined the southern states toward free trade in opposition the the northern state's desire for protective tariffs and other crony capitalist measures doesn't mean disputes over those things or any of the other things Republicans were wanting to do that would affect the southern states were actually "about slavery." That's an absurd propaganda distortion.
As even the famous Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner said, "The whole affair... has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. ... And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” ...
"The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ...in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. ...
"All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..."
1
-
Or for evidence of the same historical reality from the opposite side (which is to say from the South and strongly pro-slavery):
"The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch "of the accursed soil." Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave." -Alexander Stephens, March 1861
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RARenfield So are you saying what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1798 is contrary to a democratic republic? " ...the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid The people/their representatives. But in a different (other-than-American) context it could just as well be a monarch or some other representative as elected representatives. As Senator (later president) Warren G. Harding said around the time of WWI, “voting for war in the name of democracy... It is my deliberate judgment that it is none of our business what type of government any nation on this earth may choose to have.” (By the way, are you as much of an interventionist hawk when it comes to foreign countries as you are a fan of despotism at home? How consistent is your opposition to living and letting live? How consistent is your refusal to see any other solution to dealing with differences other than coercion, threats of violence and violence? Did you support Obama's and Trump's missile strikes on Syria and wish we had been more aggressive? Would you defend our wars against Libya, Serbia, Iraq...? Support continued drone strikes against all the countries with which we haven't even been at war, not by modern American standards anyway? Favor increased involvement in Ukraine?) Certainly states have a right to refuse to enter into or remain in union with states that have forms of government too different from their own, too different to make close cooperation impractical. There is obviously wisdom in the constitution's prohibition on allowing Saudi Arabia to become the 51st state. But the details of the process by which Wisconsin may choose to declare something unconstitutional isn't the business of anyone but the people of Wisconsin.
As Jefferson wrote elsewhere and in a slightly different context, "to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy. our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. ...and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective controul. the constitution has erected no such single tribunal knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time & party it’s members would become despots... the judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum & tuum, and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. when the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. the exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid The first of the questions you asked in your comment with a string of questions the answers to all of which ought to have been clear enough to you if you had actually read what Jefferson wrote, and the question to which I replied with the quote from the Kentucky Resolutions was, once again: "First of all, if there's a right to declare federal laws unconstitutional, why would it fall to the people or their representatives and not the courts?" Are you really dumb enough or so blinded by your mental dependence on despotism that you can't see the answer to that question in the quote I provided?
If you read the Kentucky Resolutions, tell me whether you agree with the principles Jefferson set out in them, and if not, tell me where you agree and where you disagree, and why you disagree where you disagree (at least for one or two points for starters.)
And since you're so hung up on the specifics of how a state would decide what's unconstitutional, tell me what you think Jefferson had in mind, specifically in light of what I already quoted Jefferson saying elsewhere (beginning with "to consider the judges...")
And as to those specifics, I've already told you that I'm not hung up on the specifics of how a people express their will, that in other contexts (other-than-American) I think the principles Jefferson expressed could even be applied to constitutions (or treaties or other legal arrangements) between states governed by monarchs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "The constitution says the states can't print money, so if a state starts printing money, the federal government can compel it to stop. Because if it couldn't then what would stop the state from printing money?"
One could just as well say the constitution says the federal government can't make any law abridging the freedom of speech, so if the federal government abridges the freedom of speech, states can compel it to stop. Because if states couldn't then what would stop the federal government from abridging the freedom of speech?
"In regard interpreting what the government can do in this regard, that would fall to the judicial power of the United States, IE the supreme court."
That takes us back to the other question I already asked, which you didn't answer: Where did the Supreme Court get that authority?
"What's your view? Do you believe the federal government has no right or ability to compel the states to do anything? And please don't just refer to the Kentucky Resolutions or some other document, just give your view."
You claim to have read the Kentucky Resolutions, but you haven't responded to a single specific point or argument made in the Kentucky Resolutions. If you're going to maintain that you've read them... and done so over the course of our recent discussion, then why should I repeat what you've already read?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And as to what changes were made between the US and the Confederate constitutions, Stephens said this in April of 1861, "But all the changes — every one of them — are upon what is called the conservative side. Now, this I ask your special atten tion to. It is an important fact. I wish you specially to mark it, for I know that efforts has been made to create prejudice against our movement by telling the conservative men of the country that it sprung from some of the hot heads down South, and should not be relied on or trusted. But take the constitu tion and read it, and you will find that every change in it from the old constitution is conservative. In many respects it is an improvement upon the constitution of our fathers. It has such improvements as the experience of seventy years showed were required. In this particular our revolution thus far is distin guished from popular revolutions in the history of the world. In it are settled many of the vexed questions which disturbed us in the old confederacy. A few of these may be mentioned — such as that no money shall be appropriated from the common treas ury for internal improvement ; leaving all such matters for the local and State authorities. The tariff question is also settled. The presidential term is extended, and no re-election allowed. This will relieve the country of those periodical agitations from which sprang so much mischief in the old government. If his tory shall record the truth in reference to our past system of government, it will be written of us that one of the greatest evils in the old government was the scramble for public offices — connected with the Presidential election. This evil is entirely obviated under the constitution which we have adopted.
Many other improvements, as I think, could be mentioned, but it is unnecessary. I have barely alluded to the subject to show 3'ou that we do not invite you to any wild scheme of revolution. We invite Virginia to join us in perpetuating the principles upon which she has ever stood — the only hope of constitutional liberty in the world, as I now seriously apprehend."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Ha ha! You're a joke. But you're also a liar, and a revisionist propagandist. The constitutional questions relating to slavery most certainly weren't whether it would "survive or die," and if you say so, then you're intentionally lying. But, of course, you need lies like these to hide from the real questions of the war, the ones that are just as relevant today completely apart from anything at all to do with slavery, like the ones I asked you about 4 comments back in this thread (not for the first time.) You know what you're really defending is slavery, not African chattel slavery, but slavery all the same, and you're happy to exploit long-dead issues of African slavery in order to continue defending slavery today.
1
-
@aaronfleming9426 > Where was that "core understanding" when South Carolina tried to secede the first time?
Cincinnati Daily Press, November 21, 1860: "We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy [the United States] to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute – that, in other words, if South Carolina wants to go out of the Union, she has the right to do so, and no party or power may justly say her nay. This we suppose to be the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence when it affirms that governments are instituted for the protection of men in their lives, liberties, and the pursuit of happiness; and that ‘whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...’"
Joshua Blanchard, writing in the The Liberator, the abolitionist newspaper, in March of 1861: "the entire subjugation of one of the parties, maintained by a perpetual occupation of military force, military tyranny over all the states, [would be an] abandonment of our claim to be a government of the people.... The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
Even Lincoln expressed the same principles at the time of the Mexican-American War, 1848: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
1
-
1
-
@Rundstedt1 Quoting Georgia's official declaration of causes of secession can hardly make me a liar, and, as you probably already know, I could quote much more extensive parts of that document dealing with the ways the northern states had abused the federal government to gain support for northern industry and special interests. Anti-slavery sentiment was the pretext, as that declaration shows, but that doesn't mean the southern states weren't suffering for it. The Republican anti-slavery position was indeed enough of a pretext for their real motives that it mostly wasn't doing or promising to do southern slaves any good, but things like stirring up terrorist attacks against random southern civilians (even murdering a free black Virginian for merely minding his own business) and then northern governors refusing to extradite the escaped perpetrators to serve justice was entirely real, so although the anti-slavery position was overwhelmingly just a pretext for the Republicans, it certainly had real consequences for the South.
As for the list you shared, I wasn't familiar with it, but it's very consistent with the general position of the Deep South states prior to secession, so nothing unexpected. Of course, Georgia abandoned all the claims in your list when they opted to secede, so the more significant product of the secession convention was the one I quoted.
What do you think that list proves anyway? How does it contradict anything I said?
1
-
1
-
@Rundstedt1 Whether the Republican party intended to ultimately bring about the end of slavery as irrelevant to the question of the justice of the causes of the North and South in their conflict as the question of whether Hitler intended to end communism is irrelevant to the question of the justice of Hitler's and the USSR's causes in WWII.
One point from the above quote that I have no trouble with at all, by the way, is calling a politician a "traitor both to principle and duty." That's the norm, and while pro-choice people today talk about what Republicans would do to women's rights in much the same terms as the above quote, the reality is that even when the Republicans recently controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate, and a majority of Supreme Court justices were also appointed by Republicans, not only was abortion not outlawed, but nothing really changed at all. The Republicans, much like the Republicans that voted for the Corwin amendment, even continued to vote for budgets that included funding for Planned Parenthood. That's not to say that slavery wasn't on a course to extinction, but it was on a course to extinction that didn't depend on the Republicans or holier-than-thou Yankees ruling over deplorable Southerners or on union/secession.
And just as you'll find no more than "a few dull speeches in favor of" corporate tax cuts in the midst of an abundance of pro-life speeches, rallies, advertisements, etc., that's no proof that the Republican party is actually more committed to the pro-life cause than to corporate tax cuts. (I may be over-simplifying current issues somewhat, but hopefully you get my point regardless.)
So while whether the Republican party intended to ultimately bring about the end of slavery is really irrelevant to the questions of whether the South had a right to secede and whether the North was justified in going to war (let alone burning down farmsteads, cities, etc.) to crush the secession, there are nonetheless important questions we can ask about how things like slavery ought to be done away with in a union of states. I'm guessing you don't believe in the anti-abortion cause, but obviously there are people that do, so besides whatever objections you may or may not have to their cause (or substitute a cause in which you do strongly believe), would you object to the political tactics of overtaking a federal armory in a pro-abortion state and murdering random civilians in that state? Or of allowing such terrorists to organize in anti-abortion states or of protecting escaped perpetrators of such attacks from having to serve justice in pro-abortion states? Would you object to a US president banning abortion in Puerto Rico by executive order in defiance of Roe v Wade? Whether you hide from it or not, these are the questions that really matter; these are the sorts of questions that are highly relevant today; and these are the principles that you're really defending.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 (aka the user that impersonates me because lies are all he has) You quoted Texas saying: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery..."
Demand the abolition of slavery or what? What were they going to do if Texas didn't abolish slavery?
The same document you quoted goes on to explain: "They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance...
And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them..."
In other words, submit to our wishes or we'll use our power in DC to exploit you (not that the North's robber barons and their tools in the Republican party weren't going to exploit them regardless; as Alexander Stephens more accurately discerned, "notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave.") If you want a one-word summary of what was at stake in the war and why the southern states couldn't secede in peace, tariffs is it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 If it answered my questions challenging your nonsense you could explain how, but of course you never even try to explain anything because your arguments are inexplicable nonsense.
The questions again:
Demand the abolition of slavery or what? What were they going to do if Texas didn't abolish slavery?
And the answers again:
The same document you quoted goes on to explain: "They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance...
And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them..."
In other words, submit to our wishes or we'll use our power in DC to exploit you (not that the North's robber barons and their tools in the Republican party weren't going to exploit them regardless; as Alexander Stephens more accurately discerned, "notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave.") If you want a one-word summary of what was at stake in the war and why the southern states couldn't secede in peace, tariffs is it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What those "poor dirt farmers" lost along with all other Americans was a government of their own choosing deriving its powers from their consent. In other words, what they lost was the freedom that Americans fought for in the First American Independence War.
As one northern abolitionist said very shortly before the start of the war, "But remember, that when South Carolina falls, she falls not alone. The suicidal hand which strikes down the sovereignty of the people of South Carolina, demolishes that of Massachusetts with it, and the whole fabric of American Liberty falls by the same stroke. Then not one star escapes from the galaxy of free sovereignties, but all are blotted out by this sweeping stroke of despotic usurpation. We are no longer a voluntary confederation of sovereign States, but each and all of us conquered provinces of a centralized and consolidated despotism. We of the North may be voluntary in this subjection, like the more degraded of slaves—yea, we may be the unnatural agents of it; but it is subjection still."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How about we talk about what political party stood for the rule of law and for meaningful constitutional limits on the federal government?
“If there are provisions in the Constitution of your country not consistent with your views of principle or expediency, remember that in the nature of things that instrument could only have had its origin in compromise... and remember, too, that you will be faithless to honor and common honesty if you consent to enjoy the principles it confers, and seek to avoid, if any, the burdens it imposes. It cannot be accepted in parts; it is a whole or nothing, and as a whole, with all the right it secures, and the duties it requires, it is to be sacredly maintained... It is no matter what our peculiar views may be, or what prejudices may take possession of our minds or hearts. If, as American citizens, we find ourselves constrained by a law higher or more imperative than this law, we then deny the obligations which the Constitution imposes, and can have no just claim to the protection and blessings which it confers.” President Franklin Pierce
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rundstedt1 Is your overarching point that we should be following Lincoln's example to call people deplorable and then use that as an excuse to trash the Constitution? I mean, sure, Southerners were, in fact, deplorable, but so, too, were Republicans.
Lincoln: "There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas..."
It's important to keep it in perspective that the Republicans weren't advocating anything within their constitutional authority that was going to do southern slaves any good. If they had actually been concerned about slaves, they would have taken up the abolitionist rallying cry of "No Union with slaveholders!" But Republicans wanted to exploit anti-slavery sentiment for the sake of the robber baron class without actually helping to end slavery, trashing the Constitution (and therefore the rule of law) in the process.
Do you think social change should take place within the framework of the rule of law or by using accusations of deplorability (sometimes justified, sometimes false allegations, sometimes true but pot calling the kettle black...) as an excuse for bypassing the rule of law and the democratic process?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
RonPaulHatesBlacks Here's the full comment: If you want to summarize the Republicans trashing the constitution's protections of slavery in order to divide the country politically, not for the sake of ending slavery, which they had neither the power nor the desire to do and which nothing they were proposing to do would have brought about anyway, but for the sake of gaining political power to enrich the North's robber barons and aspiring robber barons through exploitation of the South, particularly including the slave economy, (and exploitation of any much of the people of the North, too)... if you want to summarize opposition to that as "for slavery," well, then yes, that's what it was, but that's a super dishonest way to summarize it. Of course, people taking your position will never explain what they mean by it, because their position absolutely depends on inexplicable myths.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's a complete lie that the Republican party fought for the freedom slaves. And it's a lie that's told and repeated in order to cover for the war that was actually fought by the Union not for anyone's freedom but precisely to subjugate the people of the southern states and to destroy the great American experiment of free government, of government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.
Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner: "The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud ...And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ...in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before.
"...Their pretenses that they have “Saved the Country,” and “Preserved our Glorious Union,” are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call “Saving the Country”; as if an enslaved and subjugated people – or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) – could be said to have any country. This, too, they call “Preserving our Glorious Union”; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” ...are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..."
Lincoln, 1861: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc > How are Viginians ethnically different from people from Maryland or Ohio?
Maryland and Ohio not as much, but there was a world of difference between the people that settled Massachusetts in order to establish their own theocracy and the people of the settled the southern states, not because they were marginalized in Britain but mostly because they wanted land to farm. And those differences manifest themselves in countless ways even today: the Bible belt, views on gun rights, views on masking for the pandemic, initial support for Obamneycare, views on a border wall, support for involvement in foreign wars, etc., etc. If the people of the North and South were all one people, how do you explain the strong geographical divisions on all these sorts of issues, both today and even more so in the 19th century?
> Thanks to the 3/5th Compromise, white Southerners were over-represented in Congress.
Except Republicans, which had practically zero support in the South were able to win a greater proportion of the seats in Congress than the proportion of the electorate they represented, so whatever advantage the 3/5 compromise gave the southern states, there were obviously bigger disadvantages that worked against them. And Republicans were able to win an outright majority in the electoral college with only thirty-some of the electorate, so who was really over-represented?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ThatTimeTheThingHappened So you can't cite a single piece of historical evidence that even mentions the war except for after-the-fact things? In other words, nothing from "during the war," like you claimed originally?
> the cornerstone speech about how slavery was natural and defending it in the confederacy
Yes, that was a view representative of the Confederacy, but the fact that the Confederacy was pro-slavery no more proves what the war with the Union was fought over than the fact that the USSR was pro-communism proves what WWII was fought over or than the fact that Russia is anti-homosexual proves what the Ukraine war is being fought over.
In other words, you haven't found any historical evidence to dispute my point: the war wasn't fought over anything to do with slavery, and your claim that the war was fought over the states' right to continue practicing slavery is complete and total revisionist BS myth.
Jefferson Davis, April 1861: "we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone"
Official Union declaration, passed by nearly unanimous votes through both chambers of Congress "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neoverse "but was slavery to be allowed?"
According to Republicans (and Democrats), yes:
" May 17, 1860
Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United States in Convention assembled... unite in the following declarations:
...
"4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends..."
"Slavery was the main States Rights issue they were arguing for."
It's impossible to fight for something your opponent isn't trying to take from you.
But to respond to that purely hypothetical question which has no basis in history, if Republicans had been trying to deny Southerners the "right to own slaves," as you said, they would have had nor more legal right and been no more justified than if they had been threatening to force Brazil to abolish slavery, would they have? Do you believe the federal government should just disregard the constitution and the rule of law and the democratic accountability that constitutionally limited government represents whenever it says it has a good reason, even if that reason is just a shallow pretense for enriching robber barons?
Lincoln, after all, said he believed it was "implied constitutional law" that "the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service," and he backed that up by saying he had no objections to amending the constitution to make those constitutional protections of slavery "express and irrevocable," which amendment Republicans had already passed through both chambers of Congress and sent to the states for ratification.
1
-
@neoverse "Just seems your intent on defending Democrats by listing Republicans first."
Although it's true Democrats shared the same position, Democrats' position is really completely beside the point in answering your question. Your question was, "Lincoln was tyrannical in his actions IMO, but was slavery to be allowed?" The answer is simply, yes, he and his party were absolutely going to "allow" slavery.
Wasn't your question essentially a question of whether tyranny could find some justification for the good cause of abolishing slavery? But Republicans were totally going to go along with it, not abolish it, so that can't have been any justification for their actions.
You asked, "Is it right to support immorality under the cover of law?"
I think one can take the position that Wendell Phillips (and many other abolitionists) took before the war: "...the abolitionists of this country should make it one of the primary objects of their agitation, to dissolve the American Union….secession from the present United States Government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the U.S. Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin." In other words, I can understand if someone would refuse to take an oath to uphold unjust constitutional provisions, but I can't see any justification for swearing an oath to uphold unjust constitutional provisions and then refusing to uphold those provisions because they're unjust.
And, in any case, that wasn't the position of Republicans. As Lincoln said in his inaugural address, "It is scarcely questioned that this provision [of the constitution] was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrMah-zf6jk What does it matter? Do you think you have a right to deny your girlfriend the right to split up with you, to kill her children, and to physically beat her into submission, because she left for the "wrong reasons," all while you deny that her wrong reasons have anything to do with why you're beating her?
But to answer your irrelevant question anyway, they seceded because they didn't want to be ruled entirely by a political party that (1) didn't represent them and their well-being at all but was rather entirely a sectional party and that (2) not only didn't represent their well-being but was so outright hostile to their well-being (probably mainly for the sake of stoking sectional animosities that they could exploit to their political advantage) that it had even supported and celebrated the murder -- murder! -- of random citizens of their states, and which (3) had proven that it would advance the North's interests at their expense without even respecting the terms of union and the limits imposed by the constitution (which is to say accepting their rule wouldn't mean accepting Republican rule for the sake of continuing in the union founded on the constitution but rather would mean forfeiting the constitution and the rule of law as the basis of government.)
And that's precisely how South Carolina, for example, summarized the alternative of what continuing under Republican rule would have meant, "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..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@manilajohn0182 > The United States had no obligation, legal or otherwise, which they "refused" to carry out.
If I told you Bob asked Sam to give him his wallet and Sam refused, do you conclude that Sam had an obligation, legal or otherwise, to give Bob his wallet?
> The United States government simply didn't recognize the new Confederate States government or nation.
Which, given the fact that the seceded states had publicly declared their independence, constituted a refusal to recognize southern independence.
Are you actually trying to make any point here or are you just playing dumb word games?
> your false allegation that the U.S. would "...relinquish the control it had (not by right but simply in matter of fact)",
Instead of attacking whatever straw man you're attacking, why don't you try reading what I actually said again? Maybe try reading the whole sentence.
> but their bombardment of the fort cost them any prospect of actually creating a nation
And what prospect was that? Is there any fleshing that out? Or is it just pure inexplicable myth?
> At least you've acknowledged that it was the Confederates who resorted to force of arms- by "evicting" U.S. forces, as you put it.
If South Korea decided it no longer needed or wanted US military forces in Korea but wanted to provide entirely for its own defense, asked the US to withdraw its forces, the US refused to withdraw arguing that it had a forever right to maintain a military presence in Korea, Korea rejected that claim, and evicted US military from Korea (without killing a single American), would you say, "it was the Koreans who resorted to force of arms"? Would you consider that a fair summary of the situation?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Likewise, it is equally clear that there is no constitutional right for states to form a new government, as this is prohibited by article I, which says "No state may enter into any alliance, treaty, or Confederation." It prohibits exactly what the Confederate states did in very specific terms."
Are your games really that childish and stupid that you're going to argue that the Confederate states didn't have a right to secede because they subsequently formed a confederation? Granted, that may be the best argument you've got, but can't you obfuscate any better than that?
"If you want to argue that the states did not comply with the articles of the Confederation when they ratified the constitution, that is an entirely separate issue that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I wasn't responding to anything the articles said, I was responding to your claim that 'it's also found in the constitution in article VII, in which the constitution asserts the right to establish a new government by and among a number of states'"
Let me ask you a question first: Would you say the Bill of Rights fundamentally changed the constitution or would you say the Bill of Rights was more of a clarification of what the legal principles of the constitution had been all along?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "You said "the constitution asserts the right to establish a new government by and among a number of states," which is not only false, but in fact expressly prohibited."
The constitution established a new government by and among a number of states, and article 7 makes clear that the standard that the constitution invented for itself (9 of 13 states) with no basis in the pre-existing law (i.e. no basis in the Articles of Confederation) would have been sufficient. If the constitution wasn't asserting the right to establish a new government by and among a number of states, what's the alternative? That the founding fathers believed what they were doing was wrong and illegitimate? That's ridiculous, and there's obviously no historical evidence for your suggestion that the founding fathers believed what they were were doing was ultimately illegitimate, that they didn't have a right to do what they were doing, what we today would call a 9th amendment right.
"...but in fact expressly prohibited."
What the Confederate states did wasn't prohibited even to the extent that the Articles of Confederation prohibited what the founding fathers believed they had a right to do (which we know because they actually did it), a right that superseded any prohibitions. That the Confederate states were within their rights is even more clear than the case of the founding fathers, because unlike in the case of the founding fathers where the states didn't first secede (a right which isn't prohibited in the constitution to the states and was therefore, according to the 10th amendment, reserved by the states), the Confederate states first seceded before confederating (and whatever they did after seceding obviously isn't subject to regulation under the terms of government from which they seceded.) But even without seceding first, even while still parties to the Articles of Confederation which said, " No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them..." the founding fathers still claimed a right to establish a new government by and among a number of states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Call it revolution. Call it whatever you want. It's government deriving its authority by the consent of the governed.
But speaking of revolution, here's another abolitionist, Joshua Blanchard, speaking to the principle of revolution:
“But the rule of a majority of voters, of necessity led by a few influential persons, is but a disguised oligarchy... The only way, then, in which the principle of Revolution – the consent of the governed – can be truly accomplished, is, not by increasing the comparative number in majorities, but by exempting private individuals, as far as possible, from the power of the government... The appellations of 'rebellion,' and 'treason,' so profusely bestowed by Northern prints on this secession, are false, unjust, illiberal.”
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid If you reject Jefferson's understanding of the constitution (which is an excellent summary of my own legal view), particularly as regards constitutional disputes -- and, of course, he was far from alone in the founding generation in expressing views contradictory of yours; in fact, there's no clear expression of views like yours from anyone in the founding generation (not that you've even presented any sort of coherent alternative) -- then present a coherent alternative (and answer my questions about the alternative you're suggesting.) If you can't even say what the alternative should be, then you have no ground from which to criticize Jefferson's view.
But, yes, it's also true that the seceding states had a natural (revolutionary) right to choose their own government, apart from all constitutional questions, so the North's justifications failed multiple times over.
As for the Hunter quote, like you he implies but doesn't say what's really the heart of the matter, probably because he understood it would be a lie to say it, namely the lie that the slavery was in any way at stake in the war. Lincoln and the Union officially denied any purpose of interfering with slavery in the slave states, so however hypocritical the slave states were -- for whatever it's worth, the Union was consistent in its opposition to freedom, denying freedom both to the South and to slaves in its own slave states -- slavery was no more at stake between the Union and Confederacy than it was between the 13 colonies and England. So, yes, the Confederacy was hyopcritical just like the 13 colonies had been hypocritical, but as the abolitionist George Bassett said, “Such is the deranged and distracted condition of the political elements of our country at the present time, that, while the South are bravely fighting the great battle of national liberty in the name of slavery, the North are maintaining the principles of oriental despotism in the name of Liberty!”
So not only did the North's justifications fail on natural rights and constitutional grounds, but they failed on moral grounds, too, i.e. they failed to take any moral high ground with regards to slavery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
RonPaulHatesBlacks Plenty of Southerners, including the one Righteous Cause Myth propagandists like yourself most love to quote, argued that slavery would be more secure in the union than out of it. If there was some particular thing that the North had been threatening to do that would have adversely affected the fate of slavery that seceding offered any hope of preventing, you could name what that was. You can't name a single thing. The slavery-related constitutional rights that were prominent in the declarations of causes were over rights that clearly weren't at stake in the war, that seceding did nothing to remedy, but rather, as even Lincoln argued, would be totally lost if the southern states seceded.
And your username shows why you so hate the South, namely because the South stood for freedom. You are one of those "degraded slaves" that so fears his fellow slaves and so despises freedom that you'll tell any lie about your fellow slaves to try to suppress talk of freedom on the plantation. Tocqueville described you well when he said, "Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain [although in your case, you'd surely bow down before any kind of master.] By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience."
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid One can be strongly pro-marriage and anti-divorce without believing that husbands should beat their wives into submission if they try to leave. Your interpretation of the Jefferson quotes you shared basically assumes there can be no such differencem, that strong feelings about the value of a union must mean unconditional submission. And, of course, you don't even try to reconcile the Jefferson quotes you shared with other things Jefferson said about secession (including the Declaration of Independence), because that would be as preposterous as your denial of the very definition of slavery. I could share the quotes I shared before again, but you had no argument last time, and I'm sure you'll just completely ignore them this time, too. (If anyone else reading this is curious about other things Jefferson said relating to slavery, please ask.) No one holds your position while seriously confronting the evidence against your position.
One question on your red herring, though. When Jefferson says, "When any one state in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves..." do you interpret that to mean that states are bound not by their own continuing choice (only so long as they continue to freely choose to bind themselves, to consent in the present) to be part of the union but by a previous choice which they and all future generations have no right to rescind?
But your distortion of Jefferson's views on secession are just another red herring, because the question I was addressing wasn't the right of secession but how constitutional disputes should be resolved, the question you've been doing everything you can do avoid in comment after comment. Why is that?
The Kentucky Resolutions, especially Jefferson's original draft, are a very good summary of my view of how constitutional disputes should ultimately be settled. As I said before, Jefferson was far from alone in the founding generation in expressing views contradictory of yours; in fact, there's no clear expression of views like yours from anyone in the founding generation (not that you've even presented any sort of coherent alternative.) If you reject Jefferson's view as presented in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions (and elsewhere, but particularly there) then you should present a coherent alternative (and answer my questions about the alternative you're suggesting.) If you can't even say what the alternative should be, then you have no ground from which to criticize Jefferson's view.
"Was slavery at stake in the war? Of course it was....They still understood Lincoln's administration anti-slavery policies, particularly his ban on the expansion of slavery..."
Of course, the territorial "expansion of slavery" (which you've interpreted to mean potentially expanding even into places that were already practicing slavery, which is a nonsense interpretation of "expansion", let alone an expansion in terms of who would be enslaved, which the misleading phrase suggests but is totally false) wasn't at stake in the war at all. The Confederacy didn't go to war over any claims to any territory at all besides that of the seceding states themselves. And there was nothing about respecting the right of self-government for the Confederate states -- and it only would have been 7 if Lincoln hadn't called for war to deny that right -- that would have required any compromise on the territorial "expansion of slavery." Preventing the territorial "expansion of slavery" was 100% compatible with respecting the principles of the Declaration of Independence, even more compatible than allowing those slave states to remain in the union, because it meant recognizing an international border across which the constitution prohibited the movement of slaves instead of movement within a union that the Supreme Court had just a few years before ruled the constitution didn't allow the federal government to restrict.
Your claims about later in the war would be nonsense even if they had come at the start of the war, but if you think the South didn't have a right to secede in 1861, if the North was justified in forcing the southern states under the government from which they had withdrawn their consent because of soemthing about slavery -- if you think anything about slavery matters in any way with regards to justifications in the war -- then you could find an argument that didn't depend on things that came later, things that Lincoln and the Republican platform hadn't even called for prior to the war, things which Lincoln himself described as a "practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion" and abolitionists described as "not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only 'as a war measure,' and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanmac1793 The reason I asked specifically about quotes from the first 20 years under the constitution was because quotes from closer to the founding era would not just represent arguments from authority but they would give more of an indication of original intent, of what the constitution was understood to mean by those that ratified it and provided the basis for its authority. I have yet to see a single quote from any founder from the first 20 years under the constitution denying the right of states to secede. The opposite certainly isn't true. And, of course, the US constitution itself reestablished the union among those states that chose to ratify it according to the new constitution's own standard (9 of 13 states) without meeting the standard for amendment in the Articles of Confederation.
“It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” Madison
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid And if Blanchard was wrong, most other abolitionists were wrong, too. Why do you disagree with what a large majority of abolitionists had been consistently advocating for over a decade prior to the war? And southern proponents of slavery made much the same argument for union. Congressman Joseph Rogers Underwood of Kentucky said in 1842: “...the dissolution of the Union was the dissolution of slavery... Just as soon as Mason and Dixon's line and the Ohio river become the boundary between independent nations, slavery ceases in all the border states. How could we retain our slaves, when they, in one hour, one day, or a week at the furthest, could pass the boundary? Sooner or later, this process would extend itself farther and farther south, rendering slave labor so precarious and uncertain that it could not be depended upon; and consequently a slave would become almost worthless; and thus the institution itself would gradually, but certainly, perish... Slavery in the States would fall with the Union.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid It figures you didn't mean anything substantive with your initial claim to which I first responded. You presented that claim as if there were two separate things ("...both the reason... and the reason...") when the seceded states controlling their border defenses obviously and naturally followed from secession, as you now more or less recognize.
Not that the second point even follows from the first, because secession didn't immediately lead to war and didn't necessitate war... the North could have allowed the South to secede in peace as plenty of Northerners advocated... the war started because for reasons completely separate from any questions relating to chattel slavery (as is likewise the case with the reasons you give) the North refused to allow the South to secede in peace... and those reasons, the North's reasons (which were the same as your reasons for denying the southern states the right to independence), were what defined the war, what defined the North's war demands, what defined the central point on which the two sides couldn't come to terms and the central point over which they fought... so you really only have one point, and that point is indeed nothing but inexplicable nonsense.
If your claim that "Slavery was... the reason the Confederates seceded..." isn't inexplicable nonsense, explain in your own words what you mean. The southern states seceded because the Republican-led North was doing and/or threatening to do something/things the southern states didn't like, and that obviously wasn't slavery. The declarations of causes of secession of the states that seceded prior to Lincoln's call to war make perfectly clear that those things were things that seceding did nothing to protect slavery against, i.e. that they weren't seceding to "preserve slavery" from anything Republicans were doing or threatening to do. Seceding did nothing to protect the southern states' constitutional right to have fugitive slaves delivered up from the northern states. Seceding did nothing to protect their constitutional right to take slaves to territories like Kansas (the territory most central to their disputes over the question.) What other slavery-related grievances were there? Quote the declarations of causes if you think there was something else that was more significant and that wasn't even less directly related to the continuation of slavery in the South.
""Our position is thoroughly identified with slavery", they meant it."
Sure they did. So what? They also meant it when they began describing why they were seceding by saying, "...fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations..." They didn't secede because Northerners were anti-slavery. Northerners had been anti-slavery for decades without that fact presenting any cause for secession. They seceded because Republicans were trashing the constitution, and that's exactly what they said (as I've already quoted to you and as they said in other words multiple times in the declarations of causes.) They didn't secede in order to get the northern states to fulfill their constitutional obligations, because seceding didn't do that, and they never had any expectation of the northern states fulfilling their constitutional obligations after they seceded. Those obligations weren't in any way at stake in the question of secession (except insofar as the southern states chose to absolve the northern states of those obligations by seceding.) What was at stake was the constitution, and that's exactly what they said: "On the 4th day of March next, [Republicans] will take possession of the Government. ...
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist..."
"they seceded, in their own words, to avoid 'submission to the mandates of abolition.'"
And what would have forced them to submit? They had a constitutional right to practice slavery. The federal government had no constitutional right to interfere, neither directly nor indirectly, as Lincoln himself said. If they didn't want to submit and the North had no constitutional right to make them, then what did they have to fear other than the destruction of the constitution?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theonefisher The Republican party was founded to exploit a social issue without ending slavery in order to gain power to facilitate the age of robber barons. The antebellum Democratic party stood for respecting the framework of the law (the Constitution) for resolving differences and they stood in opposition to crony capitalism. Sure, antebellum Southerners were Democrats, but so was a very significant percentage of Northerners that were no less in favor of slavery than Republicans.
Here's one pretty good explanation from a famous Massachusetts abolitionist, Lysander Spooner:
these Northern merchants and manufacturers... were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slave-holders in the future, for the same pecuniary considerations. But the slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future – that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South – that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These – and not any love of liberty or justice – were the motives on which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may...
And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villainous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. ...these holders of the debt are to be paid still further... by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war...
The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have “peace.” But in case you resist, the same lenders of blood-money, who furnished the means to subdue the South, will furnish the means again to subdue you...
The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes... And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” That they have “Saved the Country!” That they have “Preserved our Glorious Union!”...
The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before...
Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, “a government of consent.” The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this – that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called “peace.”
Their pretenses that they have “Saved the Country,” and “Preserved our Glorious Union,” are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call “Saving the Country”; as if an enslaved and subjugated people – or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) – could be said to have any country. This, too, they call “Preserving our Glorious Union”; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” of establishing “a government of consent,” and of “maintaining the national honor,” are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want.
1
-
@theonefisher Big difference between what you said about "ending" slavery and, as your link says, keeping slaveholders from taking slaves to the territories. The latter was significant especially insofar as it offered a political advantage to the party. Besides the political advantages of getting new states to align against the Democratic South, the chief motivation was summarized well by Lincoln when he said, “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…” And also:
“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”
And Georgia's declaration of causes of secession similarly described the Republicans' crony capitalist motivations: "[after] the act of 1846 was passed... the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all. All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sabin97 What do you mean when you say the South fought for slavery? Yes, obviously the South was for slavery, but it's not as if the North had been threatening to abolish slavery in any kind of constitutionally legitimate way (or really in any way at all) prior to or even after secession, so the South definitely wasn't fighting for slavery in the sense of fighting against abolition, because there was no war over abolition, not even close.
And there's nothing the Confederacy could have done about slavery (e.g. to abolish it) that would have appeased the North's war aims. The North's basis for denying the Confederate States the right to self-government was completely independent of anything to do with slavery.
And the South's declarations of causes are declarations of causes of secession. The South never, according to their own documents, said they were fighting for slavery. They seceded states said they were fighting for their right to choose their own government. And that's obviously what the war was about: the South was fighting for the right to govern itself, and the North was fighting to be able to subjugate the South by force against its will (much like a slave master subjugates a slave.) Even some abolitionists recognized that it was the North, not the South, that was fighting for slavery.
But it's not even accurate to say that the South seceded for slavery. The grievances they listed in their declarations of causes certainly related to slavery, and the southern states certainly wanted to maintain slavery, but seceding did nothing to protect the southern states' ability to take slaves to Kansas or Nebraska; and seceding did nothing to ensure the extradition of terrorists that murdered random Southerners under shallow abolitionist pretenses -- in fact, seceding meant forfeiting any extradition rights; and seceding did nothing to ensure the return of fugitive slaves from the non-slave states -- in fact, seceding meant forfeiting the rights of the fugitive slave clause even from the slave states that remained in the union. So even those abuses of the slave states' constitutional rights which played a major role in leading the Confederate states to secede weren't rights for which those states seceded.
1
-
@sabin97 Hiding behind vague and misleading statements is the only way you're going to justify the North's side in the war and deny the justice of the South's side against the North. One thing you can't show is that the South was "fighting for slavery" in any sense that made their cause in the war unjust or the North's cause against them justified.
As one prominent northern abolitionist, George Bassett, said in 1861, “Such is the deranged and distracted condition of the political elements of our country at the present time, that, while the South are bravely fighting the great battle of national liberty in the name of slavery, the North are maintaining the principles of oriental despotism in the name of Liberty!”
Or as another abolitionist, Lysander Spooner said shortly after the war, "The pretense that the 'abolition of slavery' was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc I am sticking to the topic, to Lincoln's war against government by the consent of the governed, against free government, against government of and by the people. Your argument is precisely analagous to saying Germany was on the right side of WWII because I haven't provided any historical documents to prove that the USSR fought for reasons unrelated to Stalinism. That's nonsense.
As for the documents you've cited, I don't dispute the historical accuracy of anything they actually say. But your interpretations of them are absurd and indefensible, and that proof of that is that you haven't even tried to make sense of them. If the line you've been quoting from Lincoln's 1st inaugural meant what you claim it means, then you'd be able to explain what territory was at stake in the war, what territory the Confederacy could have forfeited rights to that would have appeased Lincoln and gotten him to recognized the southern states independence. Obviously that's complete BS, though, and you surely know it, whether you admit it to yourself or whether you know you're as dishonest as you are.
I can provide historical evidence to support anything I've said. It's not on me to provide historical evidence that directly contradicts your inexplicable historical myths. If you can't even explain what you mean, then it's certainly not on me to provide evidence to the contrary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 How about some evidence that actually speaks to the points you pretended to address?
(1) "Even if the Republican-led North had wanted to [abolish slavery], which Lincoln and the Republican party categorically denied
Lincoln: "It is nothing but a miserable perversion of what I have said, to assume that I have declared Missouri, or any other slave State shall emancipate her slaves. I have proposed no such thing."
1860 Republican platform: "That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends..."
Lincoln: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
> "by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."
Yes, Republicans did want to prohibit slavery in the territories (which wouldn't have freed any slaves, but it would have helped Republicans gain and solidify political power for their crony capitalist agenda.) The historically baseless myth is that they were threatening to abolish slavery.
> "now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States"
But nowhere even approaching strong enough to amend the constitution to abolish slavery, which was never a threat, as evidenced by the fact that none of your quotes say anything of the sort.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronfleming9426 Are you now intentionally changing the subject away from the question you originally raised? The question was whether and to what extent evil wars of conquest are a northern thing. The fact remains that in the only war between the North and South, it was only and entirely the North that waged an evil war of conquest.
And the best counterargument you can make is to try to split hairs between wars of "suppression" and "conquest." Conquest means "to gain control of or subdue by military force" or "to defeat in war." By any normal definition "conquer" is unambiguously what the North did to the South.
> What changed since 1814 - and 1832, and January 23, 1861
Who do think called secession treasonous in 1814? In any case, even if someone said something of the sort in 1814 that was 38 years after American independence and 27 years after the constitution was written. If secession was treasonous according the principles American independence was founded on or according to the constitution, why did it take multiple decades for anyone -- anyone! -- to say so? Obviously it wasn't.
> if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will
But that wasn't the question in 1860-61. The southern states didn't secede "at will." They declared the constitutional compact broken by the northern states. As South Carolina said in its declaration of causes, "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."
And what other remedy could there be for situation where a majority of the states (like the non-slaveholding states represented in 1860) break their constitutional obligations to the other states? As Thomas Jefferson said, " the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government... to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
> And how could representative government ever work if every member could break it at will and time they don't like the results of an election?
Just like the EU, for example, and "as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge," to quote Jefferson again. What alternative do you think there is?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@manilajohn0182 The North didn't consider Fort Sumter "United States territory" any more than it considered all the rest of South Carolina "United States territory," which is the same as saying the North was unwilling to respect the southern states' right to self-government. The only reason Fort Sumter particularly mattered is because it was a critical component to controlling the rest of South Carolina.
As one northern abolitionist, George Bassett, wrote in early 1861:
"Suppose we simply collect the revenue of South Carolina, as the Government proposes to do, and as the people generally demand and claim the right to do, what is she any longer, I ask, but a conquered province? and what is your revenue but a forced tribute? … I hear it every day gravely maintained and with apparent sincerity, by many of the Northern citizens, and they catch it from our members of Congress, that we do not intend to conquer South Carolina, but only to collect her revenue, and probably blockade her ports and keep possession of the military posts! But does any intelligent person fail to see that that is the full extent of political subjugation? Taxation, direct or indirect, is one of the highest functions of sovereignty, and to blockade a port, is one of the most belligerent acts. It is truly ridiculous for grave members of Congress to disclaim any purpose of conquest or war, when they advocate the extreme measures of military hostility."
1
-
1
-
"Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty. If, with this great truth ever before them, a majority of her people should prefer despotism to liberty, I would say to her, as to a wayward sister, “depart in peace." I want to see no Maryland this side of the Potomac."
-Alexander Stephens, speech before the Georgia legislature, March 16, 1864
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 If Lincoln had been considered radical he wouldn't have won a majority of the votes in the majority of the northern states. He was the mainstream Republican candidate. And he was just as racist as northern Democrats. And, according to the most famous observer of 19th century America, the French author of Democracy in America, Northerners, especially in the Midwest (state like Lincoln's Illinois), were more racist than Southerners. Of course, that didn't mean they were for slavery, but Illinois, for example, did amend its constitution in 1862 to prohibit blacks from moving to Illinois, even though they already had a law making it illegal. At least one of the states that Lincoln won in the 1860 election allowed blacks to transit through the state but punished them with lashings if they didn't pass through and out of the state fast enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm Subjugation was the only goal the North claimed.
"...this war is not waged... for any purpose... of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. in any way "freeing the South," as you put it], but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union [i.e. subjugating the southern states (and the people of the northern states along with them)]...]
As Joshua Blanchard wrote in The Liberator in March of 1861, "The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
1
-
@jaranarm Couldn't wait for the Union army to arrive? Who are you talking about? Slaves? The people that in subsequent interviews said things like...
"The worst time we ever had was when the Yankee men come thru. We had heard they was coming and the missus tell us to put on a big pot of peas to cook, so we put some white peas in a big pot and put a whole ham in it, so that we’d have plenty for the Yankees to eat. Then when they come, they kicked the pot over and the peas went one way and the ham another. The Yankees destroyed almost everything we had."
"The Yankees come. First thing they look for was money. They put a pistol right in my forehead and say: ‘I got to have your money, where is it?’ There was a gal, Caroline, who had some money; they took it away from her. They took the geese, the chickens and all that was worth taking off the place, stripped it. Took all the meat out the smoke-house, corn out the crib, cattle out the pasture, burnt the gin-house and cotton. When they left, they shot some cows and hogs and left them lying right there. There was a awful smell round there for weeks after."
"Oh, they was the worst people there ever was, Pa say. Took all the hams and shoulders out the smokehouse and like I tell you, what they never carried off, they made a scaffold and burned it up. Lord, have mercy, I hopes I ain’t going never have to meet no Yankees."
"When the Yankees come, they went through the big house, tore up everything, ripped open the feather beds and cotton mattresses, searching for money and jewels. Then they had us slaves catch the chickens, flung open the smoke-house, take the meat, meal, flour, and put them in a four-horse wagon and went on down to Longtown. Them was scandalous days, boss! I hope never to see the likes of them times with these old eyes again."
"No ma’am, I never seed Sherman but I seed some of his soldiers. That’s the time I run off in the wood and not a soul knowed where I was until the dust had done settled in the big road."
"When the Yankees come they took off all they couldn’t eat or burn, but don’t let’s talk about that. Maybe if our folks had beat them and get up into their country our folks would have done just like they did. Who knows?"
"Does I remembers the Yankees? Yes sir, I remember when they come. It was cold weather, February, now that I think of it. Oh, the sights of them days. They camp all around up at Mt. Zion College and stable their horses in one of the rooms. They gallop here and yonder and burn the Episcopal Church on Sunday morning. A holy war they called it, but they and Wheeler’s men was a holy terror to this part of the world, as naked and hungry as they left it."
"I just can remember the Yankees. Don’t remember that they was so bad. You know they say even the devil ain’t as black as he is painted. The Yankees did take off all the mules, cows, hogs, and sheep, and ransack the smoke-house, but they never burnt a thing at our place. Folks wonder at that. Some say it was because General Bratton was a high degree Mason."
"I remember that day just as good as it had been dis day right here. Oh, my God, them Yankees never bring nothing but trouble and destructiveness when they come here, child."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EPUEPUEPUEPU > Sir the Russian consulate was the property of Russia the Land was the property of the United States hence you can be evicted off of the land.
BS! But even if that weren't BS it wouldn't matter: we can adjust the hypothetical question about Korea to include whatever cockamamie legal nonsense you want to include.
> That is exactly why the south went to the north to see if they can buy back forth Sumter.
As one northern abolitionist wrote in early 1861, "It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation." That -- not buying something from the people of the northern states that was solely their property -- was what the southern states were entirely willing to do, and that's what the North was entirely unwilling to negotiate under any terms whatsoever.
> And what do you think would happen if the Us bombed the Russian consulate with Russians in there? Not a war sir?
That's been my question all along that you refuse to answer (even though you want to keep replying to me): Do you think if South Korea decided it no longer wanted US military forces in Korea but the US refused to withdraw and refused to negotiate and Korea finally attacked and forcibly evicted US military forces from Korea (but nobody died) that the US would have a valid justification for invading and subjugating all of Korea forever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Most of the most famous and influential abolitionists of the day [from the North] supported the Union..."
It's no big surprise that some abolitionists in the North would support their own states in a war, especially when people that were opposing the war were being thrown in prison with no access to the courts by the thousands, critical newspapers were being shut down by the army... Nor is it any surprise that some abolitionists would have trouble defending slave states regardless of the reasons for the war. Why do you act as if it would be? The fact remains that the historical record shows even multiple northern abolitionists at the time defended the South's right to secede and condemned the North's part in the war. Certainly many more abolitionists that weren't writing newspaper articles, books, etc. did, too. And that's the extreme: even Northerners and abolitionists! That's to say nothing of all the Northerners that weren't full-fledged abolitionists, Southerners that didn't especially care about slavery, people outside the North and the South (from England, France, etc.), people that were born after the war and after slavery was abolished... The claim in the opening comment is completely absurd. And you know it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@woodrowcall3158 Apparently your point has nothing to do with the Confederate constitution (where your and my discussion began and the where I've repeatedly pressed you), and you have no point to make on the basis of the clauses you originally cited, because in explaining your point you didn't so much as mention the Confederate constitution. Very well.
> Slavery was the chief aggravating factor (not the sole factor) that led to secession.
That's like saying that Islam was the chief aggravating factor (not the sole factor) that led to 9/11, and then going on to say that 9/11 was or wasn't justified on the basis of whether you believe Islam is good or bad. It's not that I disagree so much as that I believe your historical claim is vague nonsense, vague nonsense that is useful only for dishonest propagandists that serves only to distract from the questions that actually matter. And in any case it doesn't follow from the fact that there were more slaves in the Confederacy than in the Union or from the fact that multiple Union states had abolished slavery or from the fact that the South was pro-slavery or that Republicans employed anti-slavery rhetoric that the Union had a right to rule over the southern states without their consent, especially not while the Republican-led North continued to affirm the southern states' right to practice slavery as long as they wanted and while offering to irrevocably amend the US constitution to protect slavery from federal interference.
> The issue of slavery is why people were killing each other in the Kansas territory well before secession.
Whether slavery would be protected or prohibited in Kansas was superficially a big part of why people killed each other, but (1) the question wasn't whether any slaves would be freed or continue to be slaves but rather whether slaves in other states would continue to be slaves in those other states or whether they would continue to be slaves in Kansas -- not a big difference from the perspective of the slave, and in fact being a slave in Kansas might have even been a marginal improvement over being a slave in Mississippi; (2) the main reason people were fighting over whether slavery would be allowed in Kansas was because it seemed likely to influence the balance of power in DC, and that mattered not (as with point 1) because it would make any substantial difference in the lives of slaves but because it would make a difference in whether Republicans would be able to gain enough power to use the federal government to enrich the robber baron class that they chiefly represented at the expense especially of the South's export-based agriculture; and (3) clearly none of the southern states seceded in order to be able to maintain slaveholding rights in Kansas. On the contrary, seceding clearly meant forfeiting claims to all such rights, which is the opposite of fighting for them, so it's nothing but misinformation to suggest that the war was in any war fought over what people fought over in Kansas.
And not only was the issue of whether Kansas would protect or prohibit slavery not an issue that seceding offered any hope of resolving in favor of slaveholders, but neither was any other slavery-related issue. If there had been any such issue, you could clearly articulate what it was, but there wasn't any such issue, certainly not any issue that anyone would honestly claim was central to the war.
> The only issue of “self governance” that was substantive enough to warrant protest by the south was slavery.
No, BS! There was no slavery-related issue of "self governance" that was in dispute. The Republican-led North fully recognized the southern states' right to continue practicing slavery. They were even willing to amend the constitution to make that right irrevocable. That clearly wasn't what the war was fought over.
1
-
@woodrowcall3158 > For you to say that there “was no slavery-related issue” in concern to self governance is kinda baffling.
There were issues/disputes prior to secession over whether slavery would be protected or prohibited in Kansas (even though a large majority of the Supreme Court had already very recently declared that the constitution guaranteed the right of US citizens to take slaves to the territories), over whether the guarantee of the constitution's fugitive slave clause would be honored or nullified... but those weren't issues of the seceded states self-governance, which was your claim. If there was any issue relating to the seceded states' self-governance, just tell me what it was. Of course, I already challenged you to do so and you didn't. Is that because you're determined to believe in the revisionist Righteous Cause Myth even if it's inexplicable nonsense to you, too?
> If the left started a civil war over abortion tomorrow, would you say that abortion was the only issue that they found divisive in their opposition?
If the Jeffersonian principle that the federal government "was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself" and that each state "has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress" had not yet been destroyed by an unjust war to subjugate the states to the absolute rule of DC, and if in that context the representatives of the anti-abortion states were universally affirming their commitment to the constitutional limits of the federal government and affirming the right of pro-abortion states to continue allowing abortion and weren't making any threats of using the federal government to overstep their constitutional powers to interfere with the right of pro-abortion states to allow abortion, even while they spoke out strongly against abortion and disputed whether the constitution gave DC the authority to prohibit abortion on overseas US military bases and violated the constitution's extradition clause to protect anti-abortion terrorists that had murdered random citizens of pro-abortion states or other such issues without any direct application to the pro-abortion states themselves, and if the pro-abortion states decided they wanted to secede under those circumstances and the anti-abortion states denied their right to secede and then went to war to forcefully subjugate the pro-abortion states, I would (1) say the anti-abortion states were in the wrong, even though they were right on the abstract question of whether abortion is murder, and (2) I think it would be dishonest propaganda to claim such a war had been fought over abortion.
1
-
1
-
"And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ...in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before." -Lysander Spooner
"The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." -London Spectator
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course, they were done wrong, and not only the southern states, but the North did the people of their own states wrong, too.
“But remember, that when South Carolina falls, she falls not alone. The suicidal hand which strikes down the sovereignty of the people of South Carolina, demolishes that of Massachusetts with it, and the whole fabric of American Liberty falls by the same stroke. Then not one star escapes from the galaxy of free sovereignties, but all are blotted out by this sweeping stroke of despotic usurpation. We are no longer a voluntary confederation of sovereign States, but each and all of us conquered provinces of a centralized and consolidated despotism. We of the North may be voluntary in this subjection, like the more degraded of slaves—yea, we may be the unnatural agents of it; but it is subjection still.” George Bassett, 1861
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dennis-nc3vw There's a big difference between wanting America to win versus wanting America to lose versus wanting America to never enter the fight to begin with or to quit fighting a fight we never should have entered to begin with.
As John Randolph of Roanoke said, "this Government was not instituted for the purpose of offensive war. No – it was framed (to use its own language) for the common defence and the general welfare, which are inconsistent with offensive war. I call that offensive war which goes out of our jurisdiction and limits for the attainment or protection of objects not within those limits and that jurisdiction. As in 1798 I was opposed to this species of warfare [the Quasi-War with France], because I believed it would raze the Constitution to its very foundation, so in 1806 am I opposed to it, and on the same grounds. No sooner do you put the Constitution to this use, to a test which it is by no means calculated to endure, than its incompetency to such purposes becomes manifest and apparent to all. I fear if you go into a foreign war for a circuitous, unfair trade, you will come out without your Constitution. Have you not contractors enough in this House? Or do you want to be overrun and devoured by commissaries and all the vermin of contract? I fear, Sir, that what are called the energy men will rise up again – men who will burn the parchment. We shall be told that our Government is too free, or, as they would say, weak and inefficient. Much virtue, Sir, in these terms. That we must give the President power to call forth the resources of the nation – that is, to filch the last shilling from our pockets, or to drain the last drop of blood from our veins. I am against giving this power to any man, be him who he may."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Was Lysander Spooner a proponent of the "Lost Cause Myth"?
"Their pretenses that they have “Saved the Country,” and “Preserved our Glorious Union,” are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call “Saving the Country”; as if an enslaved and subjugated people – or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) – could be said to have any country. This, too, they call “Preserving our Glorious Union”; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” of establishing “a government of consent,” and of “maintaining the national honor,” are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc James Madison, Federalist #39: "That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Carneades2012 > Here’s the problem with your argument: if the seceding states had left the Union because of economic exploitation by the North, one would expect them to have said something about this, in their Declarations of Secession
But that's not what I said, and the declarations of causes of secession do back up exactly what I said.
I said, "If the North hadn't wanted to exploit the South, it wouldn't have divided the country in the first place, and the South would never have had a reason to want to secede."
The Georgia declaration of causes, for example, said, "But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
"All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon."
> Does the term “the North” refer to the people of all of the states north of the Mason-Dixon line, the abolitionist movement, the Federal government, the Republican Party, Lincoln himself, all of the above, or something else?
By the North I meant to refer especially to the Republican party (including Lincoln) that chiefly represented the North politically.
> And what do you mean by “divided?”
I mean that the Republican party was formed as an entirely sectional party (like the Dixiecrats or the Scottish Nationalists in the UK, etc.) and not just sectional but outright hostile to the rest of the union, so much so that they even supported and celebrated a murderous terrorist attack against random Southerners. As the Mississippi declaration of causes said, "It has recently obtained control of the Governmen... and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Abe Lincoln ended slavery? The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure, designed to undermine the southern states, but it didn't do anything for slaves in the states fighting for the Union and it specifically exempted those areas of southern states that were controlled by the Union. As the London [England] Spectator said at the time, “The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.” The Emancipation Proclamation was as much about freeing slaves as Sherman's army's torches were about freeing Georgia's barns.
As for Lincoln, here's some of what he said in 1861, stating his reasons to the people of America for not recognizing the southern states' right to self-government (his 1st inaugural address): "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so... a proposed amendment to the Constitution... has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
Slavery ended not because of anything Lincoln did but because Georgia ratified the 13th amendment, becoming the 27th state (thereby reaching the 3/4 of states constitutional threshold) and 10th slave state (counting all states that had been slave states at the start of the war as slave states) to ratify it. Sure, the 13th amendment probably passed sooner than it would have if it hadn't been for the war. The Austro-Hungarian Empire probably collapsed a lot sooner than it would have if it hadn't been for WWI, but that's no more reason to credit those responsible for WWI with bringing democracy to Czechoslovakia than crediting the man responsible for the war against southern independence for ending slavery in America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skipperx5116 And perhaps even more telling of what the constitution really was from the beginning, particularly as it relates to the War of Northern Aggression, consider one of the reasons Pennsylvania's delegates opposed to ratification gave for their opposition in 1787: “Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@manilajohn0182 > The next paragraph is only your opinion and is not supported by the historical record.
I didn't really say anything about any history. I spoke about what unions are and what violence against other members of a union constitutes. It doesn't constitute "preserving."
> Fort Sumter, which was United States territory and land which the Confederate States of America had no legal claim to.
The people of the southern states had as much right to their share of the previously jointly held assets as the people of the northern states did. And the people of the northern states had absolutely no valid reason for wanting to continue to control the border defenses of the southern states.
As the abolitionist George Bassett said early in 1861, "The whole object of those forts is... protection. While the peoples of those States or territories are protected by the United States, the United States authorities occupy and garrison those forts at an expense which is defrayed by a revenue voluntarily paid by the people. Here is a fair, legitimate transaction, a quid pro quo. A sovereign people paying the United States, by a revenue, for protecting and guarding her national interests. But when any State ceases to require the protection of the general government and proposes to protect herself, and the United States authority ceases, for the want of the requisite consent of the people interested, there is no reason why the general government should retain possession of those forts, but every reason why they should go into the hand of the people of that territory... Keep ever in view the only legitimate object of government—the protection of the people—and you cannot but recognize the absurdity of forcing protection upon an unwilling people at the point of the bayonet."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@meloneatingwolf1882 > they fought a war over it that you can’t deny that
Not only can I deny it, but the North itself officially denied it by an all but unanimous vote of both chambers of Congress: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
And not only can I and did the North deny it, but you can't even tell me what either side was even allegedly fighting to get the other side to do about slavery. In other words, you can't so much as present an intelligible hypothesis. All you have is some vague, inexplicable myth.
The reality is precisely what the Union officially declared: the war wasn't fought to get the South to do anything at all about slavery, which is to say there wasn't any attack "on slavery" for the South to defend against. So, it's complete and total BS to claim that the South fought a war in defense of something that wasn't being attacked. That's not even possible.
The war was a war between a slaveholding Union and a slaveholding Confederacy. It was unambiguously an independence war, a war in which the Confederate States fought for the right to declare independence and self-govern (just like Americans had done in 1776, and yes, they also happened to have slaves, just like Americans also had in 1776), and the North fought to destroy consent as the basis of the central government.
There wasn't even anything about slavery that was even indirectly at stake in the question of southern independence: nothing Republicans had been doing or had expressed an interest in doing (in their platform or elsewhere) or even that they could have secretly been plotting (with no historical evidence at all, not even in private letters or journals -- in other words, not even an historically baseless hypothetical scenario) that would have even been possible under the constitution to interfere with slaveholding rights in the southern states, let alone outright abolish slavery, would have been in any way impeded but only made easier by allowing the southern states to self-govern. So it's a complete lie to suggest that the southern states in fighting for their independence were even indirectly in any way fighting to win or advance any slavery-related dispute or issue.
As the abolitionist Joshua Blanchard wrote in The Liberator, the abolitionist newspaper, in March of 1861, "The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
And as the famous abolitionist Lysander Spooner wrote shortly after the war, "The whole affair... has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. ... And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” That they have “Saved the Country!” ...
"The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ...in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. ...
"This, too, they call “Preserving our Glorious Union”; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..."
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Yes they did, because fighting to defeat a rebellion to preserve slavery gave them the moral upper hand over those who carried out a rebellion to preserve slavery."
Even if it were true that the South was fighting to preserve slavery (which isn't true to the extent the claim is even intelligibly substantive, as opposed to inexplicable propaganda nonsense, which is mainly what it is), if, for the sake of argument, we accept the disputable understanding of the Iraq War as a war in which the US attacked Iraq for the sake of US business interests (oil, military contractors, etc.) on the pretenses of lies about WMD's, would you say that the US had the moral upper hand over the evils of Saddam Hussein? Or if a plain old robber robs a man that happens to have committed the most heinous crimes imaginable, would you say the robber has the moral upper hand in the robbery over those who carried out those more heinous crimes? You might say that if you were trying to justify evil.
"'Slavery would have waned and ended sooner or later'"
"Not in a nation founded specifically for preserving it."
Your argument really is that absurd, isn't it? You believe slavery would have lasted literally forever if not for the success of the principle applauded by the Unitarian minister Henry Bellows in 1866 that "The state is indeed divine, as being the great incarnation of a nation’s rights, privileges, honor, and life."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juliank6793 > the war was independence as far as it was the method they were using to defend slavery
What threat are you imagining independence would have defended slavery from? Or even offered a hope of defending slavery from?
> it's to keep slavery
As if they wouldn't have been able to keep slavery if they remained in the union? What would have stopped them?
Sure, they wanted to keep slavery, just like they did in 1776 when they fought their first independence war, but in neither case was there anything that they had to fight to protect slavery from. That's an entirely historically baseless propaganda myth.
> Unless some document you can find says "we are seceding because the federal government says we can't."
That's pretty clearly why Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas seceded, right? They voted not to secede until Lincoln called to forcibly deny the states that had voted to secede the right to secede, and then they overwhelmingly changed their positions.
Along that's also what one northern abolitionist, George Bassett, said in early 1861 (before VA, NC, TN, and AR had seceded) about the other states that had followed South Carolina:
"What if it is South Carolina that is conquered now? It may be Massachusetts next. I know that slavery complains the most to-day, but liberty may be the next victim, if, indeed, it is not even now to be the real victim.
"It is the destruction of the government, because it is a political revolution. It is a change of the whole spirit of the government, from a confederacy of sovereign States, held together by mutual interest and common attachment, to a consolidated empire, bound together by military force.
"It is also, to some extent, an efficient cause of the present dissolution of the Union. It is the belligerent doctrines and attitude of the dominant politicians of the North, which have precipitated this movement of secession. If the right of secession had been conceded at the first, the movement would have been deprived of its essential vigor and intenseness. The people, feeling that they had a conceded right to secede at will, would naturally have delayed an act so fearfully pregnant with possible evils. They would have given themselves time to fully consider the subject in all its bearings and possible consequences. Nor could so many States have been induced to follow the momentous experiment in such hasty succession. It is very doubtful if the movement could have been effected at all, if the right to make it had not been denied. But the right was denied with threats of coercion, and the people of the slave States saw impending over them a political domination which, if its doctrines were carried out, would destroy their legitimate sovereignty, and reduce them to the condition of conquered provinces of political slaves. They were, therefore, driven to the fearful experiment of secession by the necessities of their contested and endangered rights."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thepalerider Republicans fought for abolition??? Which ones were those?
Republicans in 1860 ran on a platform which declared, "That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend..."
Almost every single Republican in Congress voted for the Crittenden Resolution which declared, "that this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions [i.e. slavery] of those States..."
Lincoln declared in March of 1861, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
And which Republican ever said, "I support your right to independence, but I believe in waging war to free your slaves"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thepalerider The war also, by the way, "presented an invitation" to raise tariffs and subsidize railroad companies and usher in the Age of Robber Barons (i.e. to enrich the core Republican constituency, people that wanted the government to help them get rich.) And it also "presented an invitation" to destroy any checks on the federal government overreaching its constitutional limits, to, as Thomas Jefferson said, "ma[k]e it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers..." The war presented lots of invitations, but it was fought over the right of the southern states to secede, their right to independence, to self-government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid And it's worth noting that abolitionism in general was considered a radical position. Hardly any Northerners, especially not any Republicans or Democrats, considered themselves abolitionists, although almost all Northerners were personally opposed to slavery. Abolitionists generally were outside both political parties for reasons like Wendell Phillips gave: "...secession from the present United States Government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the U.S. Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin." Lincoln, of course, took the mirror opposite position with regards to the fugitive slave clause, for example.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Just because Garrison had radical views about women or whatever else is no reason to believe that disunionism wasn't widely supported by abolitionists. The American Anti-Slavery Society was the largest abolitionist organization in the States, not some fringe, radical organization (except insofar as all abolitionists were fringe radicals at the time), so a vote of members of the AASS is indeed representative of the abolitionist mainstream.
And just because many abolitionists espoused principles that they then refused when their enemies appealed to those principles, doesn't negate the fact that large majorities of abolitionists advocated exactly what the South fought for (the right to secede and separation from the non-slave states.) But multiple prominent abolitionists, like Bassett, Spooner, Blanchard, Warren... did remain true to the principles large majorities of abolitionists had long defended. If any abolitionists are to be held up as shining examples, it should those that didn't shift with the sands but held true to principle.
Of course, there were other issues, too. Spooner, for example, supported murderous terrorism against random people in southern states. That's certainly not laudable, but as regards the central issues at play in our discussion, he was much truer to principle and more consistent than Garrison.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Just because Garrison had radical views about women or whatever else and just because someone with some modern-day group in Massachusetts wants to suggest something without providing any historical basis for the claim (other than things like views about women not directly related to abolitionism) is no reason to believe that disunionism wasn't widely supported by abolitionists. The American Anti-Slavery Society was the largest abolitionist organization in the States, not some fringe, radical organization (except insofar as all abolitionists were fringe radicals at the time), so a vote of members of the AASS is indeed representative of the abolitionist mainstream.
And just because many abolitionists espoused principles that they then refused when their enemies appealed to those principles, doesn't negate the fact that LARGE MAJORITIES OF ABOLITIONISTS advocated exactly what the South fought for (the right to secede and separation from the non-slave states.) But multiple prominent abolitionists, like Bassett, Spooner, Blanchard, Warren... did remain true to the principles large majorities of abolitionists had long defended. If any abolitionists are to be held up as shining examples, it should those that didn't shift with the sands but held true to principle.
And it's BS propaganda to call the southern states' secession a "rebellion." Do you think Brexit was a "rebellion"?
And it's BS propaganda to say the southern states seceded to "preserve slavery," when even you have recognized that seceding didn't "preserve" slavery against any threat to slavery, except insofar as you want to conflate secession with possible future things the Confederate States might have done (and then further assume that those things wouldn't have been done peaceably.)
And it's BS propaganda to call beating a partner(s) into submission "preserving a union." And it's despicable to imply that any sort of "union" that would be based on violence and threats of violence would be worth preserving in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Who was Tappan speaking for in 1834 in the quote you shared? Just himself, as president of the AASS? Was that particular statement voted on by the members of the AASS?
In any case, by the late 1840's we know that the disunionism was supported by a very large majority of the members of the AASS, and that continued to be the case through at least the Worcester Convention of 1857. Of course, not all abolitionists supported disunionism, but it was a large majority of what was by far the largest abolitionist organization. If representing a large majority within what was by far the largest abolitionist organization doesn't represent a mainstream abolitionist position, what would? And even the better known abolitionists like Frederick Douglass that by sometime in the 1850's were no longer supporting disunionism were still active members of the AASS and not the Liberty Party, so they, too, were represented in the AASS votes in which large majorities voted in favor of disunion.
As for Garrison and Douglass, Garrison had been an outspoken disunionist well before whatever split occurred between the two of them, so whatever change on disunionism contributed to any split was on the part of Douglass moving away from disunionism, not Garrison toward it.
And it's ridiculous to equate Lincoln's positions with that of any of the abolitionists, just because they happened to find common ground with regards to opposing disunionism. You might as well equate the political philosophies of FDR and Stalin, just because they happened to find common ground with regards to opposing Germany. As Lincoln said after issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, “Understand, I raise no objections against it [slavery] on legal or constitutional grounds … I view the matter [emancipation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” Lincoln's position on slavery was always subservient to his other priorities. That was never the case for real abolitionists on either side of the disunion question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Got nothing in response to, "Lincoln acted against slavery with all the means he had available"? Is anyone really supposed to take that seriously? Granted, I didn't read most of your last comment, but I already said, "The point is that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't done for the sake of freeing slaves." It's safe to assume you didn't address that point, isn't it?
As I said, "What matters is that Lincoln's priorities were so unrelated to slavery that he wouldn't have freed any slaves if declaring his enemy's slaves freed wouldn't have helped his other priorities." And you say, he "acted against slavery with all the means he had available." Are you really so stupid that I should assume you aren't purposefully and knowingly being deceitful?
And speaking of the Emancipation Proclamation as "freeing slaves" is almost as ridiculous as speaking about beating your wife as "saving the union." As the London Spectator said at the time, “The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.” Assuming that you're not going to recognize any truth in that statement, why do you think Englishmen would have said that at the time?
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Lincoln had no power whatsoever to free all the slaves in the United States in 1863."
He had no more constitutional power to free the slaves of citizens (that he claimed were still US citizens) that happened to live on one side of the battle lines as on the other. Do you think he did?
""Lincoln acted against slavery with all the means he had available"? Is anyone really supposed to take that seriously?"
You dispute this claim?"
No one forced him to swear an oath to uphold the fugitive slave clause, but he did, saying, "It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other... I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules..." Is swearing to uphold the fugitive slave clause, something he freely chose to do, "acting against slavery with all the means he had available"? Tell me how you'll twist that into an absurd yes.
And what other means did he have? If your point was that, as Lincoln said, "I have no lawful [i.e. constitutional] right to" "directly or indirectly... interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists," and he did everything he could to directly or indirectly interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, then you're just playing word games.
And if your point is that he acted against slavery but not directly or indirectly against slavery in the states where it existed, but only in other places, then your point has nothing to do with the Confederacy or the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm So you think political parties should "put an end to... that judicial madness" of bad Supreme Court decisions on the constitution? In other words, you think political parties should be the ultimate arbiters of constitutional questions, not by passing and ratifying constitutional amendments, but by decisively determining the meaning and implications of the constitution?
The proper solution is what Thomas Jefferson said: "...the several states composing the US. of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style & title of a Constitution for the US. and of Amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are unauthoritative, void, & of no force.
that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, it’s co-states forming, as to itself, the other party.
that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid A keyword search for "overturn" in the Republican platform doesn't yield any results. What am I missing? Oh, that's right, I'm not missing anything.
The Republican platform did declare, "we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States." And that after the Supreme Court had already ruled that, ""Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property. The Constitution of the Unite I States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind."
You can deny that the Supreme Court should be the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions (and I wouldn't say they should be either), but you can't blame some states for not submitting to the idea of other states to deny what the constitution said according to a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court (which is exactly the criticism implied in the opening comment of this thread), especially when the party denying what the constitution says according to the Supreme Court doesn't even represent 40% of the country.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid So you're essentially denying the truth of the content of jaranarm's opening quote? "They have declared, by the election of Lincoln, 'There shall be no more slave territory–no more slave States.'" You wouldn't know it by the Republican platform, though.
"They Republicans thought SCOTUS got their ruling wrong, so their goal was to get SCOTUS to overturn it..."
No indication of any of that in the Republican platform. Again, nothing to contradict the belief that "by the election of Lincoln" the new policy would be directly effected, rather than indirectly through the courts.
"Again, nothing unusual. That's the modern republican strategy for overturning Roe V. Wade."
The modern Republican platform speaks directly about appointing anti-abortion judges and about amending the constitution. The 1860 Republican platform did no such thing but directly denied what the Supreme Court had said and claimed authority to do what the Supreme Court said Republicans had no authority to do.
"The Confederate states launched a rebellion BEFORE the Republicans did anything to slavery in the territories."
You've been saying all along that what Republicans did after the war started is proof of why the southern states seceded. Which is it?
Regardless, the southern states' leading grievance had nothing to do with the territories. The southern states' grievances began with what the northern states had "for years past" refused to do. Past, not before.
"When laws are passed that you think are unconstitutional, the proper response would be to challenge them in court, not launch a revolution."
Tell that to Lincoln, who instead of challenging secession in court, started The War of Northern Aggression.
"If a state could launch a revolution in response to any law they thought was unconstitutional, we would be in a state of permanent revolution forever."
So is the EU in a state of permanent revolution forever, because any state can secede whenever it chooses? Nonsense. What you're arguing for would be, in the words of Thomas Jefferson (obviously not in reference to issues 60+ years after he wrote them), "to surrender the form of govmt we have chosen, & to live under one deriving it’s powers from it’s own will & not from our authority."
"If the South actually cared about the constitution, that's what they would have done: Challenged any ban on slavery in the territories in court."
Again, tell that to Lincoln. You're the one defending the practice of acting first and leaving it to anyone that objects to challenge it in the courts. If Lincoln had constitutional objections to secession, then by your standards, it's his fault for not taking his objections to the courts but rather starting a war to resolve it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickarnall6583 But it's a myth that the Republicans were trying to shut down southern slavery.
As the London Spectator said after the Emancipation Proclamation, "The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”
Or as the Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner said, "In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may..."
1
-
1
-
"...or they would have had to have won the war and thus, formed and kept it."
The war isn't over yet!
But the abolitionist George Bassett also had a point when he said before the war had even started: “If the people of any territory have the natural right of revolution, it can not be the right of any power to put that revolution down... The right of revolution, and the right of the suppression of the same, cannot co-exist. Senator Wade, in sounding the bugle-blast of that civil war which now threatens to convulse and desolate the land, concedes the right of revolution, and says, if successful, the revolutionists are heroes. But he maintains the co-existing right of the general government to put them down by force, and, if successful, to constitute the revolutionists traitors instead of heroes; and a vast number of Northern politicians have followed his lead. But what is this sentiment but that old atheistic monster, that 'might makes right.' The sentiment is altogether unworthy of civilization...”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"We can be clear about two things, first the South was trying to leave the Union because they felt their institution of slavery was threatened"
What threat do you think there was to slavery that seceding offered any hope of protecting against? Your claim sounds like complete nonsense.
"and second every southerner who fought against the Union or supported those who did was, by definition, guilty of treason and murder"
No more than George Washington, Patrick Henry, etc. were. And actually much less so, because American government rested on an entirely different foundation, on the consent of the governed:
"If there be a principle that ought not to be questioned within the United States, it is, that every nation has a right to abolish an old government and establish a new one. This principle is not only recorded in every public archive, written in every American heart, and sealed with the blood of a host of American martyrs; but is the only lawful tenure by which the United States hold their existence as a nation." -James Madison
"'Rebellion' is defined by Webster, 'an open and avowed renunciation of the authority of the government, to which one owes allegiance.' This can only apply to government on the European principle – there can be no such thing as owing allegiance in a government expressly held on the will of the people." -Joshua Blanchard
“When a government becomes so corrupt as to forfeit the respect and support of the citizens in whose name it is exercised, and for whose protection and benefit it professes to act, it is very apt to resent disloyalty with the charge of treason and rebellion. …
“The secession of South Carolina has been called in Congress 'a revolt,' and 'rebellion.' But this charge could come only from a total misapprehension of the nature and object of free government. Revolt is resistance to the supreme authority. But the true idea of free government is, that the people themselves are this supreme authority. How, then, can a whole united people be chargeable with this crime? Can they 'revolt' against themselves? The idea is absurd.” -George Bassett, 1861
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nmmccrea > a constitutional amendment
Nowhere in the declarations of causes of secession is there any mention of an abolition amendment or anything else of the sort (by which I mean the Republican-led North using its constitutionally legitimate power to abolish slavery in the southern states.)
And not only is there no mention of a constitutional amendment, but none of the slavery-related grievances mentioned in the declarations of causes of secession were even issues that seceding resolved in favor of slaveholders.
Northern states refusing to abide by their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves (as per the constitutions' fugitive slave clause) led the southern states to declare the constitutional bargain broken and voided, but the war obviously wasn't fought to force the northern states to deliver up fugitive slaves. The southern states tried to walk away from the constitution, including the northern states' obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves. It was the Republican-led North that wouldn't have it.
That's why northern abolitionists like Joshua Blanchard said things at the time like: "It seems so clear that slavery in the South could not long exist when deprived of the support of the North, that we are surprised that this evident consequence is so overlooked or disregarded... It is plain, then, that this war is not an anti-slavery, but a pro-slavery war."
> By pushing Congress to adopt a constitutional amendment.
Besides the fact that Republicans denied any interest in any such thing and the fact that there's no mention of any constitutional amendment in any of the declarations of causes of secession, i.e. besides the complete lack of any historical evidence for your myth, you don't even seem to know how the constitution can be amended. Congress can't amend the constitution.
> Literally how it happened in real life.
No, not how it happened. The 13th amendment became law when Georgia voted for it (after multiple other former Confederate states had already voted for it.) There was never any remotely realistic prospect of an abolition amendment being forced on the southern states so long as they didn't support it themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nmmccrea Alexander Stephens, March 1861: "The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch "of the accursed soil." Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are *disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor*. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 You didn't say anything about the northern states demanding that the southern states abolish slavery. You said, "they believed that Lincoln and the new Republican party were going to abolish slavery."
And how did Texas, whose declaration you quoted, assert that the North was demanding the abolition of slavery? To the extent there was a demand, it most certainly wasn't a threat of amending the constitution or anything else according to the rule of law but rather a demand under threat of "invad[ing] Southern soil and murder[ing] unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved." In other words, to the extent there was any demand, it was the demand of terrorists, not anything in accordance with the constitution or the rule of law, not anything justifiable.
Not that the Republican led North was actually demanding the abolition of slavery either (let alone "going to abolish slavery" as you absurdly claimed.) Lincoln's and the Republican party's 1860 platform actually said, "That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
So Lincoln and the Republicans unambiguously forfeited any excuses abolition might have provided for waging war against the South, even if demanding the southern states forfeit their self-government could have been justified (which, even then, would still have been false.) And so it's clear the North had no valid justification for invading and subjugating the South, and the South was entirely justified in resisting the unjust aggression.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Slavery was abolished in the US when Georgia voted to ratify the 13th amendment, Georgia being the 27th state to ratify the 13the amendment, and constitutional amendments requiring 27 states (at the time) to ratify. Slavery was abolished because Georgia, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, and North Carolina, along with 19 border/northern states voted to ratify the 13th amendment.
1
-
1
-
It was the same fight as when Jefferson and Madison opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was the same fight as when Anti-Federalists demanded the supposed protections of the Bill of Rights be added to the US constitution. It was the same principles that Americans declared as the basis of the claim to independence in 1776. Why defend those principles over the years from 1860-65? Because that's where they're most under attack (under the false pretenses of anti-slavery). If people were defending the Alien and Sedition Acts today like they're defending the Republicans' war against the principles of 1776, then that would be the place to defend America's founding principles, but that's not where the main attack is now.
“If they [the North] prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God, and when all the checks and balances of the Constitution are gone, we may easily figure to ourselves the career and the destiny of this godless monster of democratic absolutism. The progress of regulated liberty on this continent will be arrested, anarchy will soon succeed, and the end will be a military despotism, which preserves order by the sacrifice of the last vestige of liberty.
They are now fighting the battle of despotism. They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions; The future fortunes of our children, and of this continent, would then be determined by a tyranny which has no parallel in history.” -James Henly Thornwell
1
-
@sbnwnc You clearly haven't ever read the declarations you keep referring to, have you?
Quoting directly from South's Carolina's declaration:
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."
...
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.
...
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. [This last point is almost exactly what Jefferson said in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, so South Carolina was clearly echoing the principles Jefferson spelled out then.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm John S. Mosby, lawyer for Yankee railroad company... and that's a vague propaganda phrasing anyway that avoids any description of what the supposed threat to the southern states' desire to continue practicing slavery supposedly was. It also absurdly equates declarations of causes of secession with a declaration of war as if a union to which states belonged by their own free choice weren't an option. The fact remains that the Union made zero slavery-related demands of the Confederacy and that there was nothing either side could have done about slavery that would have gotten the other side to quit fighting.
“If Northerners... had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg [i.e. czarist Russia]... Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” London Times, September 13, 1862
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm Lots of the founding fathers that opposed ratification of the constitution, after the constitution was ratified acted as if they no longer believed their reasons for opposing the constitution, too, even though their stated reasons clearly weren't addressed by the Bill of Rights. What's significant is that (1) none of the one or two quotes you can find seemingly supporting your position are from any of the four full years when the war was actually being fought, and even more significant (2) you can't even make sense of what you're trying to suggest by saying (a) what the Confederacy could have conceded with regards to slavery that would have appeased the Union -- the answer was obviously nothing, but you can only hide from rather than address that reality -- and (b) you can't explain or address what the supposed threat to the southern states' desire to practice slavery supposedly was even if they had remained in the union. The only threats described in the southern states' declarations of causes that related any more directly to slavery than tariffs were (1) the northern states refusing to respect their constitutional promise and obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves, (2) the northern states refusing to respect their constitutional promise and obligation to deliver up fugitives from justice like, for example, participants in murderous terrorist attacks against random Southerners that had been committed under shallow anti-slavery pretenses, and (3) the Republican party platform of doing what the Supreme Court had already ruled the federal government had no constitutional authority to do with respect to the territories. None of those three things was justified (not without seceding from the Union as abolitionists had been calling for) and the seceding states clearly forfeited all three of those points when they seceded, so they very clearly weren't things that the war was in any way about. And not only did seceding mean the seceding states completely forfeiting those points -- point which were really about fair play under the constitution and not about slavery, otherwise it would have made no sense for the southern states to forfeit them as they did -- but seceding would have meant victory on those points for the Republicans, so the Republicans' refusal to allow the southern states to secede and seize the victory on those points exposed the fraud of any claim that those points were what they cared about (and, of course, their own words, official declarations, etc. exposed the fraud of that argument even more clearly.)
1
-
@johnboehmer6683 "I think the primary reason the fact that The Civil War was fought was to free the slaves is contested isn't to protect southern honor, but to yet again deny any decency, or credit the white man with having accomplished such an epic good"
Then why did the white men that supposedly accomplished this "epic good" deny it themselves? Are you trying to say that were motivated by a desire to deny credit to themselves? How absurd is that?
Lincoln, March 1861: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
US Congress (nearly unanimous declaration by both chambers), July 1861: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union..."
Lincoln, Aug 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union... What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union..."
1
-
1
-
@johnboehmer6683 Are you still digging? You can dig all the way to China and you won't find any quotes of Lincoln contradicting the things he said in the quotes I shared (not prior to or at any time in the early part of the war, and not really even after the emancipation proclamation, which he very clearly said he was issuing for the same reasons he had been waging to war all along.) Did some other Northerners hold abolitionist positions? Of course, but they were a fringe minority not represented by Republicans.
William Lloyd Garrison reported in The Liberator, “...it was decided by a vote of nearly three to one of members present [at the tenth anniversary meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society]….that the existing national compact should be instantly dissolved; that secession from the government is a religious and political duty, that the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom should be NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS!” That was the mainstream position of abolitionists practically until the war started, and then they mostly abandoned their principles rather than defend the South's right to independence.
But some abolitionists did continue to stand on the same principles they had all along. Joshua Blanchard, for example, wrote in The Liberator in March of 1861:
"The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world.
"...But the harmonious union of the people of this nation, on the principle of general consent, can never be maintained where the sentiments of the two great sections of it are at such irreconcilable variance on the vital question of the right to slavery... The only plan, then, for national reputation, for safety, for justice, and even for humanity, is to give each section an independent government, confirmed to its own ideas of right – that is, peaceable separation from each other."
"Clearly there were plenty of dissenters in the day, some powerful, that would not have been willing to go along willfully if they knew it was about freeing the slaves."
And why do you think politicians would have been any more interested in freeing slaves (in states where they had no constitutional authority to free slaves) than the voters they represented? Because voters are crooked and politicians are too pure and noble for them? What kind of nonsense is that?
"there is a good amount of evidence that freeing the slaves was, at the very least, a major reason for the war."
Let me know when you get to China.
"WHY would he [Lincoln] need to preserve the Union?"
He didn't. He could have let the southern states secede in peace. And he wouldn't have driven the Upper South to follow the Deep South if he had allowed the Deep South to secede in peace. But why did he call for war to deny the southern states the right to self-government? Because (1) it's in the nature of politicians to want to control other people and he wanted power for himself and for DC, and he despised the idea (on which American independence was founded) that he and DC should have real accountability to the people and (2) because the North and particularly the robber barons that Republicans foremost represented wanted to profit off of the southern economy. As the Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner said: "for a purely pecuniary consideration, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North..."
And that's the same thing Alexander Stephens (VP of the Confederacy) recognized: "notwithstanding their [Republicans'] professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave."
And that's entirely consistent with Lincoln's actions and his own words: "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." (March 1861)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iamawesome7351 And what do those documents say about the war?
There's a section at the end of the so-called cornerstone speech about the possibility of war (which I'm copying below), but there's no mention of any aspect of slavery anywhere in that section, unless you count the section immediately following where he discusses Republican's motivations and says Republicans "are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor."
"As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been. The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln's inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would feign hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CosmoShidan What's there to explain about them?
And whatever you mean, can you likewise explain the following March 1775 resolution by the Massachusetts Provincial Congress?
"Whenever the army under command of General Gage, or any part thereof to the number of five hundred, shall march out of the town of Boston, with artillery and baggage, it ought to be deemed a design to carry into execution by force the late acts of Parliament, the attempting of which, by the resolve of the late honourable Continental Congress, ought to be opposed; and therefore the military force of the Province ought to be assembled, and an army of observation immediately formed, to act solely on the defensive so long as it can be justified on the principles of reason and self-preservation."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronfleming9426 James Madison, Federalist #39: "That it will be... the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act."
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "'constitutionally unlimited federal government' that Lincoln never mentioned"
No, of course, he didn't use those words. As Thomas Jefferson said, "the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers," and that's exactly what Lincoln said in the very first sentence of the preliminary emancipation proclamation that he was fighting for, constitutionally unlimited federal government.
"the Confederate states did reject compensated emancipation in their rejection of the emancipation proclamation"
If they had first forfeited their independence, forfeited the right to self-government, forfeited government based on the consent of the governed, and forfeited any meaningful constitutional limits on the federal government, then, yes, there would have been an offer to "voluntarily" negotiate a compensated emancipation, which is to say there was an offer to let them keep their slaves, too. And that's what the emancipation proclamation was: an offer by Lincoln to let the southern states keep their slaves on the condition of forfeiting their independence, etc., which of course they refused.
"to save it from Lincoln's plan to place it "in course of ultimate extinction""
And what was that plan? Prohibiting it in the territories (according to you, conditioned on the 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court that had just denied that the federal government had any such authority all of a sudden abandoning that position and letting what they had just said was unconstitutional slide)? As if the War of Northern Aggression hadn't been a war against independence but a war of the North trying to keep the southern states from taking control of the territories (not that the southern states didn't have as much right to the territories as any of the other states, but in any case, that's obviously not what the war was about. The war was obviously fought over the right of the southern states to secede, not over anything to do with the territories.)
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "No, it was a proclamation that any states still in rebellion at the start of 1863 would lose thier slaves immediately"
And it was announced ahead of time, which is to say it a proclamation that any states which forfeited their right to self-government and submitted to rule by a constitutionally unlimited federal government wouldn't lose their slaves, i.e. an offer by Lincoln to let the southern states keep their slaves on the condition of forfeiting their independence, etc.
"he didn't mention anything about..."
Like I already said, no, of course, he didn't use those words, but that is exactly what he said.
"They had seceded in response to Lincoln's plan to place slavery in course of ultimate extinction"
Yes, I'm sure they seceded in response to Lincoln's vague and dishonest propaganda phrase, uh huh, one which you depend on repeating rather than saying anything in plain English, because there's no case that can be made in plain English.
"Nothing that had happened between 1861 and September 1862 had resolved the issues on slavery that caused thier secession."
Secession resolved all the major issues relating to slavery in favor of the North: the southern states forfeited the right to have fugitive slaves delivered up from the North; the southern states forfeited the right to take slaves to US territories... proving that Republicans hadn't really been motivated by any real anti-slavery position to begin with.
"Once again you are trying to seperate their desire for independence from the reason they wanted it. They wanted it to preserve slavery."
And it's perfectly fair to separate a slave desire for self-government with his reason for wanting it. Self-government is an inalienable right, and it doesn't ultimately matter why anyone wants it.
But, no, of course, they didn't want independence to "preserve" slavery against some inexplicable myth that you can only repeatedly summarize with vague propaganda phrases.
"If the Confederate states thought the supreme court was on thier side, then they could have stayed in the Union and issued the challange to strike down the law, but they did not."
Yes, they could have asked the Supreme Court to repeat what it had already said if their concern had fundamentally been with the territories, what you dishonestly call "expanding slavery," which they proved wasn't their fundamental concern by seceding and forfeiting their right to the territories.
"The Civil War was a war of Southern aggression"
Just like every independence war was a war of aggression by the people seeking independence against the people seeking to subjugate them, right?
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Lincoln simply gave the time it would go into effect, and stated that states which ended their rebellion before then could get federal compensation to end slavery."
And the key word that you misleadingly left out was "voluntarily." There wasn't any offer of compensation, only an offer of an offer, and that was an offer of a completely unspecified offer which Lincoln would have had no obligation to make generous and the southern states would have had no obligation to accept or compromise on even if it had been a generous offer.
As the London Spectator said about the emancipation proclamation at the time: "The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."
Precisely as I said above, it was a proclamation that any states which forfeited their right to self-government and submitted to rule by a constitutionally unlimited federal government wouldn't lose their slaves, i.e. an offer by Lincoln to let the southern states keep their slaves on the condition of forfeiting their independence, etc.
"But it's not what he said."
Not if you count a fox guarding the henhouse as the henhouse being guarded. Otherwise, yes, he was demanding submission to a constitutionally unlimited federal government.
"Yet you're still convinced you know the Confederate cause better than they do."
First of all, grievances aren't a cause. What do you think the American cause was in 1776? Was it defined by America's list of grievances with England?
Secondly, the right of people to alter or abolish their government and institute a new one that seems to them more likely to effect their safety and happiness is an inalienable right, which means, in part, that no cause can negate that right, just like a slave's right to freedom can't be negated, no matter what a slave's cause may be in seeking freedom.
Thirdly, I believe the Confederate cause in the war was precisely what Alexander Stephens, for example, said it was when he said, "the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty."
Likewise, I agree fully with the sentiments expressed in August of 1864 (I think in the Richmond Examiner):
"The sentiment [that “We are not fighting for slavery; we are fighting for independence"] is true, and should be publicly uttered and kept conspicuously in view; because our enemies have diligently labored to make all mankind believe that the people of these States have set up a pretended State sovereignty, and based themselves upon that ostensibly, while their real object has been only to preserve to themselves the property in so many negroes, worth so many millions of dollars. The direct reverse is the truth. ...the cause of the war, the whole cause, on our part, is the maintenance of the sovereign independence of these States.…
"The whole cause of our resistance was and is, the pretension and full determination of the Northern States to use their preponderance in the Federal representation, in order to govern the Southern States for their profit. ...neither tariffs nor slavery, nor both together, could ever have been truly called the cause of the secession and the war. We refuse to accept for a cause any thing… than that truly announced, namely, the sovereign independence of our States. This, indeed, includes both those minor questions, as well as many others yet graver and higher. It includes full power to regulate our trade for our own profit, and also complete jurisdiction over our own social and domestic institutions; but it further involves all the nobler attributes of national, and even of individual life and character. A community which once submits to be schooled, dictated to, legislated for, by any other, soon grows poor in spirit;… its citizens, become a kind of half-men, [and] feel that they have hardly a right to walk in the sun.…
"The people of Virginia do not choose to accept that position for themselves and for their children. ... They own a noble country, which their fathers created, exalted, and transmitted to them.… That inheritance we intend to own while we live, and leave intact to those who are to come after us.…
"It is right to let foreign nations, and “those whom it may concern,” understand this theory of our independence. Let them understand that, though we are “not fighting for slavery,” we will not allow ourselves to be dictated to in regard to slavery or any other of our internal affairs, not because that would diminish our interest in any property, but because it touches our independence."
Are you convinced you know the Confederate cause better than they do?
"No it [secession] resolved all the major issues [relating to slavery] in favor of the South. It removed them from all political opposition from the free states, it enabled them to expand slavery to any new territory they could get ahold of, and it provided much better means for preventing the escape of slaves"
1. "Political opposition" isn't an issue. There can be political opposition on issues, but political opposition isn't an issue. That's just nonsense.
2. The 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act had already given slaveholders the right to take slaves into the territories, and a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court had already declared in 1859 that the federal government had no constitutional authority to withhold that right. Whether Republicans would have succeeded in defeating the existing law and Supreme Court opinion can be debated, but there was certainly a political fight to be made if the slave states had wanted to make it, but rather than trying to defend the right they already had to take slaves to the territories, they seceded. It's absurd to paint that move as enabling them to take their slaves to new territories.
3. The dispute between the North and South had not been over "preventing the escape of slaves" from the South. The dispute had been over slaves that had escaped to northern states not being delivered up. Even Lincoln acknowledged that the issue would "be worse" for the slave states in the case of "separation," because fugitive slaves in the case of separation "would not be surrendered at all".
"one that was started by the rebels themselves, is not like 'every independence war'"
The question was how it was different with respect to aggression. You absurdly claim that the people seeking independence were the aggressors against the people seeking to subjugate them, but you won't even pretend that that could be the case in any other example, which is to say you recognize that the principle of your own argument is absurd: seeking independence isn't aggression; subjugating people is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@prestonbeaulieu4379 Even if the North had had the votes to amend the constitution to abolish slavery and had been trying to do so, and even if secession had been illegal according to the constitution, the southern states still would have had every right to self-government according to the same inalienable rights by which American independence was claimed and established.
But, of course, the Republican-led North didn't have anywhere close to the votes, made a point of declaring that it didn't even want to abolish slavery in the South (but rather wanted to let the southern states choose for themselves), and secession wasn't illegal according to the constitution.
So how then could the war have been fought over slavery? What slavery-related demands did either side make of the other? What could either side have conceded with regards to slavery that would have appeased the other side? Clearly the answer is nothing. So the claim that the war was fought over slavery is clearly just nonsense propaganda.
Likewise, what did seceding offer to "preserve" slavery from? Did the southern states want to continue practicing slavery? Certainly (as did Americans in 1776). But to say they seceded in order to "preserve" slavery implies the lie that there was something about remaining in the union that would have prevented them from continuing to practice slavery which seceding offered to avoid or protect against. But that's just an historically baseless nonsense myth.
But these historical lies are propagated to try to continue justifying the system of government that replaced the system of government that was destroyed in the war, government based on the consent of the governed (at least the "governed" that were counted as citizens.) And that's not a "fringe belief" even today. Quite recently the US went to war to defend the right of Kosovo to secede from Serbia. The UK recognizes the right of Scotland to secede if its people should choose to do so. The EU recognizes the right of secession. Sure, there are still plenty of people wanting to subjugate other people, too, but government based on the consent of the governed is far from dead, and fear and hatred of that idea is why people are continuing to tell lies about the 19th century rather than defend government by subjugation directly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Given that no one was denying the southern rights to continue practicing slavery and given that the seceding states weren't trying to expand anything or anywhere, that's proof that wasn't what the war wasn't about slavery.
The abolitionist Joshua Blanchard wrote in the March 1861 issue of The Liberator that forcible reunion would mean “the entire subjugation of one of the parties, maintained by a perpetual occupation of military force, military tyranny over all the states, abandonment of our claim to be a government of the people.... The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world.
“...But the harmonious union of the people of this nation, on the principle of general consent, can never be maintained where the sentiments of the two great sections of it are at such irreconcilable variance on the vital question of the right to slavery... The only plan, then, for national reputation, for safety, for justice, and even for humanity, is to give each section an independent government, confirmed to its own ideas of right – that is, peaceable separation from each other.”
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Of course, Southerners, when they were part of the union, wanted to not only be able to access the territories but take their property with them, including slaves, and the Supreme Court ruled before secession that the US constitution protected the right of slave owners to take their slaves (as with any other property that was legal under the constitution, which slavery at the time was) to the territories, so Lincoln was promising to subvert that constitutional right which the Supreme Court had already upheld. You can disagree with the Supreme Court, but then you need to explain how constitutional disputes should ultimately be resolved if you don't recognize either the Supreme Court or the states as the ultimate arbiters of constitutional disputes. It's worth noting, too, that most abolitionists also recognized how much the constitution protected slavery, and they strongly favored secession (disunion was the term they most commonly used) as the answer to shedding the northern states' constitutional obligations regarding slavery. So even abolitionists mostly agreed with slave owners on the constitutional questions.
What recourse do you think states should have if they believe other states have decided to simply trash the constitution? I can only think of two answers. I think if states don't want to honor the terms of the constitution, then they should secede. If other states are simply going to dishonor their constitutional oaths (at least according to the allegations of the other states), then (1) the states on the losing end of that alleged constitutional abuse can implore them to honor their commitment and if those other states still don't act honorably (according to the states making the allegations), then the only choices left to them are to declare the contract broken and the union dissolved (at least between them and the offending states) or they could choose to let it slide and continue in union with the allegedly dishonorable states; or (2) the other position, which I wouldn't support at all, but it's the only other answer I've heard, is that the federal government could somehow force compliance on the allegedly dishonorable states, but even if you think the federal government should use force to settle constitutional disputes between states (contradicting the Madison quote I shared before), what recourse do you think states should have if the allegedly dishonorable states have enough power in DC to prevent force from being used against them (sufficient to satisfy the demands of the states alleging constitutional neglect)? What then? Do you think there should be no recourse for the states alleging their constitutional rights have been abused, unless they can get enough power in DC to be able to use force against the dishonorable states?
But all of this is clearly irrelevant to what the war was about, because the war obviously wasn't about the seceding states fighting for their rights as part of the union. The seceding states wanted to secede, not claim any rights under the constitution or as part of the union. So it's ridiculous to claim the war was about slavery when you can't name anything about slavery (let alone any direct threat of abolition) that there was any hope of helping by seceding.
You say without slavery there would have been no secession and no war, but that's silly, because slavery was a constant from before the 13 colonies seceded from England through the states joining the re-established union under the constitution until after the southern states seceded from the union. What changed obviously wasn't slavery. What changed was the northern states' willingness to use opposition to slavery as pretense for trashing the constitution. As you've recognized, there was no direct threat to slavery. There was a direct threat to the integrity of the constitution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid No, maybe you've forgotten, but I don't think the Supreme Court has any legitimate claim to being the ultimate arbiter of constitutional disputes between states or between the states and the federal government. I believe, as Thomas Jefferson said, "that the several states composing the US. of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style & title of a Constitution for the US. and of Amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are unauthoritative, void, & of no force. that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, it’s co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress."
You, on the other hand, simply avoid the question. You deny what Thomas Jefferson said. You deny the Supreme Court. The only standard you recognize is might makes right, except when you don't like it, which, of course, is no standard at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid According to the legal ideas that Jefferson asserted in the Kentucky Resolutions (which I believe), it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court said, and according to what you've said, constitutionality is only a concern once the Supreme Court has ruled on a question (even if they've explicitly declared that thing unconstitutional in a previous dispute), so the seceding states acted within their constitutional limits by either of our standards (excepting your double standards.) In any case, anything the Supreme Court said about secession in Texas v. White certainly wouldn't be binding on any state that wanted to secede today 150+/- years later if the Republicans were acting within their constitutional authority when they did what the Supreme Court had explicitly and unmistakably ruled unconstitutional just 3-4 years prior.
“When a government becomes so corrupt as to forfeit the respect and support of the citizens in whose name it is exercised, and for whose protection and benefit it professes to act, it is very apt to resent disloyalty with the charge of treason and rebellion. …
“The secession of South Carolina has been called in Congress 'a revolt,' and 'rebellion.' But this charge could come only from a total misapprehension of the nature and object of free government. Revolt is resistance to the supreme authority. But the true idea of free government is, that the people themselves are this supreme authority. How, then, can a whole united people be chargeable with this crime? Can they 'revolt' against themselves? The idea is absurd.” George Bassett
Of course, the whole basis of your opposition to the South is your fundamental disdain for the idea of free government, so it makes sense that you would categorize free government as "insurrection." As Bassett said, "The most arrogant pretensions of ancient royalty, are not more preposterous."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Again, your position assumes some sort of 'right of states to secede today for whatever reasons states might want to secede'. But this is a position so ridiculous that even the Confederates didn't believe it."
What evidence do you have of that? And before you go off on some stupid irrelevant tangent, the question is about the "right of STATES to secede," not parts of states, which is another question. Personally, I think the principle ought to apply as much to parts of states as to states, but plenty of people in American history have defended one but not the other. If you're arguing that they were inconsistent to defend principles on behalf of states but not parts of states, then I agree as to the principle (even if perhaps not with regards to specific examples in history.) But the point I was making was about the right of STATES to secede for whatever reasons they might want to. Can you actually address that specific question? Is there any basis for your claim that Confederates didn't believe in the right of states to secede for whatever reasons states might want to secede (which is what you said)? Can you defend what you actually said about STATES?
"Preserving and expanding slavery is a bad reason. It's not the only possible bad reason. But it certainly is a bad one."
Yes, hypothetically that would be a bad reason, but first of all, that wasn't the reason any of the Confederate states seceded. The Confederate states had made no attempt or demands to expand anywhere when the war started. Had some Southerners advocated expansion? Sure, but so did Northerners both before and after slavery. Trump was talking about buying Greenland from Denmark just a few years ago. Does that justify any hypothetical war in your view? Are you really arguing that the possibility that the Confederacy might have expanded its territory in the future (even peaceably, as with the Louisiana or Alaska purchases) justified a war against it?
And as for your claim that the Confederate states seceded to "preserve" slavery, I understand your argument, based on what you've said before, to be that the threat to the "preservation" of slavery that they seceded to protect against was the threat that not expanding posed to the continuation of slavery, so I think you therefore agree that your "preserve" claim rests on your "expand" argument, which is to say if your "expand" argument falls, so does your "preserve" argument. But if there's an independent foundation for your "preserve" argument, we can discuss that separate would-be BS of yours, too (although my understanding is that you're not claiming a separate foundation.)
But secondly, and the point I'd be more interested in hearing what you'd have to say about, what do you think it matters if reasons for seceding are good or bad? You're not suggesting that we should deny peoples their rights (either natural, inalienable rights or legal/constitutional rights) if their reasons for exercising them are bad, are you? I think the right to free speech, if it means anything at all, has to apply to the person who wants to say something stupid and evil as much as to the person that wants to use his right to free speech for good reasons. And I would apply the same principle to secession. It definitely seems like we disagree about whether particular rights exist at all, but to the extent they do, you're not suggesting that the right to exercise them should be limited by whether people judge them good or bad, are you?
"But whether or not secession happens for good reasons or bad reasons, I agree with James Madison that even under the most justified of circumstances, unilateral secession without any form of national agreement is 'another name only for revolution.'"
There are plenty of positions that Madison took that I wouldn't defend (and I don't think he was very consistent, so I think he may very well have contradicted both of us and himself), but I don't believe Madison said anything about "any form of national agreement" about secession, not in those words that you used, nor in any other words. If there's any basis for reading that into what Madison did say, as you did in your comment, you'll have to show me what that is. Nothing like those words are in his letter to Webster where he said the other words of his that you quoted.
Regardless, Madison also said, "It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition." So Madison's answer to the question of who should have the ultimate authority to judge whether a cause of secession is justified or not is clearly the individual state, right? In other words, Madison clearly recognized the ultimate sovereignty of states in these questions to act without any necessary requirement of "national agreement," as you said, right?
And that's precisely what Madison did when he helped draft, signed, and pushed for the ratification of the constitution. He didn't allege any sort of "intolerable oppression" (as he spoke of in his letter to Webster) when he supported the right of 9 of the 13 states to form a government without the consent of the other 4, even though they had bound themselves in a "perpetual union" under the Articles that required unanimity for any amendments. So he obviously (at least at that point) supported the right of states to leave an existing union on their own authority simply for the sake of establishing a government they thought would serve their needs better, even apart from any allegations of oppression or any allegations of violations by the other parties of the existing compact.
1
-
@jxc1640 What's most telling about the declarations of causes of secession is that nowhere in them is any hint of the northern states forcing an abolition amendment on the slave states. So what do you think the declarations prove? They completely contradict the Righteous Cause Myth that the northern states were going to use their victory in the 1860 election to abolish slavery according to the rule of law. There was no constitutionally legitimate threat of the slave states losing their right to practice slavery.
As for Stephens and racial inequality, first a quote from Stephens' March 1961 speech, then a quote from Lincoln:
"...notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave."
Lincoln: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races …there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid That has nothing to do with all your and the other commenter's reasons for despising free government. That's obvious because it's no longer any sort of issue today. You obviously continue to care about the issue so much because you despise the kind of free government the abolitionist Joshua Blanchard described in 1861: "The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm "Dictatorship that allows no opposition"? What are you talking about? What opposition newspaper was ever shut down by the Confederate government? What elected congressman was ever deported from the Confederacy? What representative was ever imprisoned for his political speech?
If you cared about historical facts, you could consider the reasons the Cherokee people gave for joining the Confederacy on Oct 28, 1861, "Throughout the Confederate States we saw this great revolution effected without violence or the suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts. The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power...
"But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime.
"The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed.
"Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffreyestahl "that same CSA constitution explicitly forbade any ability to secede"
Where do you get that idea?
In any case, Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, said in a speech in 1864:
"Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty. If, with this great truth ever before them, a majority of her people should prefer despotism to liberty, I would say to her, as to a wayward sister, 'depart in peace.'"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc > If taxes or tariffs had anything to do with the conflict then why did not one of the South's official declarations of the causes of the war mention taxes or tariffs?
First of all, the declarations of causes did mention tariffs. All the declarations of causes together aren't very long. If you're going to keep trying to use them in your arguments, you ought to just read them.
Secondly, the war was fought over southern independence, which is exactly what the declarations declared and exactly what the war was fought over: "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."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ No, I would do exactly what I said I'd do: prove what an historically baseless myth it is you believe. But apparently you're not fooled and instead you're fostering lies that you know are lies, lies that you know can't stand the light of day, so you won't even say what you want us to believe you believe.
Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner: "The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. "...All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronfleming9426 You don't lose a beat even after recognizing that the pre-secession dispute over the territories had nothing to do with any constitutionally legitimate possibilities of the North interfering with slavery in the South! Maybe when your central argument is disproved you should question the propaganda you've been consuming a little more.
Why don't you try answering the question I actually asked, which would require not cutting off and ignoring the second half of the sentence? The question I actually asked again:
"How does it make sense to say that secession was about slavery in the territories if seceding meant that the seceding states intentionally forfeited their rights to the territories (which they did)?"
Sure, it's a fact that the southern states believed in the right under the constitution so long as they remained in the union, in the words of a 7-2 majority of the US Supreme Court, of "Every citizen...to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property. The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind." But it's obviously complete nonsense to suggest that the southern states seceded to secure rights they intentionally forfeited by seceding.
Your argument is like saying that a woman divorced her husband to get her husband to help with the housework, because when she gave her reasons for splitting up with him she said he wasn't doing his share of the housework, as if she had any expectation of her ex-husband doing more of the shared housework if she divorced him and established a separate household.
> What's not a mistake is that an increasing number of free states would steadily erode the political power of the slave holders. The composition of the Supreme Court might change, endangering the Dred Scott decision; the balance of power shifting toward freedom might lead to the rollback of the Fugitive Slave Act; and so on. All you need to do to demonstrate that the slave states were in full freak-out mode over the threat Lincoln and the Republicans posed to slavery
I repeat: Your argument is like saying that a woman divorced her husband to get her husband to help with the housework, because when she gave her reasons for splitting up with him she said he wasn't doing his share of the housework, as if she had any expectation of her ex-husband doing more of the shared housework if she divorced him and established a separate household.
You still haven't been able to cite any threat to slavery that secession offered any prospect of protecting against (other than the mythical threat of a constitutional amendment you've since recognized as the historically baseless myth that it is.) Secession, insofar as it could actually be achieved, only guaranteed that no fugitive slave would ever be delivered up from the northern states (or any of the slave states remaining in the Union) again. But you want to imagine there was some threat to slavery that secession was intended to protect against???
> Lincoln had the constitutional duty to make war on a foreign power that was attacking American forts and soldiers, stealing other American property at gunpoint
So if South Korea decided that it no longer needed or wanted US military forces in South Korea, asked the US to withdraw its forces from South Korea, offered to negotiate compensation for any property of the US that it needed to possess in order to defend itself, and finally forcibly evicted US soldiers from South Korea (while continuing to offer compensation for any property the US had any claim to), you'd say that the US president would have a constitutional duty to wage war against South Korea?
> What do you suppose would happen to Cuba today if it drove American troops out of Guantanamo Bay by shooting at them until they were forced to surrender - whether or not anyone was killed?
First of all, the purpose of the US military in Guantanamo Bay was never to protect Cuba, so there's a night and day difference between Guantanamo Bay and a fort that the people of South Carolina wanted established for their own defense. (South Korea would be much better comparison, wouldn't it?) Secondly it's ridiculous to suggest that the southern states had no right to any of the property that had been administered by the federal government, as if when a man violates his wedding vows and the woman leaves him, the woman ought to forfeit all of their previously jointly held property rather than dividing their previously jointly held property as part of the divorce. And thirdly it's ridiculous to suggest that the southern states didn't spend months trying to peacefully negotiate a withdrawal from Fort Sumter before finally forcibly (but bloodlessly) evicting hostile military forces from their soil. But even if we lay all that aside, what argument do you have even then? That what would happen if Cuba seized Guantanamo Bay is that the US would have a right to conquer and subjugate all of Cuba and rule over the Cuban people forever?
> What Lincoln did or didn't do after the fact is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the process of Texas' secession.
So you think the fact that neither Lincoln nor anyone else acting on behalf of DC or the North objected to that aspect of the process is irrelevant? You can object to Texas' process all you want, but whatever objections you might raise, those issues can't provide any justification for any of the North's actions if the North didn't object to them. And, in any case, they (to the extent there's any historical substance to your claims at all) obviously had nothing to do with what the war was fought over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dennis-nc3vw It sounds like you think real Americans believe in a heritage of individuality.
Prominent Unitarian Minister Henry Bellows (1866), on the meaning of the North’s victory: "The state is indeed divine, as being the great incarnation of a nation’s rights, privileges, honor, and life."
Abolitionist Joshua Blanchard, writing in The Liberator, the abolitionist newspaper in March of 1861: "The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid No one debunks what I've said, yourself included. They just throw out ad hominem arguments in defense of the indefensible.
Charles Dickens told readers of his monthly magazine in 1862: “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”
John Stuart Mill, hoped the war would be against slavery and was disappointed. “The North, it seems,” Mill wrote, “have no more objections to slavery than the South have.”
War time Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey: “Slavery is no more the cause of this war than gold is the cause of robbery,” he said.
"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces." ---The London Times, November 7, 1861
“If Northerners... had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg... Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” London Times, September 13, 1862
"Many men have many theories about the struggle that went on from 1861 to 1865. Some say it had for its purpose the abolition of slavery. President Lincoln did not so consider it. There were those in the South who would have been willing to wage war for its continuation, but I very much doubt if the South as a whole could have been persuaded to take up arms for that purpose. There were those in the North who would have been willing to wage war for its abolition, but the North as a whole could not have been persuaded to take up arms for that purpose. President Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his effort was to save the Union, with slavery if he could save it that way; without slavery if he could save it that way. But he would save the Union. The South stood for the principle of the sovereignty of the States. The North stood for the principle of the supremacy of the Union." President Calvin Coolidge
"Do we not all know that the cause of our casualties is the vicious intermeddling of too many of the citizens of the Northern States with the constitutional rights of the Southern States, cooperating with the discontents of the people of those states? Do we not know that the disregard of the Constitution, and of the security that it affords to the rights of States and of individuals, has been the cause of the calamity which our country is called to undergo?” -President Franklin Pierce
“It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.” President Woodrow Wilson
“The war... has tended, more than any other event in the history of the country to militate against the Jeffersonian idea, that 'the best government is that which governs least.' The war has not only, of necessity, given more power to, but has led to a more intimate prevision of the government over every material interest of society.” Republican Governor Richard Yates of Illinois, 1865
Abolitionist Joshua Blanchard: “It seems so clear that slavery in the South could not long exist when deprived of the support of the North, that we are surprised that this evident consequence is so overlooked or disregarded... It is plain, then, that this war is not an anti-slavery, but a pro-slavery war.”
Abolitionist George Bassett: “Such is the deranged and distracted condition of the political elements of our country at the present time, that, while the South are bravely fighting the great battle of national liberty in the name of slavery, the North are maintaining the principles of oriental despotism in the name of Liberty! ... I will not say the governing class of the slave States, by the summary repeal of all civil justice, in the enslavement of the poor, have not justly forfeited their sovereignty; but not to a confederacy which is equally guilty with themselves. I will not say that the civilized world should not unite to wipe out chattel slavery, as too inhuman to be tolerated; that they should not unitedly proscribe it, as they do the African slave trade, and inaugurate true popular supremacy in its place. But this is not the question between the United States and South Carolina. With us it is not a question of philanthropy, but of aggrandizement.”
Chinese premier Zhu Rongii told President Clinton in 1999 regarding Taiwan, “Abraham Lincoln, in order to maintain the unity of the United States and oppose the independence of the southern part, resorted to the use of force and fought a war for that, for maintaining the unity of the United States...so, I think Abraham Lincoln, president, is a model, is an example."
“The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States, and in uniting together, they have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so…” -– Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America
“The American people, North and South, went into the War as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects … What they lost they have never gotten back.” -– H.L. Mencken
NY in ratifying the Constitution said, “the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.”
"The state is indeed divine, as being the great incarnation of a nation’s rights, privileges, honor, and life."
~ Unitarian Minister Henry Bellows (1866), on the meaning of the North’s victory
Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner: "All these cries of having 'abolished slavery,' ... of having 'preserved the union,' ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..."
And I'll throw in one Southerner: “However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.” James Madison
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
> no state in the Confederacy was allowed to secede from the Confederacy
Alexander Stephens: "Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty. If, with this great truth ever before them, a majority of her people should prefer despotism to liberty, I would say to her, as to a wayward sister, 'depart in peace.'"
Jefferson Davis: "The experiment instituted by our revolutionary fathers, of a voluntary Union of sovereign States for purposes specified in a solemn compact, had been perverted by those who, feeling power and forgetting right, were determined to respect no law but their own will...
"...never was there a people whose interests and principles committed them so fully to a peaceful policy as those of the Confederate States. By the character of their productions they are too deeply interested in foreign commerce wantonly to disturb it. War of conquest they cannot wage, because the Constitution of their Confederacy admits of no coerced association. Civil war there cannot be between States held together by their volition only. The rule of voluntary association..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc But, granted, it is "silly" now post Lincoln's war to destroy government by the consent of the governed and the constitution. As James Henly Thornwell said in 1862, "If they [the North] prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. ...when all the checks and balances of the Constitution are gone, we may easily figure to ourselves the career and the destiny of this godless monster of democratic absolutism...
They are now fighting the battle of despotism. They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its... provisions..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 The Confederacy stood for the opposite of your pro-slavery position, at least with regards to the conflict with the North. As its vice president said, "Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty. If, with this great truth ever before them, a majority of her people should prefer despotism to liberty, I would say to her, as to a wayward sister, 'depart in peace.'"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "But not what the South was fighting for. The South was fighting for slavery, which made slavery the cause of the war."
The South was fighting for the mirror image of what the North was fighting for. The South was fighting for "the constitutional liberty of a free government," just as Jefferson Davis said at the start of the war, and the North was fighting to destroy the constitutional liberty of free government.
And what war isn't like that (that what one side is fighting for isn't the mirror image of what the other side is fighting for)? In any case, the War of Northern Aggression was.
But even if the South had been fighting for something other than what the North was fighting against, how do you figure that what one side was fighting for is what the war was all about and what the other said was fighting for is completely irrelevant to what the war was about? That's double nonsense.
"Even an anti-Union abolitionist like Lysander Spooner understood the South fought the war for slavery."
I know you've quoted Spooner saying something that you've used to make that argument. If you think it holds water, let's see it again. In any case, Spooner made it very clear that nothing about slavery provided any justification for the war, that those arguments were false pretenses seized upon after the fact to try to cover up what the war really was about. If you (or anyone else) need me to quote you what he said to that effect, I certainly can, but I assume you're well aware of those facts.
"You just defended your claim about abolitionists by saying it "doesn't mean every abolitionist without exception". But you won't apply the same standard to what I said about the South."
The only abolitionist you pointed to as any evidence to the contrary was advocating for disunion with the slave states even after the first southern states seceded. Obviously, there would have been no war if the North had taken that abolitionist position at that time. So even Garrison proves the point I made that even northern abolitionists denied the war was about slavery in 1861, at least the extent that the war followed from and its causes are inseparable from the war, as you've been repeatedly trying to argue lately.
But as to your "double standard" foolishness are you really so stupid as to see no difference between saying that even Russians have taken Ukraine's side on fill-in-the-blank point and saying that that Russia has taken Ukraine's side on that point? How can you be so stupid? Are you a public school teacher?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rundstedt1 It's absurd to blame South Carolina for starting the war when even abolitionists recognized that Lincoln was completely shutting the door on any other options short of total submission to despotism. As one outspoken Massachusetts abolitionist said in 1861: “Suppose we simply collect the revenue of South Carolina, as the Government proposes to do, and as the people generally demand and claim the right to do, what is she any longer, I ask, but a conquered province? and what is your revenue but a forced tribute? … I hear it every day gravely maintained and with apparent sincerity, by many of the Northern citizens, and they catch it from our members of Congress, that we do not intend to conquer South Carolina, but only to collect her revenue, and probably blockade her ports and keep possession of the military posts! But does any intelligent person fail to see that that is the full extent of political subjugation? Taxation, direct or indirect, is one of the highest functions of sovereignty, and to blockade a port, is one of the most belligerent acts. It is truly ridiculous for grave members of Congress to disclaim any purpose of conquest or war, when they advocate the extreme measures of military hostility.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rundstedt1 As for a majority of abolitionists advocating secession (what they called disunion), one thing you could look up is an article from a few years ago by the Boston Globe titled "When the North Almost Seceded." The title is misleading, because real abolitionists were much too fringe to effect political changes of any magnitude, but the article does show where real abolitionists were at just a few years before the war.
Another similar gathering of the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1844 passed a resolution by a large margin calling for the secession of the free states from the union. Wendell Phillips said in defense of that resolution: "[T]he only exodus of the slave to freedom, unless it be one of blood, must be over the ruins of the present American Church and the grave of the present Union…[T]he abolitionists of this country should make it one of the primary objects of their agitation, to dissolve the American Union….[S]ecession from the present United States Government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the U.S. Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin."
And here are a couple quotes from a couple more of the most famous abolitionists:
William Lloyd Garrison said that a primary goal of abolitionists should be "To persuade Northern voters, that the strongest political influence which they can wield for the overthrow of slavery, is, to cease sustaining the existing compact, by withdrawing from the polls, and calmly waiting for the time when a righteous government shall supersede the institutions of tyranny. To endeavor to effect, by all just and peaceful means, such a change in the public sentiment of the North as shall convince the South that nothing but the immediate abolition of slavery can make us a united people."
Lysander Spooner from after the war: "Their pretenses that they have “Saved the Country,” and “Preserved our Glorious Union,” are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call “Saving the Country”; as if an enslaved and subjugated people – or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) – could be said to have any country. This, too, they call “Preserving our Glorious Union”; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” of establishing “a government of consent,” and of “maintaining the national honor,” are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war... or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rundstedt1 Plenty of truth in that Foner quote. Bassett, the abolitionist, fleshes out some of those same ideas even better: “Strictly speaking, government has no rights. It has duties to perform simply. Its whole object is to protect men in their rights. … And surely it is equally absurd and improper for the people of one section of the country to advance a claim of right to the political allegiance of those of another section. The most arrogant pretensions of ancient royalty, are not more preposterous.”
“...the doctrine of coercion... is the destruction of the government, because it is a political revolution. It is a change of the whole spirit of the government, from a confederacy of sovereign States, held together by mutual interest and common attachment, to a consolidated empire, bound together by military force.
“It is also, to some extent, an efficient cause of the present dissolution of the Union. It is the belligerent doctrines and attitude of the dominant politicians of the North, which have precipitated this movement of secession. If the right of secession had been conceded at the first, the movement would have been deprived of its essential vigor and intenseness. The people, feeling that they had a conceded right to secede at will, would naturally have delayed an act so fearfully pregnant with possible evils. … Nor could so many States have been induced to follow the momentous experiment in such hasty succession. It is very doubtful if the movement could have been effected at all, if the right to make it had not been denied.” -Bassett
“It is constantly said, particularly by speakers in Congress, that if our government cannot prevent a State from seceding at will, it is no government at all. But it is forgotten, that the true glory of our government—the queen beauty of our system is, that it ceases with the will of the people. Its true strength lies not in navies and battalions, but in the affections of the people. Numbers in our midst –editors and members of Congress, are vainly boasting that we propose to show the world that we have a government that is strong enough to meet the exigency and to suppress rebellion. But they fail entirely to apprehend and appreciate the true theory of the American system. Their is the old European, and not the American, idea of government. Gov. Seward well remarked in his festival speech in New York, that 'you cannot force fraternity.' Would that this better impulse of his heart and judgment had not been apparently disturbed in his last speech in the United States Senate!
“The true strength of a free government—and they are the strongest of all, is in the devoted attachment of its citizen sovereigns. Let this be forfeited, and the government falls.
“A government which is strong by the exercise of military power over its own citizens, is not a free government, but a despotism.
“Instead of the peaceful separation of these States being a disgrace to our government in the eyes of the world, it will constitute in all coming time its truest glory, and will demonstrate the infinite superiority of the voluntary system of self-government over the despotic usurpations of the past.” -Bassett
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 You have a million excuses for avoiding the principle that separation isn't an act of violence, don't you? If I were trying to hold the positions you hold, I'd avoid principle like the plague, too.
Yes, violence, depending on the context, isn't always called war. So why don't you even try to tell me what's different in principle about violently subjugating your girlfriend for trying to break up with you and violently subjugating other states of the union for trying to break up with your states? Are you too stupid to even address the question of principle? Or are you smart enough to know that the principle condemns you?
> "...obviously there were wars in Yugoslavia following the various secession movements." ...you said there were not.
And what are you interpreting as me saying there weren't wars over the break-up of Yugoslavia? Or can you just not read?
And why don't you address the question I'm obviously asking? Obviously I wasn't asking you about Yugoslavian laws (or whatever you mean by political justification) when I asked you if you think Yugoslavia would have been justified in subjugating Slovenia and continuing to rule over Slovenia forever (if they had been able to successfully do so) because Slovenia committed an "act of war" against Yugoslavia? Are you so ashamed of the moral principles you're defending that you can only play word games to try to hide them?
> The EU is a treaty with a clause governing exit which the UK used.
And if hypothetically everything else had been the same except that the EU hadn't had an explicit clause governing secession, you think Brexit would because of that difference alone have constituted an "act of war"? And the EU would have by that difference alone have been justified in forcibly subjugating the UK to EU rule forever?
> "What do you think would have happened with slavery if Mississippi hadn't seceded" Probably nothing, but that's not what they thought, based on their explicit statements.
All you do is play evasive word games! What do you think Mississippi thought would have happened with slavery if Mississippi hadn't seceded? What did Mississippi think Republicans could have done that you're calling "ban[ning] slavery"? Are you talking about a completely unconstitutional executive order? Lincoln completely disregarding constitutional limits and making a dictator of himself? A constitutional amendment? What are you talking about? You don't want to provide a straight answer to those questions because you want to defend vague, unintelligible myths, don't you?
And why the focus on Mississippi, by the way? Are you trying to suggest that there was some significant difference between Mississippi and the other 6 original Confederate states?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 First of all, you're misrepresenting what Southerners said about secession, as if objections to northern states not abiding by the constitution's fugitive slave clause prove that the southern states seceded in order to force the northern states to deliver up fugitive slaves. They clearly said no such thing and that was clearly never their intention.
Secondly, there wasn't anything noteworthy that the Republican-led North had been doing or had said it wanted to do or that the southern states said they thought the North was going to do with regards to slavery that the North couldn't have done just as well or better after recognizing the southern states' independence and right to self-government. (If there had been, you could make clear what that was.) So there was clearly nothing about slavery that was so much as indirectly at stake in the question of southern independence. (If there had been, you could make clear what that was.) There wasn't anything about slavery that either side went to war to force the other side to do or to refrain from doing or to concede... (If there had been, you could make clear what that was.)
But regardless and independent of all of that, you said the founders of the Confederacy said the war was about slavery, and regardless of whatever they said about secession the fact remains they didn't say what you claimed they said. As I already said, not a single prominent Southerner said so at the time.
You can try to argue that what they said about other things proves what they believed about the war, but if nothing they said at the time directly about the war confirms what you think they believed about the war, then you at least need to come up with a theory for why none of the direct evidence supports your indirect argument about the war.
Regardless, they didn't say what you claimed they said. Not a single prominent Southerner said at the time what you claimed they said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Tariffs applied to the entire nation, they were not 'Northern tariffs'"
Tariffs, especially those which Republicans had campaigned on, were for protecting northern industry, so in that sense they were overwhelmingly "northern tariffs."
As Georgia said in its declaration of causes of secession, "The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all."
"Passing a tariff law through the legislative process is not 'abuse'."
"[F]ostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power"; "giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another"; taking a power that the constitution gave Congress for the purpose of raising revenue and using it for "unequal and partial legislation" to "enrich" the North while "draining [the] substance" of the South is indeed abuse of powers.
"Without slavery there would have been no secession."
Without the northern states disregarding their constitutional obligations under the fugitive slave clause, without Republican stoking hatred of the southern states under shallow anti-slavery pretenses for the sake of advancing their crony capitalist agenda... there would have been no secession in 1860-61. But "slavery" wasn't the cause of secession even then. Specific northern (particularly Republican) policies were the issue.
But the reason we're continuing to debate this 150+ years later is because I would like to live in a union based on the consent of the governed and you want to maintain the despotism established by Republicans in the War of Northern Aggression. Obviously slavery isn't the question that divides people today.
And if Republican violations of the constitution under shallow anti-slavery pretenses hadn't been the cause of secession, other issues would have brought the question to a head. The nullification crisis had come close to leading to violence between the federal government and the states earlier. Other issues would have followed. The federal government had been growing in power, and the number of people looking for an excuse to eliminate constitutional limits on their power had grown ready for a challenge.
"It didn't happen simply because the South was unwilling would not accept emancipation in any form."
It didn't happen because the South wouldn't forfeit its right to self-government. There was never a hint of an offer to facilitate emancipation apart from the South first forfeiting its independence. Emancipation obviously wasn't the sticking point. Self-government was.
"there was no right for the Southern states to take over nearly half the country"
For one thing there was the right on which the United States had been founded and the only right by which the United States government had any legitimacy, namely the right of people to declare their independence from the existing government and establish a new government according to whatever to them would seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
"The Union was formed by "we the people of the United states" and can only be unformed in the same way."
No the union was not formed by "we the people." The union was formed long before the constitution. The government established by the constitution was formed by "we the people," at least in one sense, and it was formed with "unforming" the previous government according to the way it had been formed (by the unanimous consent of the states), so there's no reason to believe the government established by the constitution would need to be "unformed" according to the constitution either. (Not that the union was "unformed" by some states seceding any more than Brexit meant the "unforming"/dissolution of the EU.)
"when their secession reached the Supreme Court"
Not that the federal government can be the ultimate judge of its own powers, but no, no one ever took a case for the constitutional right of secession to the Supreme Court, and even if they had, all the Supreme Court could have said was whether they thought it was allowable under the constitution. But the process by which "we the people" established the constitution wasn't allowable under the Articles of Confederation, so the constitution implicitly recognized the right of the people to simply discard existing law, just as they had done in ratifying the constitution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As one northern abolitionist said in 1861: "It is constantly said... that if our government cannot prevent a State from seceding at will, it is no government at all. But it is forgotten, that the true glory of our government—the queen beauty of our system is, that it ceases with the will of the people. Its true strength lies not in navies and battalions, but in the affections of the people. Numbers in our midst... are vainly boasting that we propose to show the world that we have a government that is strong enough to meet the exigency and to suppress rebellion. But they fail entirely to apprehend and appreciate the true theory of the American system. Their is the old European, and not the American, idea of government...
"The true strength of a free government—and they are the strongest of all, is in the devoted attachment of its citizen sovereigns. Let this be forfeited, and the government falls.
"A government which is strong by the exercise of military power over its own citizens, is not a free government, but a despotism.
"Instead of the peaceful separation of these States being a disgrace to our government in the eyes of the world, it will constitute in all coming time its truest glory, and will demonstrate the infinite superiority of the voluntary system of self-government over the despotic usurpations of the past."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@giuffre714 Your last comment brings to mind some quotes:
"...The majority are left with only their two poor values of personal peace and affluence.
With such values, will men stand for their liberties? Will they not give up their liberties step by step, inch by inch, as long as their personal peace and prosperity is sustained and not challenged, and as long as the goods are delivered?"
Francis Schaeffer
"You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government." -Patrick Henry
"...armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instrument for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”
James Madison
And the German-English economist, E. F. Schumacher wrote the following late in the age of English colonialism, but it's also very applicable to the supposed "generosity" of the US:
“Some people ask: 'What happens when a country, composed of one rich province and several poor ones, falls apart because the rich province secedes?' Most probably the answer is: 'Nothing very much happens.' The rich will continue to be rich and the poor will continue to be poor. 'But if, before secession, the rich province had subsidised the poor, what happens then?' Well then, of course, the subsidy might stop. But the rich rarely subsidise the poor; more often they exploit them. They may not do so directly so much as through the terms of trade. They may obscure the situation a little by a certain redistribution of tax revenue or small-scale charity, but the last thing they want to do is secede from the poor.
“The normal case is quite different, namely that the poor provinces wish to separate from the rich, and that the rich want to hold on because they know that exploitation of the poor within one's own frontiers is infinitely easier than exploitation of the poor beyond them.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeremybean-hodges6397 "yeah, nor, most notably, does it have the right to enslave millions of people."
Notably? If you want a revisionist myth to try to cover up what the war was really about.
The US Congress even officially declared by an almost unanimous vote that "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States"
But as one famous abolitionist said after the war, "The whole affair... is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South.... And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” ...
"The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud...
"...carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@giuffre714 Yes, we know when the South seceded that the South was fine with slavery. We also know when the South seceded that the North was fine with letting the South practice slavery as long as they liked. Lincoln called for war against the South at the same time that he promised to faithfully uphold the fugitive slave clause.
You ask, since I recognize that slavery would've ended anyway, what's the difference? Legal abortion even in those states that didn't choose through the democratic process to legalize abortion is just one example of how government is now less democratic, less accountable to the people, unconstrained by any intelligible rule of law (but instead determined behind dark curtains by unelected, practically unimpeachable, appointed-for-life supreme rulers), no longer with any meaningful "consent of the governed," but instead more accountable to corporate elites (what were called robber barons after the Republicans ushered in their age with the war, but are now just taken for granted as a totally normal dominating part of our politics.) We can talk about lots of other examples of the consequences besides abortion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@giuffre714 People are allowed to retire at any age they want in Russia, same as here, same as in almost any country in the world. Of course, whether a person can afford to retire (and whether working life is undesirable enough that they even want to retire) is another question, one for which the US doesn't necessarily compare very favorably to other countries, but your question was what I'm not allowed to do, and people are certainly allowed to retire at any age they want in Russia.
And Putin repeatedly getting re-elected has nothing to do with what Russians are "not allowed to do" either.
Quality of life, however you or I might want to measure it and important as it is, likewise isn't an answer to what Russians aren't allowed to do. That's a standard by which we could find lots of faults with the modern American lifestyle more or less attributable to the robber barons' military subjugation of agrarian society and meaningful democracy with it, though.
In any case, your question must not be very useful or insightful since you can't answer your own question with regards to Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@meloneatingwolf1882 > the union’s attitude towards slavery changed. The soldiers developed into abolitionists.
At no point during the war did their attitude change enough for the Union to decide to force abolition on any of the states or parts of states under Union control. And even more to the point, at no point during the war did the Union come even remotely close to saying, "We'll recognize your right to independence and self-government on the condition that you free your slaves." The Union didn't even free its own slaves, let alone demand that the Confederacy free its slaves as a condition for independence.
The Union went to war to deny the southern states the right to independence and self-government while declaring no purpose of interfering with, let alone abolishing slavery, and while passing a constitutional amendment (by a 2/3 vote in both chambers even without the support of the slave states that had already seceded and withdrawn their representatives) and submitting that amendment to the states for ratification which would have made the constitution's protection of the right of slave states to continue practicing slavery as long as they wanted explicit and irrevocable. And the Union never backed away from those purposes and aims in the least.
Even Lincoln's first official proclamation of his so-called emancipation plan began by saying, "I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of [Lincoln's euphemism for subjugating the southern states and denying them the right to independence and self-government." "[H]ereafter, as heretofore..." The Union never backed off its original war aims in the least.
...not that it would have even mattered if the Union had. To grossly oversimplify the First American Independence War if halfway through that war King George had changed his position on anything do you think that would have negated the independence the 13 states had already declared and nullified their right to independence? Of course, not. Neither would it have mattered if the Union had changed its positions after however many months or years of the war. Once the Confederate states declared their independence the only question that mattered was the question of under which terms the Union would recognize the Confederate states' right to independence and self-government, and the answer to that question was from beginning to end a categorical denial of their right to independence and self-government and that was the only thing the war was ever fought over.
> the South fought specifically to protect slavery. The confederate leaders stated that this was their purpose when they seceded.
No, they didn't. That's just a lie. There was never anything that Republicans had been doing or had said they wanted to do or that the seceding states said they thought Republicans were going to do with regards to slavery that seceding offered any prospect of "protecting slavery" from. If there had been you could make clear what that was. But all you have is a completely inexplicable myth. It's a complete distortion and misrepresentation of the historical facts. It's absolutely a lie. And you're going to respond to me without even trying to explain what secession was supposedly intended to protect slavery from, aren't you?
What Confederate leaders actually said was: "we seek... no concession of any kind" -- not with regards to slavery or anything else --
"from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone" (Jefferson Davis) The war was from beginning to end entirely a war over one thing and one thing only: the right of the southern states to independence and self-government regardless of anything to do with slavery.
1
-
@atomf9143 > about slaves, and largely the debate there was about if and how slavery should geographically expand
That's a complete misrepresentation of the debate. There was no debate over whether slavery could be practiced in Cuba or Brazil or the Ottoman Empire. The debate was entirely about influencing control of power in DC. The debate was over whether the constitution guaranteed (as a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court had already recently declared it did) the right of slaveholders to take slaves to US territories, and the reason that debate was contentious was because people thought whether future states allowed slavery or not would impact the relative power of the sections and the parties in the federal government, and Republicans wanted power in DC not in order to free any slaves but in order to raise protective tariffs and do all the other crony capitalist things they declared in their platform that they wanted to do and which they in fact proceeded to do.
And in any case neither that question nor any other slavery-related question was tied up in the question of the independence of the southern states over which the war was fought (not unless you want to argue that the North was fighting for the right of slaveholders from the seceded states to take slaves to US territories.) Seceding clearly meant that the southern states were intentionally forfeiting the constitutional right of slaveholders from their states to take slaves to Kansas or any of the previously disputed territories. There war unambiguously wasn't even indirectly fought over any questions having to do with slavery. There were none. And the best you can do is obfuscate and try to misrepresent disputes from before secession as if the war was fought in any way over any such questions.
> First, calling it that implies the North started the whole bloody affair. It did not
If you and your girlfriend had jointly hired a security agency to provide armed security for each of your respective gatehouses and then your girlfriend decided for whatever reason to split up with you but you denied her right to split up with you and insisted on maintaining armed agents in her gatehouse after she had already declared your relationship over and done with and after several months she forcibly evicted those agents from her own gatehouse, who would you say "started the whole bloody affair"? Is it automatically your girlfriend's fault for splitting up with you regardless of everything else? Do you think the mere fact that she tried to split up with you, gives you the right to use threats of violence and actual violence to subjugate her and force her back into a relationship with you? Do you not think trying to keep armed agents in her gatehouse and controlling who could come and go from her house would be itself an act of aggression? And if you then sent a whole army into her house after she merely evicted your agents from her own house in order to accomplish what you declared was your purpose -- denying her the right to split up with you and asserting your right to rule over her regardless of her consent -- before she ever evicted your agents from her gatehouse in the first place, would you call her the "aggressor"?
Yes, it was absolutely the war of northern aggression. And it was certainly no civil war in the sense that any other war commonly called a civil war was a civil war, which is to say competing factions vying for control over one and the same territory. The War of Northern Aggression was unambiguously an independence war, and no one insists on calling any other independence war a civil war, because everyone recognizes in every other circumstance that that would be stupid, just like it is in this circumstance.
1
-
@atomf9143 > the reason the parties were fighting over expansion was because of slavery
Are you trying to spin some lie about the Confederacy and Union fighting over the expansion of anything anywhere? There was no such fight. That was all intra-union history. There wasn't anything to do with slavery, not even indirectly, that the two parties to the war waged war over. If there had been you could clearly explain what that was. Did I not already say the best you can do is obfuscate and try to misrepresent disputes from before secession as if the war was fought in any way over any such questions?
> Fort Sumpter was federal land and on an island. It’s not South Carolina’s to begin with
So what if it had been jointly held and administered? Federally administered properties belonged to the people of the United States, and when the girlfriend split up with her boyfriend she had as much right to a share of the formerly jointly held property as he did, and he had absolutely no valid reason to try to continue to control the guard house to her house after she split up with him.
> Both Jackson and Washington proved what happens when you try to defy the federal government.
What happens? You get treated the way an abusive boyfriend treats his girlfriend when she tries to break up with him? Why do you want to celebrate that fact? What un-American place are you from that you despise consent as the basis of just government?
> an independence movement against the lawful government of the land. But we call most events like that around the world- Russia, England, France, China, Korea, Libya, the Congo- civil wars.
Name one other independence war from anywhere else in the world that's commonly called a civil war. The English Civil War certainly wasn't an independence war. The Algerian War of Independence isn't ever called the French Civil War. The Chinese Civil War wasn't an independence war. The Korean War certainly wasn't an independence war (nor is it commonly referred to as a civil war.) ... Name one!
> The Confederates had their chance at independence, to prove you and your ideas right, and they lost.
Do you think if a man beats his girlfriend into submission that he and his ideas are "proven right"? Apparently you do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Iris_1217 > any further attempt to reason with you in good faith is a waste of my time
Righteous Cause Myth apologists always either throw out vague nonsense and then run away before even trying to explain what possible meaning could be found in their claims or they just jump from one nonsense claim to the next in order to avoid even trying to explain what possible meaning could be found in their last claim.
> deny... the role that slavery held in the South's initial decision to secede
Deny what role? You weren't ever going to even try to explain what that role was. Claims as vague as yours don't even have enough substance to deny.
> The Confederacy's entire raison d'etre was the preservation of the institution of slavery.
What does that even mean, "the preservation of the institution of slavery"? Righteous Cause Myth apologists love to use that "preserve" word that Southerners never used themselves because it suggests the lie that they desperately want to foster but which all the historical evidence clearly contradicts, namely the lie that the Republican-led North was threatening to abolish slavery, and so the only way to "preserve" slavery from that mythical threat was to secede.
Alexander Stephens: "I consider slavery much more secure in the Union than out of it."
> So by that logic, the slaveholding states which seceded also gave up any right to the land they'd already ceded to the federal government, correct?
Try again, idiot! South Carolinians wanted South Carolina, not Kansas. Fort Sumter wasn't in Kansas.
Righteous Cause Myth apologists love to talk about disputes over slavery in Kansas and then conflate those disputes with the war, as if the war was in any way fought over anything to do with Kansas or anything else that they could label the "expansion of slavery." But the reality is that no such thing was even indirectly at stake in the question of southern independence.
And Fort Sumter, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. The war wasn't even indirectly fought over any aspect of slavery, not the territories, not fugitive slaves, and certainly not the complete myth of an abolition amendment or anything else of the sort.
> "Civil War" sounds a lot better than "rebellion", doesn't it?
Yeah, who cares if it wasn't a civil war in the sense that any other war commonly called a civil war was a civil war but if it was entirely and independence war (which is what we call other independence wars)? Let's just go with what sounds better to state-worshiping sheep like you!
> the Union's eventual shifting war aims
That's right! I forgot that a couple years into the war Lincoln said, you know, I've changed my mind, we're going to let the southern states self-govern after all.
Funny me, I thought he actually said at the very beginning of his first official announcement of his emancipation plan, "I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the..." same object as before, subjugating the southern states to DC rule and eliminating the government's accountability to the rule of law and the consent of the governed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm The Greeley letter coming after Lincoln's drafting of the emancipation proclamation further debunks the silly propaganda myth that even though the war clearly wasn't an anti-slavery war at first it evolved (particularly with the emancipation proclamation) into an anti-slavery war. The Greeley letter makes overwhelmingly clear that the emancipation proclamation was not about freeing slaves but rather about enslaving the southern states (and the rest of the states along with them), that the war was never, neither before nor after the emancipation proclamation, an anti-slavery war.
As Lysander Spooner said: "This programme having been fully arranged and systematized, they [the North's robber barons] put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war, and charge him to carry their scheme into effect. And now he, speaking as their organ, says, 'Let us have peace.'
"The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have 'peace.' But in case you resist, the same lenders of blood-money, who furnished the means to subdue the South, will furnish the means again to subdue you. "
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "When shown time and time again that the Southern leaders said constantly, repeatedly, and forcefully said they were seceding to preserve slavery, you still deny it."
Show me one time where any Southern leader said his state/the South was "seceding to preserve slavery" in the sense of seceding to protect against something (let alone something they considered constitutionally legitimate, like the Republicans winning the election, which fact they hated but recognized was in accordance with the constitution) that would have prevented them from continuing to practice slavery if they had remained in the union. They never used the word "preserve" as Righteous Cause Myth apologists "constantly, repeatedly, and forcefully" do, because it implies the lie that the southern states seceded to protect against some constitutionally legitimate threat that would have prevented them from continuing to practice slavery if they had remained in the union. The only sense in which they seceded "to preserve slavery" is the sense in which the seceded "to preserve water drinking," which is to say drinking water was one of the things they intended to continue doing after they seceded.
"All you have to do is read the relevant primary documents that show the South..., showing the Union was not only legally justified..., but morally justified as well."
Are you saying the North was morally justified because of what the South said (never mind your gross distortions of what they said), even though the North went to war denying any anti-slavery purposes? Can the US likewise be morally justified in invading Iraq on the basis of Saddam Hussein's evils irrespective of the USA's actual and stated reasons for invading Iraq? If not, how can the North be?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewdolokhov5408 Churchill became an ally of and actively supported Stalin in order to defeat Germany, which England declared war against in defense of Polish independence, even though the USSR had invaded Poland at the same time as Germany, with the result that Poland not only was subjected to 4-5 years of Nazi rule and suffered more loss of life during those years than nearly any other country in the world but then was taken over by Churchill's ally and didn't regain its independence until decades after the war was over and Churchill was dead. And that's evidence of why Churchill was right? Foolishness!
You ask if the police should ever shoot people. First of all, I certainly don't want my government playing policeman to the world. And what would that mean anyway? Countries all over the world going to war unilaterally or with select allies in order to resolve disputes within and between any other countries, even on the opposite side of the world? Is that the kind of world order you're calling for? There is no international police force, nor should there be, and the US or NATO certainly shouldn't be the world's police.
But ignoring those questions, should the regular police ever shoot anyone? Not if the result is likely to be more innocent people dying than would die otherwise and the criminals escaping anyway. You're assuming the police can bring overwhelming force to bear, but even if the West were justified in waging war against Russia (which the West isn't), the West doesn't have overwhelming force that it can bring to bear against Russia, not apart from nuclear war (and France and the UK certainly didn't have overwhelming force they could bring to bear against Germany.) The West couldn't even bring overwhelming force to bear against the Taliban. Or Vietnam. Or North Korea. And in what condition did our military intervention leave Libya?
1
-
1
-
@andrewdolokhov5408 "Ukraine, given time and Western support, can defeat Russia in Ukraine." That really doesn't answer my question of what you hope to see happen in Ukraine. What do you mean by victory? Do you mean Ukraine re-taking all of the 1991 Ukrainian territory that Ukraine currently doesn't control? Do you mean Ukraine necessarily re-taking at least as much territory as it held before Russia's invasion this February? Would you agree that if a reasonable hope of victory, however you would define it, disappears, that further western support at that point wouldn't be justified? Or are you totally unwilling to even confront reality? Or are you operating on such a time frame that Poland regaining independence in 1989 can justify the UK and France declaring war on Germany in 1939 (and then for the second half of the war even allying with and supporting the country that subjugated Poland for the next several decades)? In other words, even if your definition of victory for Ukraine can't be achieved until after Russia completes a short-term victory as complete as the Soviet conquest of Poland and Czechoslovakia, followed by however many decades or centuries of cold war, would you still justify continued western support of Ukraine in the short term based on the hope of Ukraine turning the tide several decades from now and achieving victory then? That seems to be the ridiculous standard you're applying to Churchill, etc.
As to Korea, whether we call it a stalemate or a victory, the underlying point remains that the US wasn't able to bring overwhelming force to bear. And, of course, more recent examples like Afghanistan are much worse, both in terms of the results and the capabilities of the enemy we faced.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JsznznSnsnz Primarily the liberty of the citizens of the southern states (and of the Indians of the Indian Territories (Oklahoma) that joined them later in 1861), but as the following two quotes illustrate their liberty had much wider implications.
George Bassett: "But remember, that when South Carolina falls, she falls not alone. The suicidal hand which strikes down the sovereignty of the people of South Carolina, demolishes that of Massachusetts with it, and the whole fabric of American Liberty falls by the same stroke. Then not one star escapes from the galaxy of free sovereignties, but all are blotted out by this sweeping stroke of despotic usurpation. We are no longer a voluntary confederation of sovereign States, but each and all of us conquered provinces of a centralized and consolidated despotism. We of the North may be voluntary in this subjection, like the more degraded of slaves—yea, we may be the unnatural agents of it; but it is subjection still."
Lord Acton from a letter to Robert E. Lee,
"...I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dennis-nc3vw "over human rights" as if human rights had anything to do with it!
Lysander Spooner: "And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ... in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. ...
"All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheBullyMomma The properties administered by the federal government belonged to the people of the southern states as much as the people of any other states, and it's more ridiculous to suggest they had no right to forts that served no purpose other than their own self-defense (and preventing peaceful trade) than it would be to suggest that when a boyfriend and girlfriend split up that the boyfriend should have the right to 100% of the property they bought together while they were together and not only 100% of the property, but that the boyfriend ought to have the right to continue to maintain and control armed guards at the entrance to his ex-girlfriends house and prevent other people from coming and going to her house that she wants to see.
Even abolitionists at the time recognized the absurdity of your claim: George Bassett: "As to the proper possession of the military forts within the boundaries of a seceding State or territory... The whole object of those forts is... protection. While the peoples of those States or territories are protected by the United States, the United States authorities occupy and garrison those forts at an expense which is defrayed by a revenue voluntarily paid by the people. Here is a fair, legitimate transaction, a quid pro quo. A sovereign people paying the United States, by a revenue, for protecting and guarding her national interests. But when any State ceases to require the protection of the general government and proposes to protect herself, and the United States authority ceases, for the want of the requisite consent of the people interested, there is no reason why the general government should retain possession of those forts, but every reason why they should go into the hand of the people of that territory... Keep ever in view the only legitimate object of government—the protection of the people—and you cannot but recognize the absurdity of forcing protection upon an unwilling people at the point of the bayonet."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You might be interested to know that the abolitionist George Bassett said something very similar shortly before Lincoln's call to raise troops to subjugate the states that had already seceded:
"...the doctrine of coercion... is the destruction of the government, because it is a political revolution. It is a change of the whole spirit of the government, from a confederacy of sovereign States, held together by mutual interest and common attachment, to a consolidated empire, bound together by military force.
"It is also, to some extent, an efficient cause of the present dissolution of the Union. It is the belligerent doctrines and attitude of the dominant politicians of the North, which have precipitated this movement of secession. If the right of secession had been conceded at the first, the movement would have been deprived of its essential vigor and intenseness. The people, feeling that they had a conceded right to secede at will, would naturally have delayed an act so fearfully pregnant with possible evils. … Nor could so many States have been induced to follow the momentous experiment in such hasty succession. It is very doubtful if the movement could have been effected at all, if the right to make it had not been denied."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronfleming9426 > you duck back into the technical physical meaning of the word
Yes, using the actual meaning of words is underhanded and deceitful, isn't it? I should use words to mean something other than what they actually mean, like you, if I wanted to make an honest argument.
> North and south were not political bodies, but rather geographical regions
It's very normal to speak of the parties to the war as the North and the South, but if you want to be more precise and differentiate between the Union and the North, then that's fine: what I said is just as true if we speak of the Confederacy and the Union as the South and the North.
> Half or more of the population was against the Confederacy (okay, I might be stretching that, but it's close; we know it's true in South Carolina and Mississippi for sure)
That's totally false and ridiculous.
> The rebels of 1861 were free people
If they weren't free to choose a different government for themselves, then they obviously weren't free under DC rule.
> with over-representation in their own government
Lincoln was only on the ballot in one future Confederate state, Virginia, and he only won 1.3% of the vote there. In Kentucky, which didn't even secede, he won less than 1% of the vote. In Maryland, which also didn't secede (although it might have if it had been allowed a free and fair vote), Lincoln only won 2.48% of the vote. He would have won even less of the vote in the states where he wasn't even on the ballot if he had been on the ballot in those states. So clearly Lincoln didn't represent even a significant minority in any of the Confederate states at all. But he won an absolute majority in the electoral college even though we represented only thirty-some percent of the electorate (because he was able to win a majority in enough northern states.) Clearly the system over-represented the northern states in the presidential election.
> The slave holders who, as a political class, fomented rebellion, were an oppressor class: besides oppressing slaves
Then so, too, were the Americans that declared independence in 1776, which gets us back to the main point of this thread: it's just as absurd to deny the right of southern Americans in 1861 to choose their own government for themselves because they oppressed slaves as it is to claim that England had a right to rule over the 13 colonies forever because Americans in 1776 oppressed slaves. And when Lincoln first called for an invasion of and war against the Confederate States there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy, and there were slave states in the Union throughout the entire war, so not only was there nothing about slavery that either side went to war to force the other side to do or to concede, but it wasn't even the case that the war happened to be between a Union without slavery and a Confederacy with slavery; it was a war between a false union with slavery and a confederacy with slavery.
(By false union I mean a group of states that at that point in time were bound together by force and not by consent. A union, by definition, is a consensual relationship. It's as absurd to call a relationship a union if the members are bound together by violence and threats of violence as it is to call a worker an employee if his boss physically beats any workers that try to quit.)
> they frequently violated or attempted to violate the Constitution to retain their grip on slavery
What absurd basis is there for that stupid claim of yours?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SalimSivaad First of all, the articles of secession say nothing about the war or the reason for the war. The war hadn't even started yet.
What you're saying would be like if your girlfriend said she was splitting up with you because you weren't helping her with her bad but legal habit any more and she only got into a relationship with you because helping her with her bad but legal habit was part of the relationship... and then you denied her right to leave you, she left anyway, you violently subjugated her, she resisted... and you claimed that when she resisted you she was fighting for her habit, even though she was just trying to split up with you and wasn't trying to get any more help with her habit from you.
> That’s a lot of words just to say: the right to enslave human beings.
As if the North had been denying the southern states' right to enslave human beings??? That's pure revisionist myth.
Tell me which of the following things happened:
1. The South wanted to enslave human beings and wanted independence and self-government. The North said we recognize your right to independence and self-government but not your right to enslave human beings. And then the North and South fought over the disputed right, the right of the South to enslave human beings. And no precedent was set for denying the right of states to declare independence and self-government regardless of anything to do with slavery.
2. The South wanted to enslave human beings and wanted independence and self-government. The North said we recognize your right to enslave human beings but not your right to independence and self-government. And then the North and South fought over the disputed right, the right of the South to independence and self-government. And the precedent was set for denying the right of states to declare independence and self-government regardless of anything to do with slavery.
"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces." -London Times, 1861
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@calicoheart4750 It's nothing but a propaganda myth and a lie that Republicans were challenging (directly or indirectly) the right of the southern states to own slaves. The US Congress declared by a practically unanimous vote after the first major battle of the war that, "this war is not waged... for any purpose... of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery]..." And there's an abundance of other similar evidence from Lincoln, from the Republican platform, etc.
As to states rights, here's wikipedia's introductory summary of what states rights are: "...states' rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers—also called states' rights—that only the states possess."
So it's nonsense to allege that granting freedom to escaped slaves was a state right when the constitution explicitly made the right to have fugitive slaves delivered up a state right. As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:
"The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. ...
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gunshotlagoon922 > They didn't want to negotiate anything regarding secession whatsoever
"They" meaning Southerners?
Here's what one northern abolitionist said in early 1861, "it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation.
"In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheEnderCycloneEnd Lincoln didn't want to and never said he wanted to free the slaves. He said he wished that they would be freed, but he recognized there was no constitutional means for him or the federal government to abolish slavery in the slave states. (I can share quotes from Lincoln proving those points if you want to see those.)
You ask why else would southern states secede after Lincoln's election. The Republicans were the first ever entirely sectional political party. They represented the interests of the North (especially the Northeast) as particularly opposed to the interests of the South. They were so anti-Southern that they had even celebrated a terrorist attack where random southern civilians had been murdered, so random that the first victim was a free black Southerner. For the South to be governed by the North was almost like the Taliban governing the US after 9/11. Republican governors had even refused to fulfill their constitutional obligation to extradite the escaped participants in the attack to serve justice.
And the main plank of the Republican platform had been to prohibit slavery in the territories, despite the fact that the southern states believed the constitution gave the federal government no such authority, and despite the fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that "the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind [slaves] in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void..." But the Republicans' platform was to simply challenge the Supreme Court. As Lincoln said, “The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people.” And Lincoln also said, "A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…"
I don't think southern Democrats or Republicans actually cared much about slavery in the territories one way or the other, but what they did care about was political power in DC, and slavery largely determined whether states would align with the Democrats or the Republicans (although there were plenty of Democrats in the North, too, especially the Midwest: Douglas won over 47% of the vote in Illinois, effectively 46% in New York, and around 42-43% of the vote in Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan... and the Republicans only won California and Oregon with 32-36% of the vote because the opposition split their vote.)
So the issue of slavery in the territories mattered mainly because of its impact on political power in DC, but what was at stake with political power wasn't anything to do with slavery but rather issues like railroad subsidies, a national bank, protective tariffs, etc. Those are the things that were at stake, and it's similar to the way abortion plays prominently in elections but then what Congress does about abortion barely changes no matter which party controls DC. Balancing power, like you say, was very much the issue, but politicians didn't want power for the sake of slaves; they wanted power (as politicians almost always do) for the sake of the economic interests they represented. Republicans were just exploiting slavery as a wedge issue for political advantages, very much like they exploit the abortion issue today.
When I referred to Kansas, I was referring to the question of whether slavery would be allowed in the territories. Kansas was just the most disputed territory immediately prior to secession.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fr99763 Yes, but that's what I mean to ask. Where/how does the US constitution disallow a state leaving the union? The 10th amendment makes explicit that any rights not explicitly disallowed were retained by the states.
And then there's also the question of what right the southern states had when northern states decided to simply disregard obligations they had under the constitution like the obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves. As US President Franklin Pierce said before the war: "If there are provisions in the Constitution of your country not consistent with your views of principle or expediency, remember that in the nature of things that instrument could only have had its origin in compromise... and remember, too, that you will be faithless to honor and common honesty if you consent to enjoy the principles it confers, and seek to avoid, if any, the burdens it imposes. It cannot be accepted in parts; it is a whole or nothing, and as a whole, with all the right it secures, and the duties it requires, it is to be sacredly maintained... It is no matter what our peculiar views may be, or what prejudices may take possession of our minds or hearts. If, as American citizens, we find ourselves constrained by a law higher or more imperative than this law, we then deny the obligations which the Constitution imposes, and can have no just claim to the protection and blessings which it confers."
Along very similar lines but going in a different direction, Wendell Phillips, the famous abolitionist, said, "...the abolitionists of this country should make it one of the primary objects of their agitation, to dissolve the American Union….[S]ecession from the present United States Government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the U.S. Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@monitor1862 If by civil rights you mean as you've now said that, "civil rights are protections under the law against discrimination," and we're considering such "protections" particularly in the context of private businesses, then, as I already suggested, there's no basis for thinking that a constitution written mostly in the 18th century would "protect" such "rights," which, of course, is why Congress wrote laws to effect such changes long after the fact of all the amendments you referenced, not laws that confirmed the status quo, but laws that made it illegal to do what was previously completely legal under the constitution and what would still be constitutionally permissible now if Congress wanted to change the law.
1
-
1
-
@monitor1862 Sure, laws may be unconstitutional, but there's nothing unconstitutional about any kind of private sector discrimination. You may wish the constitution embodied the values of the 1960's or of today, but the constitution is what it is, not what you wish it were, and what it is is a mostly 18th century legal document, and the only amendment that even remotely relates to the issues in this story might be the 14th amendment, which is a lot closer to the 18th century than it is to today. So if any kind of private sector discrimination were unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for over 150 years. But private sector discrimination has never been recognized as such, not for the first nearly 100 years after the ratification of the 14th amendment when private sector discrimination was completely legal, and not for the last 50+ years when certain types of private sector discrimination have been illegal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@plno2443 "But the slaver states argued Northern states did not have the sovereign right to permit fugitive slaves to remain free under protection of the laws of the Northern states."
Certainly that's what the constitution said. And if the northern states had said they wanted to secede and be done with that deal, I would defend their right to have done so. Would you?
And how else would you respond to a constitutional clause that you didn't have any hope of having the votes to amend in the foreseeable future but that you couldn't bring yourself to honor? Would you even take an oath to uphold such a deal?
In any case, the North's position was clear. As Lincoln said of the fugitive slave clause, "It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?...
"I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules..."
"And, you’d personally argue the slave had no right to seek to “secede” from his slave master because the slave was property of its master."
Where do you get that idea?
"Most southerners learned their lesson."
And what lesson was that? According to a couple prominent Northerners:
"The state is indeed divine, as being the great incarnation of a nation’s rights, privileges, honor, and life." -Henry Bellows (1866), on the meaning of the North’s victory
"The war... has tended, more than any other event in the history of the country to militate against the Jeffersonian idea, that 'the best government is that which governs least.' The war has not only, of necessity, given more power to, but has led to a more intimate prevision of the government over every material interest of society." -Republican Governor Richard Yates of Illinois, 1865
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The states right argument went back to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which is to say basically to free speech issues. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1798: "...the several states composing the US. of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style & title of a Constitution for the US. and of Amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are unauthoritative, void, & of no force. that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, it’s co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@feedyourmind6713 "The Articles of Confederation were an abysmal failure..."
How exactly? Had the 13 states been conquered by an invading army? Was there mass famine across the states? Were the states at war with each other? Were cities getting burned down? What are you talking about?
And what would it matter if the Articles had been an abysmal failure? If the Articles had been such a failure that the states had actually gone to war with each other, if armies were burning cities and homesteads down, if hundreds of thousands had died as part of an abysmal failure... is that the standard for disregarding the rule of law? Or do people always simply have a right to choose a new government for themselves when to them it shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness? Do you think short of an abysmal failure people should be irremediably bound to the political structures (including protections of African slavery) of their great-grandfathers?
"the necessary number ratified [the constitution]"
The "necessary number," 9/13 was a number just invented at the convention. They didn't meet or even try to meet the pre-existing "necessary number" but simply acted on their right to discard the previous "necessary number."
"The Dems stayed in the Union until their side started to lose, then they guit, and started a very deadly war."
The Democratic party vote split in 1860, but Stephen Douglas alone won more votes in the North (not even counting the border states) than the Northern and Southern Democratic candidates combined won in all 11 of the future Confederate states. In other words, there were more Democrats in the North than in the states that formed the Confederacy. It was the southern states (initially just 7 until Lincoln called for war, but then 4 more after) that seceded, not the Democratic party. (Of course, that's an elementary historical fact to anyone that isn't trying to twist the historical facts to create a false narrative.)
Yes, they quit the union (like the UK quit the EU, like the Baltic states quit the USSR, like the Czech Republic and Slovakia quit Czechoslovakia, like the former Yugoslav republics quit Yugoslavia, like South Sudan quit Sudan, like the US quit the English Empire...) And Lincoln and the Republicans absolutely refused any peaceful pathway but told the southern states their only options were to forfeit the rights that their great-grandfathers had fought for in 1776 or go to war... and so it did came to war, but you can't blame the South for the war given that the North wasn't willing to recognize the southern states right to secede under any peaceful terms whatsoever.
"Just what kind of economy would the South have had, without slavery?"
There it is again, the central myth that the nonsense of people like you is always built on, the historically baseless myth that apart from secession the South would have been "without slavery." Nonsense!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@feedyourmind6713 Obviously the Declaration of Independence isn't any kind of law that carries any legal requirements, but following the principles laid out in the DoI would nonetheless have been a way -- the best way -- to end the war (or to have avoided it starting in the first place), so it's obscene to suggest that total war (against civilians, civilians that the government attacking them, their homes, cities, etc. claimed were their own citizens) was the only way to end the war. Throwing out all the codes we expect countries to respect in warfare today (and which were also norms of warfare prior to Lincoln's war against goverment by the consent of the governed) might have been the only way for the North to win the war, but it certainly wasn't the only way to end it.
As for the Bill of Rights, it proves the worthlessness of your remark that the constitutional compact had no allowance for dissolving the compact (again, not that the compact would have been "dissolved" if some of the member states had left the union, but even if full dissolution had been the issue in 1861, the Bill of Rights would prove the worthlessness of your remark even then.)
1
-
1
-
@azulsimmons1040 1. In any case, Lord Acton was the furthest thing from "uneducated."
2. Maybe the main reason he and other Englishmen said what they said was because they actually believed it, because they sympathized with America's founding principles in the 2nd American Independence War for much the same reasons some Englishmen sympathized with America's founding principles in the 1st American Independence War. Englishmen and Americans share the same Lockean political heritage after all.
"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces." -London Times, 1861
“If Northerners... had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg... Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” London Times, September 13, 1862
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 And whether Lincoln was willing to backtrack from a tactic he employed to deny independence and self-government to the southern states, the fact remains that the primary purpose of the emancipation proclamation was to aid the cause of denying independence and self-government to the southern states.
Lincoln: "What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union [i.e. maintain control over and deny independence and self-government to the southern states]; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
"The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." London Spectator in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation
Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner: "The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ... in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid That's not what Confederate leaders said about what Republicans wanted. As Alexander Stephens said, "The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch "of the accursed soil." Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, *they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor*. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave."
And that comports with what abolitionists said, too, "...these lenders of blood money had, for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purposes of liberty and justice, to the greatest of crimes. They had been such accomplices for a purely pecuniary consideration, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money, *were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slave-holders in the future*, for the same pecuniary considerations. But the slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future – that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South – that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These – and not any love of liberty or justice – were the motives on which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may." Spooner
Why don't you believe what Confederate leaders and abolitionists both said about what Republicans wanted? For that matter, why don't you believe what Republicans themselves said? Lincoln: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid No, I obviously didn't mean to suggest "it would be nice" was an actual quote (obvious to anyone that isn't as clueless or dishonest -- which is it? or is it both?-- as you, at least.) But you quoted Lincoln saying "I should not object if..." which is essentially the same, a wish with no action to effect it as I put it before you joined in this thread. So I repeat my question: Do you think Lincoln was lying when he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists"? Note, he said "directly or indirectly," so telling me how he really intended to interfere with slavery in the slave states, just not directly, would mean he was lying, right? Personally, I think he was telling the truth there.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid The questions I asked the other commenter to which you replied were: "How do you imagine Republicans wanted to end slavery? Just a wish with no action to effect it? Or what specific course of action?" I repeat: "end slavery." That's the context of the question of whether Republicans had a specific agenda to effect their wish or merely an "it would be nice..." Yes, Republicans were working to prevent slavery in US territories (in defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of doing so and for their own political advantages and white supremacist agenda, not for the good of any slaves), but that's not "ending slavery." "Ending slavery" means ending it in the slave states, not in territories where it wasn't already established.
So I repeat my question another time: Do you think Lincoln was lying when he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists"? Note, he said "directly or indirectly," so telling me how he really intended to interfere with slavery in the slave states, just not directly, would mean he was lying, right? Personally, I think he was telling the truth there.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid In hindsight it's clear that slavery, particularly agriculturally based slavery like we had in the States, was on its way out regardless of anything to do particularly with America or American politics because of industrialization. But if your argument is that it would have ended substantially earlier even apart from secession because Republicans would have appointed Supreme Court justices that eventually would of overturned Dred Scott which eventually would have... have you ever even told me in your own words what you think would have happened then? But I know you equate prohibiting slavery in the territories with eventual abolition. Apparently you think it would have actually made a difference in how soon slavery would have been abolished in the South even if the South hadn't seceded? Can you quantify that roughly?
But if your argument is true, it would have applied to other places that practiced slavery outside the US, too, right? Like Cuba? Is there any reason to think your argument would have applied any more to the southern states than to Cuba? If not, let's see evidence that the same argument was made in Cuba or other places besides the US. Otherwise, I'm going with what's consistent with what Stephens said in the Cornerstone Speech, what Davis said in his inaugural address, and what Texas said in its declaration of causes:
"We have all the essential elements of a high national career. The idea has been given out at the North, and even in the border States, that we are too small and too weak to maintain a separate nationality. This is a great mistake. In extent of territory we embrace five hundred and sixty-four thousand square miles and upward... With such an area of territory as we have-with such an amount of population-with a climate and soil unsurpassed by any on the face of the earth-with such resources already at our command-with productions which control the commerce of the world-who can entertain any apprehensions as to our ability to succeed, whether others join us or not?" No need to expand expressed there, is there? Quite the opposite.
"An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth. We have entered upon the career of independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued. Through many years of controversy with our late associates, the Northern States, we have vainly endeavored to secure tranquillity, and to obtain respect for the rights to which we were entitled. As a necessity, not a choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separation; and henceforth our energies must be directed to the conduct of our own affairs, and the perpetuity of the Confederacy which we have formed. If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled. But, if this be denied to us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms and invoke the blessings of Providence on a just cause. ... it is not unreasonable to expect that States from which we have recently parted may seek to unite their fortunes with ours under the government which we have instituted. For this your Constitution makes adequate provision; but beyond this, if I mistake not the judgment and will of the people, a reunion with the States from which we have separated is neither practicable nor desirable. To increase the power, develop the resources, and promote the happiness of a confederacy, it is requisite that there should be so much of homogeneity that the welfare of every portion shall be the aim of the whole. Where this does not exist, antagonisms are engendered which must and should result in separation. Actuated solely by the desire to preserve our own rights and promote our own welfare, the separation of the Confederate States has been marked by no aggression upon others and followed by no domestic convulsion." That's quite the contrary of expansion there, too, isn't it?
"The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States." The importance of the territories from the perspective of the southern states was all about "power in the common government," not anything that would affect an independent Confederacy with its own government, i.e. none of the nonsense you're asserting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc > It belongs the the citizens of the United States.
If the Joneses, Johnsons, Smiths, Browns, and Davises all live in the same neighborhood, you could say the neighborhood belonged to those families, and that would be accurate enough, but you're trying to conflate the sum of individual property rights with collective property rights. Just because the neighborhood belongs to the Smiths and Joneses, etc., doesn't mean that the Smiths own anything other than their own house or that they have any claim on the Joneses' house. The South didn't belong to any of the citizens of the North in any sense at all. If you don't know this, then you're even dumber than I imagined. :(
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Their view on secession was no different then that of the Union when their own territory did it."
I know I've shared this Stephens quote somewhere in these comments, but have I not shared it specifically with you yet? Vice President Stephens said in a speech before the Georgia legislature in 1864: "Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty. If, with this great truth ever before them, a majority of her people should prefer despotism to liberty, I would say to her, as to 'a wayward sister, depart in peace.'"
So clearly leaders of the Confederacy were openly advocating a principle that Lincoln and the Republican party (which is to say the leaders of the post-secession Union) obviously were not.
I don't know enough about the details of the history to say, but I assume you're right when you note that there isn't a history in the North or South of respecting the principles of the Declaration of Independence with respect to parts of states -- I think that's unfortunate -- but there's very much a tradition, particularly in the South, of respecting those principles at the state level.
Thomas Jefferson, for example, said in his first inaugural address, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” And fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'”
But although the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence were certainly stronger in the South than in the North, those principles were certainly a part, albeit weaker, of an American tradition that included the North, too. George Bassett, the northern abolitionist, for example, said: “But remember, that when South Carolina falls, she falls not alone. The suicidal hand which strikes down the sovereignty of the people of South Carolina, demolishes that of Massachusetts with it, and the whole fabric of American Liberty falls by the same stroke. Then not one star escapes from the galaxy of free sovereignties, but all are blotted out by this sweeping stroke of despotic usurpation. We are no longer a voluntary confederation of sovereign States, but each and all of us conquered provinces of a centralized and consolidated despotism. We of the North may be voluntary in this subjection, like the more degraded of slaves—yea, we may be the unnatural agents of it; but it is subjection still.”
You said, "... even in their new constitution, they too did not include any right to secession. Making a new constitution would have been the perfect time to write in a right to secession, but they still didn't do it."
That they added "each State acting in its sovereign and independent character" to the preamble is one indication that they respected the sovereignty of each state within the confederacy. "Sovereign and independent" states don't need to depend on other states or the federal government to withdraw from a union, do they?
"The primary purpose of the Confederate constitution was to add in new federal protections for slavery. Other then that, it's almost identical to the American one." It is largely identical to the US constitution, but even despite the very limited differences, there's still clear of evidence of the Confederate States' opposition to overreaching centralized power and crony capitalism:
There's the line from the preamble I just mentioned.
Powers were not "granted" to the federal government, like in the US constitution, but rather "delegated."
The Confederate Constitution added: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole power of impeachment except any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the (State’s) Legislature …”
The president was given line-item veto power in all appropriation bills.
The power to collect tariffs and other taxes was limited to purposes "for revenue necessary" to running the government.
Tariffs to “promote or foster any branch of industry” were specifically disallowed.
"...neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce” except along waterways and harbors.
"...of the several states" was added to the 9th amendment. The 10th amendment was changed from "to the States respectively, or to the people" to "to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.” You might say those are really insignificant little changes, and they are in one sense, but the fact that the Confederacy made such minor changes on those points shows they were points where they wanted to be abundantly clear about those foundational points.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Your legal argument against secession is ridiculous, especially the "perpetual" and "more perfect" part, but before I bother explaining the obvious to you, I'd like to know what difference it would make to you if those words hadn't been in the Articles or the constitution. Would your position change substantially at all? For my part, if I believed your ridiculous argument were sound, it still wouldn't change anything for me, because, like I said before, I don't believe great-grandparents can give any meaningful consent for the government of their great-grandchildren, especially not after the great-grandparents are dead and gone. I don't believe majorities can give their consent for the government of political minorities. And, to add to what I said before, not only do I not believe great-grandparents can give meaningful consent for the government of their great-grandchildren, but I don't believe consent is meaningful if it can't be withdrawn by the same generation.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid To shed a little more light on Jefferson's views on the right of secession, here are a couple more quotes, first from his original draft of the Kentucky Resolutions, and then from a letter to Madison from 1799:
"to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
“I should propose a declaration or Resolution by their legislatures on this plan... determined... to sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, & in which alone we see liberty, safety & happiness.”
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Jefferson didn't call secession "treason against the hopes of mankind." He called the Missouri Compromise, particularly the federal government deciding in which territories slavery would be allowed, the central point of your defense of Lincoln and the Republican party, treason against the hopes of mankind. If that weren't obvious enough from the quote you shared itself, it's certainly made clear by the other Jefferson quotes I shared. As for compelling states to obedience, it makes sense to qualify that with what Jefferson said in that same sentence about how they were bound to that confederation, namely by themselves, not in any collective kind of way. It's foolish to assume that saying, "As long as you're going to be part of this group, the group is going to enforce its membership requirements on the members" means, "If you try to leave the group, we'll kill you." Your reading makes Jefferson wildly inconsistent. My reading makes all of the quotes you and I have shared come together into one coherent position.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid As for the Confederate constitution, it's not my problem that you think something like the incorporation doctrine, which wasn't invented until the 20th century, supposedly on the basis of the 14th amendment, which itself didn't come about until after the WNA, must somehow apply to the Confederate constitution. As I said before, there was nothing in the Confederate constitution to stop states from abolishing slavery or otherwise passing anti-slavery laws except as related to citizens of other states and their slaves.
Do you think the US constitution's 1st amendment, for example, authorized the federal government to oversee and prevent state governments from infringing 1st amendment rights in 1861, too? If not, why do you interpret the part of the Confederate constitution you quoted so differently?
Stating things that the federal government isn't allowed to get involved in is the opposite of "textbook big government in action."
"Wrong, the constitution never said anything about slavery in the federal territories."
Whether the constitution did or didn't is beside the point of anything I've said, specifically that the Supreme Court had already ruled the US constitution did. You can reject the Supreme Court's ruling, but the fact that the Supreme Court had decisively ruled on the matter is unambiguous. If you think there's any ambiguity to the Dred Scott ruling, you'll have to explain what other way there is to understand the court's ruling (that I'm pretty sure I've already quoted to you) that, "the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void..."
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "If they wanted it to only apply to the federal government, they would have said 'congress shall make no law or bill of attainer denying or impairing the right to property in negro slaves'. But they didn't. They didn't mention Congress or anyone else, because they made that prohibition apply to all."
Why, then, after prohibiting ex post facto laws in article 1, section 9 (which you quoted), did the Confederate constitution repeat the prohibition of ex post facto laws in article 1, section 10 when it says, "No State shall... pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law..."? Section 10, which leaves out any prohibition of any law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, applies to the states, because it says, "No states..." and obviously the prohibition on ex post facto laws was repeated there, because the prohibition of ex post facto laws in section 9, like the prohibition of laws abolishing slavery, didn't apply to or limit the individual states.
You ought to quit throwing me these softballs that are so easy to knock out of the park. It's not good for my humility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid You'll have to define your terms for starters. When you say, "Not really a pro-states rights position, is it?" what do you mean by "states rights"? I would define a "pro-states rights position" as a strong 10th amendment position, in other words a position of respecting the rights of states to do everything except those things clearly and specifically prohibited by the constitution. By that definition, nothing in the constitution (other than the legal principle of the 10th amendment, which was implied by the original constitution even before being made explicit by the 10th) makes for a pro- or anti-states rights position"; rather what makes for a pro-states rights position is the degree to which powers not clearly and specifically delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are respected as state powers. So expansive interpretations of federal powers, especially when exercise of those powers interferes with those things states would otherwise do, constitutes an anti-states right position, and strict and narrow interpretations of federal powers, particularly when those powers might interfere with things states would want to do, constitutes a pro-states right position.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid I don't hardly ever think in terms of "states rights." I definitely think about constitutional issues, 10th amendment issues, etc., but I don't think I'd ever be inclined to use the term "states rights" to summarize those issues. So to address your question of whether there was any constitutional principle for which the Confederacy fought which the Confederate constitution contradicted, the answer is no according to the only definition of "states rights" that I could give you... and I can't imagine any other definition of states rights that would make any sense, and you haven't offered another definition.
As to whether there were constitutional issues that led to secession, the declarations of causes make that abundantly clear. South Carolina's declaration of causes is especially clear and succinct with regards to the constitutional issues. Texas, on the other hand, seems to have focused more on the necessary spirit of the constitution, especially the spirit of the union "insuring domestic tranquility." The spirit of insuring domestic tranquility had been sacrificed to such a degree that the northern states were even widely supporting terrorist attacks against random Southerners. So union had come to mean being governed by a political party that was so hostile to the welfare of the southern people that it had supported terrorist attacks against them, all while trashing the letter of the constitution in addition to the spirit of union, and all for the purpose of advancing crony capitalism (as the Georgia declaration makes most clear of the declarations, although a much more in-depth explanation of the North's purposes can be found from the Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner.) Even if secession hadn't been a 10th amendment right -- it irrefutably was, but even if -- what recourse do you think states should have if a majority in Congress and the president simply decide to disregard the constitution in ruling over them? Do you think whoever controls DC should be able to trash the constitution however they please so long as they can maintain control of DC through elections?
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid I agree that the southern states' grievances were mainly directed at the northern states as opposed to the federal government, but it's significant that the Republican party hadn't yet controlled any part of the federal government when South Carolina seceded, so I think it was reasonable to look at what Republicans had done with state power and assume the Republican party would do very comparable things once it gained control in the federal government. The South Carolina declaration, for example, particularly cites two states that had Republican governors for "refus[ing] to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder" in violation of the constitution's extradition clause: "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime."
"The only things South Carolina accuses the federal government of doing are being hostile to slavery (which is of course not unconstitutional, the constitution doesn't mandate feelings) and excluding the South from the common territory..."
The quote above about violation of the constitution's extradition clause with regards to terrorist (by which I particularly mean not targeted but directed very broadly/randomly at the southern population, including even blacks) murderers clearly disproves that assertion.
And with regards to the fugitive slave clause of the constitution, even Lincoln acknowledged that laws had not been passed "to keep good" politicians' "unanimous oath" to the constitution, noting that, "All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision [referring specifically to the fugitive slave clause] as much as to any other."
Those two examples (the extradition clause and the fugitive slave clause) are certainly sufficient to validate what South Carolina said in its declaration: "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."
So I repeated my question to you: Even if secession hadn't been an unconditional 10th amendment right -- it irrefutably was, but even if -- what recourse do you think states should have if a majority in Congress and the president simply decide to disregard the constitution in ruling over them? Do you think whoever controls DC should be able to trash the constitution however they please so long as they can maintain control of DC through elections?
"This wasn't about crony capitalism or constitutional violations by the federal government." That's exactly what it was about, and even prominent abolitionists said so. Your position is, of course, wholly without any basis in history. You can't even explain what you mean, let alone provide historical evidence to back it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "From 1850 to 1860, almost every federal law and supreme court ruling went in favor of the South" And what difference did it make? Laws that were supposed to lead to the return of fugitive slaves weren't enforced (and no other attempt to honor constitutional obligations was made in place of federal laws); Republican governors simply didn't fulfill their constitutional obligations to extradite criminals when they had it in their power to do so; Republicans promised to simply defy the Supreme Court's ruling with regards to slavery in the territories at the federal level... So, yes, what you say is true, but it's an empty point, because the North didn't respect the law or even the Supreme Court. As Georgia's declaration of causes said about the fugitive slave law, "The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union." And with regards to prohibiting slavery in the territories, Georgia's declaration said, "we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor."
So what recourse do you think states should have if other states decide to simply trash the constitution? I can only think of two answers. I think if states don't want to honor the terms of the constitution (e.g. the fugitive slave clause prior to the 13th amendment), then they should secede. If other states are simply going to dishonor their constitutional oaths, then (1) the states on the losing end of that constitutional abuse can implore them to honor their commitment and if those other states still don't act honorably, then the only choices left to them are to declare the contract broken and the union dissolved (at least between them and the offending states) or they could choose to let it slide and continue in union with the dishonorable states; or (2) the other position, which I wouldn't support at all, but it's the only other answer I've heard, is that the federal government could somehow force compliance on the dishonorable states, but even if you think the federal government should use force to settle constitutional disputes between states, what recourse do you think states should have if the dishonorable states have enough power in DC to prevent force from being used against them? What then? Do you think there should be no recourse for the states whose constitutional rights have been abused, unless they can get enough power in DC to be able to use force against the dishonorable states?
I said, "the Republicans never did anything for the sake of any slaves," and you responded with:
"the republican controlled government:
* Banned slavery the federal territories
* Abolished slavery in Washington DC
* Ruled the slaves who escaped from the rebel states to Union lines were free
* Banned the military from returning any escaped slaves."
Do you actually think they did any of those things for the sake of any slaves? What reason do you have to think any of those things were done for the sake of any slaves? And the only one of those things they even said they wanted to do before they were already deep in a war they had launched for reasons (as they themselves declared) that had nothing to do with slavery was the one that directly defied the ruling the Supreme Court had already issued on the subject. And how was that one supposed to help any slaves anyway? Are you asserting that slaves were better off in Mississippi than being taken to Kansas? That's an absurd argument. But the good of any slaves had absolutely nothing to do with the Republicans motivations in that question anyway.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Does the following Lincoln quote not accurately summarize the Republicans' reasons for doing everything they did that happened to benefit any slaves? “Understand, I raise no objections against it [slavery] on legal or constitutional grounds … I view the matter [emancipation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.”
Similarly, the abolitionist Spooner said about the Republicans, "The pretense that the 'abolition of slavery' was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of “maintaining the national honor.” Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before."
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid I think by the time of the DC emancipation act it was no longer possible for Republicans to pretend to be anti-slavery (as opposed to just anti-southern simply because they were anti-anything that stands in the way of crony capitalism) without supporting the emancipation of the slaves in DC, and it was necessary to maintain an anti-slavery position to maintain a minimally credible pretense, particularly in the eyes of England and France, which might very well have given potentially decisive support to the South if it hadn't been for the the South's strong pro-slavery stance and the North's pretenses of being anti-slavery, for the sake of the Republicans' real motivations, namely the advancement of crony capitalism.
In any case, positions which evolved after the war was fully underway are irrelevant to questions of what the war was about. That doesn't apply to the question of slavery in the territories, because that was a position the Republicans took well before Lincoln's call to militarily subjugate the southern states.
There are three main reasons/excuses I see for the Republicans' position on slavery in the territories. #1 is the anti-slavery excuse. The notable things about that excuse is that excluding slavery from the territories would have done nothing for the good of any slaves (who would otherwise be kept in more strongly pro-slavery states) and it promised to do nothing for the good of any slaves. Lincoln could make his typical vague politician remarks about "ultimate course of extinction," but although lots of people didn't realize it at the time, slavery was on the ultimate course of extinction (particularly African slavery in the Americas) already, and there was no reason to think that the federal government excluding slavery from the territories was going to make a bit of difference, particularly not a helpful difference -- it could very well have had the opposite effect -- and I've never seen any evidence (and I bet you haven't either) of Lincoln explaining why he thought it would have made a difference. Do you even have a theory of your own?
#2 is the main reason Lincoln gave, namely white supremacy, wanting to keep black people out of the North altogether, to keep them from ever settling in the first place in states where they hadn't already settled, etc. If you're not familiar with the things Lincoln said of that sort, I can share quotes with you. And, of course, Lincoln's anti-black (disguised as anti-slavery) views were common with lots of Republicans. As much as the North liked to pretend to care about slave owners giving their slaves lashings, Republicans in northern states were pushing for (and in some cases passing) laws that punished black people with lashings for simply trying to live in their states. More free blacks chose to remain in the South than lived in so-called free states.
#3 is the political advantage that getting new states to align with the North offered. That was, of course, the reason that the North and South had been admitting states in pairs, one slave state and one free state at a time, going back to the 1700s with Vermont and Kentucky, well before some of the northern states with small numbers of slaves had even voted to begin the decades long process of gradually abolishing slavery. So the political fight for power in DC which had been a factor relating to slavery since at least the 3/5 compromise obviously remained a major issue in 1860. And Republicans, as was noted in the seceding states declarations of causes, were exploiting the issue for political gain in the pursuit of the crony capitalist motivations which had been at play from the beginning and which dominated the Republican party.
As to fugitive slaves, the constitution said that they "shall be delivered up." You do recognize they weren't being delivered up, don't you? Whether or not you recognize that they weren't, do you think the northern states should have honored that constitutional commitment?
That brings me back to what I asked before. I'll repeat:
So what recourse do you think states should have if other states decide to simply trash the constitution? I can only think of two answers. I think if states don't want to honor the terms of the constitution (e.g. the fugitive slave clause prior to the 13th amendment), then they should secede. If other states are simply going to dishonor their constitutional oaths, then (1) the states on the losing end of that constitutional abuse can implore them to honor their commitment and if those other states still don't act honorably, then the only choices left to them are to declare the contract broken and the union dissolved (at least between them and the offending states) or they could choose to let it slide and continue in union with the dishonorable states; or (2) the other position, which I wouldn't support at all, but it's the only other answer I've heard, is that the federal government could somehow force compliance on the dishonorable states, but even if you think the federal government should use force to settle constitutional disputes between states, what recourse do you think states should have if the dishonorable states have enough power in DC to prevent force from being used against them? What then? Do you think there should be no recourse for the states whose constitutional rights have been abused, unless they can get enough power in DC to be able to use force against the dishonorable states?
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "What makes you think the Republicans were only pretending to be anti-slavery?"
That depends in part on how we define anti-slavery. If by anti-slavery we mean willing to sacrifice their other leading goals to any degree for the sake of trying to accelerate (in some clear and reasonable way) legal changes that would bring about the freedom of slaves, then all the evidence suggests Lincoln and Republicans generally were just pretending to be anti-slavery.
As Lincoln said, "It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause 'shall be delivered up' their oaths are unanimous." And that, of course, is why real abolitionists like Wendell Phillips said, "secession from the present United States Government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the U.S. Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin."
But at the very least, for Lincoln or the Republicans in Congress to have been meaningfully anti-slavery, they would have had to object to the Corwin amendment, but Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress generally supported the Corwin amendment.
The only sense in which Republicans in 1860 were anti-slavery is the sense in which Republicans today are anti-abortion, which is to say that even when Trump was president and Republicans had a majority in both the House and the Senate, not only did they not do anything to criminalize abortion, but they continued even to pass budgets funding Planned Parenthood -- that was as telling as the Corwin amendment, even if it wasn't as dramatic as passing a constitutional amendment. It's not that Republicans are committed to pro-choice principles; it's just that they're happy to fund raise and campaign on the issue of abortion, to stoke division on a wedge social issue for the sake of the political advantages it gives them so that they can use their political power to hand out big military contracts and do whatever else they actually care about. Is there any reason to think Lincoln was any different from today's Republicans in these respects?
I plan to continue responding to your above comment, but I'll post this for now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid The question isn't whether Lincoln was in favor of racial equity or not. The question is why Lincoln wanted the federal government to prohibit the practice of slavery in the territories. It obviously wasn't to free any slaves or prevent anyone else from becoming enslaved, because prohibiting slavery in the territories simply meant that slaves would remain in the slave states. The Lincoln quotes I shared show that Lincoln wanted to prohibit slavery in the territories because he (and lots of other Northerners and Republicans in particular) didn't want blacks, free or slave, in their space. When Lincoln said, "A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together," and that was specifically in reference to what at the time was a US territory, he was explaining a leading reason of his for opposing the "expansion of slavery." White supremacy, not any kind of abolition, was his stated reason for opposing the "expansion of slavery."
But his other reason, of course, was political control. If new states could be aligned economically and culturally with the Northeast/South, then they would be much more likely to vote with the Northeast/South, and this was nothing new. Even before New York had even begun the gradual process of abolition for itself it had been playing political games for control of power in DC, as all the states had in one direction or another. Lincoln was just ready to make a power play (like the Democrats talking of giving DC statehood now -- whatever the reasons for or against making DC a state, it's no coincidence that the political party pushing for DC statehood is the party that would gain politically from it).
So those were the Republicans reasons for opposing the "expansion of slavery": #1 white supremacy, and #2 partisan political advantage (which the Republicans wanted to use for crony capitalist purposes, not anything to do with slavery.)
Did Lincoln oppose slavery morally, etc.? He certainly railed against the evils of slavery in his speeches, but Republicans do the same with abortion today. That serves political purposes. Besides supporting a white supremacist North free of all blacks and seeking political advantages for the Republican party, what did he do, support, or credibly advocate doing prior to secession that related to slavery?
"Or are you taking the position that Republican words and actions against slavery don't matter?"
People have said things against abortion and then bombed abortion clinics. Were those bombers "anti-abortion"? Does it matter that they spoke out and then acted out against a great evil? For a lot of questions, not really. I definitely don't think being anti-abortion is an excuse for murder (or for trashing the rule of law, or for waging a war to deny your neighbors the right to self-government.) Do you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid I said, "So is your position that the war was about slavery because it was about the Confederacy seceding in order to invade Cuba or Mexico or some other place." You responded, in part, "Why is it written into multiple Confederate State declarations of secession?" That's an easy answer: it's not, not even close.
As to the Mosby quote, he didn't say the South seceded in order to invade Cuba or some other place, and it's ridiculous to suggest that's what he meant by "on account of slavery." What's the earliest quote you can find of anyone clearly saying any such thing? I'm guessing not within 100 years of the war.
And people on your side accuse the other side of historical revisionism, ha! With regards to secession and slavery, there's not a thing I'm arguing that wasn't clearly said by abolitionists in the 1860's (and before), and with regards to constitutional issues, my position was clearly set forward by multiple founding fathers but probably best by Thomas Jefferson in his original draft of the Kentucky Resolutions (as well as the Declaration of Independence.) You should just own up to your historical revisionism. Just because no one made your argument until recently doesn't necessarily mean it's false (although, of course, it is.)
"They wouldn't have done anything if some other country invaded Mexico either."
You seem to be recognizing that stopping the Confederacy from being able to invade another country in the future had nothing to do with the North's reasons for refusing to allow the South to secede, and, of course, neither that nor anything else even that indirectly related to slavery did. But my main point was to answer your question of why some Southerners talked about Cuba, etc. Talk of territorial expansion and even going to war at least in part for the sake of territorial expansion were pretty much a constant in American history, from even before American independence from England to long after Lincoln's war to destroy our founding principle of government by the consent of the governed, so it's absurd to explain all such talk in terms of slavery, when slavery mostly had nothing at all to do with it (as with the invasion of Canada in 1812 or the invasion of Cuba long after the end of slavery in the US.) The reasons Southerners talked about Cuba are overwhelmingly the same reasons Americans talked about conquering Canada or Spain's colonies in the Caribbean.
And Cuba, the place that was most talked about by Southerners, already had a large slave population anyway -- Cuba didn't abolish slavery until decades later -- so if the US had gone to war to take Cuba from Spain before the end of slavery in the US it wouldn't have involved any spread of slavery anyway.
"If the Confederate States stayed in the Union, then slavery was doomed."
Slavery was doomed regardless.
"So they seceded and started the war to preserve it. Lincoln said this. The Confederate leaders said this."
Right before the start of the war Lincoln said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." The Union Congress officially declared at the start of the war by a practically unanimous vote, "That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of... nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states..." Jefferson Davis as clearly and simply as possible, "We are not fighting for slavery." There was universal agreement from the leaders on both sides of the conflict on this point, yet you still try to deny it. And you ignore what all sides at the time said in favor of your revisionist Cuba-but-not-really-Cuba theory. You have to outright ignore with no explanation whatsoever what countless Southerners, Northerners, foreigners, abolitionists... said. There's not a single quote from before 1870 you've provided that challenges anything I've said (but I can discuss any of them in more detail if you like.)
You cited:
""It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union..." --Misssissippi declaration
""The prohibition of slavery in the Territories..." Georgia declaration
"...to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States..." Texas declaration
No mention of any foreign country in any of those declarations, is there? Especially not any mention of any foreign country where slavery wasn't already being practiced and wouldn't continue to be practiced for decades longer (i.e. Cuba.) Nor is there any claim in any of the declarations of causes of secession to any of the US territories. The war obviously wasn't about any invasion at all except by the North of the South. Tell me more about your Cuba-but-not-really-Cuba-or-anywhere-else theory!
"They [the states that seceded only after Lincoln's call to destroy the union by military force] chose to join with seven states who were in an active rebellion [sic], for the same reason the first seven states seceded and started [sic] the war: slavery."
So you're saying VA, NC, TN, and AR seceded in order to invade Cuba-but-not-really-Cuba-or-anywhere-else after Lincoln called for the military subjugation of the states that had already seceded even though they had voted to remain in the union prior to Lincoln's call for war? How do you figure Lincoln's war against the self-government of the first seven states made those four states want to invade Cuba-but-not-really-Cuba-or-anywhere-else when they hadn't wanted to before? Lincoln's call to war obviously changed their mind (and by the votes, dramatically so), but you want to pretend that Lincoln suddenly made them want to invade Cuba-but-not-really-Cuba? How ridiculous can you get?
"What they did would be the equivalent of California deciding to secede and join Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor."
Geography lesson for you: Pearl Harbor wasn't (and isn't) in Japan, not in any way, shape, or form.
If Poland decided to withdraw from NATO and then wanted the foreign NATO troops to leave Poland, but the US refused to remove American troops from NATO bases in Poland, and Hungary then left NATO in opposition to the US violation of the NATO treaty and of Poland's rights (and by implication Hungary's own rights), then you would have an equivalent situation.
"The problem with this claim is that it is contradicted by what Lincoln actually said as to why he wanted to ban slavery in the territories:"
I'll repeat what Lincoln actually said about why he wanted to exclude slavery from the territories:
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Everyone that swore an oath to uphold the constitution swore an oath that fugitive slaves "shall be delivered up." Obviously that requires, as Lincoln himself said, "a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath." But the northern states refused to honor the law passed by Congress, refused to allow the courts to settle any of their disagreements with that law -- as the Georgia declaration of causes said about the federal fugitive slave law, "The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions." -- and did nothing (with the temporary exception of New Jersey) on the state level to honor that constitutional obligation. If that's not simply trashing the constitution's fugitive slave clause, what would it take?
Nonetheless, I'll modify my repeated question to appease your BS: What recourse do you think states should have if they believe other states have decided to simply trash the constitution? I can only think of two answers. I think if states don't want to honor the terms of the constitution (e.g. the fugitive slave clause prior to the 13th amendment), then they should secede. If other states are simply going to dishonor their constitutional oaths, then (1) the states on the losing end of that alleged constitutional abuse can implore them to honor their commitment and if those other states still don't act honorably (according to the states making the allegations), then the only choices left to them are to declare the contract broken and the union dissolved (at least between them and the offending states) or they could choose to let it slide and continue in union with the allegedly dishonorable states; or (2) the other position, which I wouldn't support at all, but it's the only other answer I've heard, is that the federal government could somehow force compliance on the allegedly dishonorable states, but even if you think the federal government should use force to settle constitutional disputes between states, what recourse do you think states should have if the allegedly dishonorable states have enough power in DC to prevent force from being used against them? What then? Do you think there should be no recourse for the states whose constitutional rights have been abused, unless they can get enough power in DC to be able to use force against the dishonorable states?
"This shows that the Northern states did not have enough power in DC to prevent the federal government from using force against them."
What force did the courts use against the northern states? As the Georgia declaration said (lengthening the quote I already shared above): "The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union." If the law stood a dead letter -- and you seem to recognize that fact yourself when you list your excuses for why they didn't enforce, excuses that the courts, in any case, hadn't accepted -- force obviously wasn't being used against them to carry the law (or any other means of effecting the constitution's guarantee) into effect, was it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Again, the notion that the South had insufficient control of DC leading up to secession is absurd. Almost every federal court ruling and law from 1850-1860 went in their favor. They got the lopsided compromise of 1850. They got their ridiculously tyrannical fugitive slave law. They got the Dredd Scott verdict. Everything was going their way up until Lincoln was elected."
I think we agree that the federal courts sided strongly with the South, especially in those issues that had time to reach the Supreme Court, throughout the decade leading up to secession. And I think it's fair to say, as you're suggesting, that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, in the words of the Georgia declaration of causes, "provid[ed] for the complete execution of this duty [from the fugitive slave clause of the constitution] by Federal officers." So I'm not disputing that the Fugitive Slave Act, had it been enforced, would have fulfilled the northern states' constitutional duties, but I am asserting precisely what the southern states asserted (which is basically the same thing you're saying) that the Fugitive Slave Act "stands to-day [at the time of Georgia's secession] a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union." You seem to want to deny that it was a dead letter, but at the same time you defend the North's arguments (due process arguments, etc.) for preventing its enforcement, which I can only take as recognition of the fact that it wasn't being fully enforced (which is why I say you seem to be saying the same thing.) But regardless of whether it was or wasn't being enforced in a way that could accurately be described as "everything was going their [the slave states'] way", as you said, the southern states clearly alleged that it was a dead letter, which is to say that it wasn't going their way at all, even though the letter of the by then decade old law was on their side and the Supreme Court had upheld it.
As for your lame excuse for continuing to ignore my question and challenge to you, how can you say that if there's a constitutional dispute over the relevance and proper application of the due process clause, that that trumps consideration of how to resolve constitutional disputes? That's what my question is about: how to resolve constitutional disputes. Whatever parts of the constitution were involved in that dispute are part of my question.
I would repeat my question again, but you can scroll up. Read it again. You don't seem to be saying the Supreme Court agreed with the northern states' assertion of the due process rights of black people in their states, because you've said, "Almost every federal court ruling and law from 1850-1860 went in their favor." So are you saying that you would have decided the cases relating to fugitive slaves differently and that you reject the Supreme Court's rulings? Okay, you can reject the authority of the Supremes as the ultimate arbiters of constitutional disputes -- I do -- but then what? How should constitutional disputes ultimately be resolved? That's my question. That's what you continue to ignore with your lame excuses.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid “However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.” James Madison
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid I don't quote Madison as any sort of authority and definitely not as a founder I hold in high regard, but I agree with what he said in the quote I shared, and it was an answer to your question of whether your assumption that I disagree with your distortion of the Supreme Court ruling in Texas V. White means I also reject their authority.
But, as an aside about Madison personally, I think what Luther Martin, Maryland delegate to the Philadelphia convention said is probably true of Madison: "One party [of the delegates at Philadelphia], whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all state governments, and to bring forward one general government over this extensive continent, of a monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, sir, that there was a considerable number who did not openly avow it, who were, by myself and many others of the Convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment, and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished." That description might not be fully as applicable to Madison as to Hamilton, for example, but even Hamilton said lots of good and true things in the process of "covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."
In any case, the relevance of the Madison quote to our discussion is its content, not its source, and I hope you've recognized that the content is a full and valid answer to your challenge to me.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid And since you've avoided my question and challenge to you so long now that it might be a mild hindrance to scroll up to where I last repeated it (for about the 6th time, not counting the times I pressed you to answer it without repeating it), I'll repeat it again now:
What recourse do you think states should have if they believe other states have decided to simply trash the constitution? I can only think of two answers. I think if states don't want to honor the terms of the constitution, then they should secede. If other states are simply going to dishonor their constitutional oaths (at least according to the allegations of the other states), then (1) the states on the losing end of that alleged constitutional abuse can implore them to honor their commitment and if those other states still don't act honorably (according to the states making the allegations), then the only choices left to them are to declare the contract broken and the union dissolved (at least between them and the offending states) or they could choose to let it slide and continue in union with the allegedly dishonorable states; or (2) the other position, which I wouldn't support at all, but it's the only other answer I've heard, is that the federal government could somehow force compliance on the allegedly dishonorable states, but even if you think the federal government should use force to settle constitutional disputes between states (contradicting the Madison quote I just shared), what recourse do you think states should have if the allegedly dishonorable states have enough power in DC to prevent force from being used against them (sufficient to satisfy the demands of the states alleging constitutional neglect)? What then? Do you think there should be no recourse for the states alleging their constitutional rights have been abused, unless they can get enough power in DC to be able to use force against the dishonorable states?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Yes, in response to your comment that, "Almost every federal court ruling... from 1850-1860 went in their favor," I said, "Including any objections to the fugitive slave law northern states brought to the courts on the basis of due process objections. So why do you continue to pretend that's any excuse for hiding from my repeated question which exposes the BS of your argument?" And then I also said, "You tell me where any northern state sued for the right not to have to abide by the Fugitive Slave Law on the basis of due process objections. Unless they did, and until the courts granted any reprieve on that basis, what do any such objections matter?" Now you say, "As such, I'd like to know which specific case you were referring to. Which one covered due process objections?" But I didn't mean to refer to any particular case. Is the end result not true that, as you said, "Almost every federal court ruling... from 1850-1860 went in their favor"? I'm not aware of any exception relating to the Fugitive Slave Act. Are you? Are you suggesting there was an important exception to the "almost every federal court ruling" generalization you made and which I agreed with? Or what are you suggesting?
For my part, not being aware of any contradictory evidence and in agreement with the generalization you yourself made, I'm trusting what Georgia's declaration of causes said that, "The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its [the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850] constitutionality in all of its provisions." So whether any northern states took any constitutional objections to the Fugitive Slave Act to the federal courts or not, it seems that in any case any such objections weren't upheld by the court. In either case, the Fugitive Slave Act was upheld against whatever legal challenges were brought against it. So what's your point?
1
-
@splinter1psi99 You've been feeding yourself way too much Righteous Cause Myth revisionist history -- you need to read more original documents -- if you think the South needed to, let alone did fight to keep slavery.
Here are a couple quotes from Republican presidents for you:
"Many men have many theories about the struggle that went on from 1861 to 1865. Some say it had for its purpose the abolition of slavery. President Lincoln did not so consider it. There were those in the South who would have been willing to wage war for its continuation, but I very much doubt if the South as a whole could have been persuaded to take up arms for that purpose. There were those in the North who would have been willing to wage war for its abolition, but the North as a whole could not have been persuaded to take up arms for that purpose. President Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his effort was to save the Union, with slavery if he could save it that way; without slavery if he could save it that way. But he would save the Union. The South stood for the principle of the sovereignty of the States. The North stood for the principle of the supremacy of the Union." President Calvin Coolidge
"Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall." Eisenhower
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid If they thought they could have they would have. The fact that they felt the need to come up with new justifications after the fact that are totally absent from the justifications provided when the leaders of the North refused to even negotiate terms for secession and when they first went to war to destroy government by the consent of the governed shows that they felt the need to cover up for their original reasons (and you're doing the same with your dishonest BS, even in your last comment.) But even if I were wrong about their (Grant, etc.) reasons, the fact remains that neither Grant nor anyone else said anything of the sort except as after-the-fact propaganda/historical revisionism. Do you have any stupid excuse for that or are you just going to continue deflecting from that fact?
And I'll repeat another question you've ignored over and over again: What recourse do you think states should have if they believe other states have decided to simply trash the constitution? I can only think of two answers. I think if states don't want to honor the terms of the constitution, then they should secede. If other states are simply going to dishonor their constitutional oaths (at least according to the allegations of the other states), then (1) the states on the losing end of that alleged constitutional abuse can implore them to honor their commitment and if those other states still don't act honorably (according to the states making the allegations), then the only choices left to them are to declare the contract broken and the union dissolved (at least between them and the offending states) or they could choose to let it slide and continue in union with the allegedly dishonorable states; or (2) the other position, which I wouldn't support at all, but it's the only other answer I've heard, is that the federal government could somehow force compliance on the allegedly dishonorable states, but even if you think the federal government should use force to settle constitutional disputes between states (contradicting the Madison quote I just shared), what recourse do you think states should have if the allegedly dishonorable states have enough power in DC to prevent force from being used against them (sufficient to satisfy the demands of the states alleging constitutional neglect)? What then? Do you think there should be no recourse for the states alleging their constitutional rights have been abused, unless they can get enough power in DC to be able to use force against the dishonorable states?
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid You must have missed where I said (emphasis added), "The fact that they felt the need to come up with new justifications after the fact that are totally absent from the justifications provided WHEN THE LEADERS OF THE NORTH REFUSED TO EVEN NEGOTIATE TERMS FOR SECESSION AND WHEN THEY FIRST WENT TO WAR to destroy government by the consent of the governed shows that they felt the need to cover up for their original reasons."
But, actually, I'll take your answer to my question of "Do you have any stupid excuse for that or are you just going to continue deflecting from that fact?" to be that you prefer false propaganda and historical revisionism to facing the historical facts.
And your argument still depends on inventing revisionist definitions (ones not even commonly used today) of "states rights"? Grow up!
Why does the principle of free government "gall" you so (to use your word)? Besides the almost certain fact that you've been financially dependent on the government practically your entire life and you can't even envision any other kind of existence, Tocqueville described your defense of slavery well when he said, "Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain.
By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large."
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid The fact that they felt the need to come up with new justifications after the fact that are totally absent from the justifications provided when the leaders of the North refused to even negotiate terms for secession and WHEN THEY FIRST WENT TO WAR (which wasn't in 1863 either, by the way, even though your quote from 1863 shows that Grant wasn't using the same false pretenses in 1863 as in 1865) to destroy government by the consent of the governed shows that they felt the need to cover up for their original reasons (and you're doing the same with your dishonest BS, even in your last comment, as with the one before.)
And their justifications, as you know but seek to dishonestly distort, were explicitly divorced from any question of slavery (e.g. Crittenden-Johnson resolution), besides the fact that the justifications they did give were completely independent of slavery and would (as with the reasons you give today) apply every bit as much today if any state(s) were to seek to secede today for any reasons over 150 years removed from southern slavery. And, of course, your opposition to government by the consent of the governed today (long, long after early American style slavery is completely gone) is the reason you care so much about the war to end government by the consent of the governed.
Obviously, government by the consent of the governed has never in human history been close to perfect, but you're galled to no end by the very ideal of free government as held up in the Declaration of Independence, principles claimed by the South and denied by the North from the time the first southern state seceded throughout the entire war and still denied by you today.
As the northern abolitionist George Bassett wrote in early 1861: "It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation.
"In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Some kind of nebulous opposition to slavery was used as cover to try to justify the North's cause only later in the war, so yes, it was absolutely a new justification for the war (and false cover even at that, as even multiple northern abolitionists at the time, at least one war-time governor of a northern state, a previous US president from New Hampshire at the time, future US presidents from northern states, foreigners at the time that had been voicing stronger opposition to slavery than Republicans... ) As you full well know but want to hide from, there was nothing about slavery that either side could have conceded that would have avoided the war, and the real reasons for the war, which had nothing to do with slavery, never changed, and I've never seen a shred of evidence to suggest any leader of the Confederacy ever expressed any interest in submitting to DC rule again in exchange for any protections of slavery, nothing about slavery was ever really a point of contention in the war (although, of course, the war had unintended consequences on slavery, similar to the way WWI wasn't at all about monarchy but resulted in the end of monarchy in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria, Hungary...)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid You say, "The proof is that..." What are you referring to? The proof of what? What particular point are you trying to prove? Like I said, if you want to pursue some deflection to your last losing argument, at least tell me what the point is you want to prove.
In any case, Lincoln (nor the US Congress, nor any leading generals...) from the start of the Battle of Fort Sumter in April 1861 to Davis' capture in 1865 (or whatever other dates you want to use to mark the beginning and end of the war) never said he would concede anything to the Confederacy if they did anything about slavery, up to and including immediately freeing all the slaves (which the Union didn't even do with its slaves anytime during the war)... and Davis (nor the Confederate Congress nor the governor of any Confederate state nor any leading general...) at no point from the beginning to the end of the war ever said he would return to the union or otherwise back off the South's fight for independence if the North would recognize anything about slavery. If slavery had been a point of contention in the war, you'd be able to quote leaders of at least one of the two sides saying something like that. You can't.
And not only can you not provide evidence of slavery ever having been a point of contention in the war, but you yourself have been unwilling to recognize anything the South could hypothetically have conceded about slavery that could have gotten you to recognize their right to choose their own government, to independence. So everything about slavery, even every possible hypothetical thing, is totally irrelevant to you when it comes to what the war was about.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Staying in the Union meant the end of slavery." Seceding, even if the North had let the South secede in peace, meant the end of slavery, too, and abolitionists had heavily supported separating from the South precisely because they thought separation would bring about the end of slavery sooner than maintaining the union.
But if you want it in the words of slave state leaders instead of abolitionists, you can have that, too: “...the dissolution of the Union was [speaking hypothetically, i.e. would be] the dissolution of slavery... Just as soon as Mason and Dixon's line and the Ohio river become the boundary between independent nations, slavery ceases in all the border states. How could we retain our slaves, when they, in one hour, one day, or a week at the furthest, could pass the boundary? Sooner or later, this process would extend itself farther and farther south, rendering slave labor so precarious and uncertain that it could not be depended upon; and consequently a slave would become almost worthless; and thus the institution itself would gradually, but certainly, perish... Slavery in the States would fall with the Union.” Congressman Underwood of Kentucky
The simple fact is that the writing was on the wall for slavery, especially African slavery in the Americas, in 1860. And the forces that brought an end to slavery in Cuba and Brazil in the 1880's would have brought an end to slavery in the States, too, and "All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war... or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want." (abolitionist Lysander Spooner)
"To understand how slavery was the point of contention during the war, you need only answer two simple questions
1. If there was no slavery, would there have been a war?
2. If there was no war, would slavery have ended in all the states in December of 1865?"
I could just as absurdly argue:
To understand how monarchy was the point of contention during WWI, you need only answer two simple questions
1. If there was no monarchy, would there have been a war?
2. If there was no war, would monarchy have ended in all the axis states in 1918?
Same stupid argument. It's just an evasive tactic for avoiding the fact that there's nothing at all about slavery that was a point of contention between the Confederacy and the North that you can name.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid That question again that you previously ignored over and over again:
What recourse do you think states should have if they believe other states have decided to simply trash the constitution? I can only think of two answers. I think if states don't want to honor the terms of the constitution, then they should secede. If other states are simply going to dishonor their constitutional oaths (at least according to the allegations of the other states), then (1) the states on the losing end of that alleged constitutional abuse can implore them to honor their commitment and if those other states still don't act honorably (according to the states making the allegations), then the only choices left to them are to declare the contract broken and the union dissolved (at least between them and the offending states) or they could choose to let it slide and continue in union with the allegedly dishonorable states; or (2) the other position, which I wouldn't support at all, but it's the only other answer I've heard, is that the federal government could somehow force compliance on the allegedly dishonorable states, but even if you think the federal government should use force to settle constitutional disputes between states (contradicting the Madison quote I shared), what recourse do you think states should have if the allegedly dishonorable states have enough power in DC to prevent force from being used against them (sufficient to satisfy the demands of the states alleging constitutional neglect)? What then? Do you think there should be no recourse for the states alleging their constitutional rights have been abused, unless they can get enough power in DC to be able to use force against the dishonorable states?
Do you think majorities in DC (even if because of electoral college rules and such things they don't even represent a majority of the electorate, not even to the very limited extent that politicians do actually represent their voters) should have any effective checks on their abuse of the constitution? Or should a majority in DC be able to disregard he constitution with impunity, so long as it can maintain a majority in DC?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc "then any state could leave at any time"
Like the EU, yes.
"In many states the party seeking divorce has to show cause"
And to whom would you have states "show cause"?
Thomas Jefferson: "the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress."
"But in no state can you divorce someone simply by moving out and taking the family property with you."
In no state can you physically beat your partner into submission under any circumstances whatsoever. In no state can you garnish your spouse's wages if your spouse has separated from you, even if divorce papers haven't been filed or finalized.
But I wasn't trying to particularly make an analogy to marriage, although someone that believes in physically beating his non-marital partners into submission should his partners try to leave him might very well try to justify the same should his wife try to leave him.
As for the "family property," a separation of states is made much simpler by the fact that the states have always maintained their separate "houses." South Carolinians never moved in with Massachusettsans (or if they did they became Massachusettsans and vice versa), so if they want to separate, no one has to move out, and "family property" is divided between the separate homes already. And the South was very willing to negotiate an equitable distribution of the "family" assets and liabilities, but those details had nothing to do with why the North beat the South into submission. The North fought on the very simple principle that states had no right to leave and that the North had the right to judge all by itself (or simply ignore) any breach of contract and beat any state that tried to leave into submission.
One northern abolitionist said shortly before the start of the war:
"It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation.
"In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?"
Yes, it is.
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc "But in the real world, the United States is one country."
In the real world today, post-War of Northern Aggression, yes, the states have been subjugated and there are no constitutional limits on the federal government.
As one northern abolitionist said as the North was considering going to war, "But remember, that when South Carolina falls, she falls not alone. The suicidal hand which strikes down the sovereignty of the people of South Carolina, demolishes that of Massachusetts with it, and the whole fabric of American Liberty falls by the same stroke. Then not one star escapes from the galaxy of free sovereignties, but all are blotted out by this sweeping stroke of despotic usurpation. We are no longer a voluntary confederation of sovereign States, but each and all of us conquered provinces of a centralized and consolidated despotism. We of the North may be voluntary in this subjection, like the more degraded of slaves—yea, we may be the unnatural agents of it; but it is subjection still."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc That came later, but yes, they formed a union, but as Thomas Jefferson said, they were "not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style & title of a Constitution for the US. and of Amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are unauthoritative, void, & of no force. that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, it’s co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress."
1
-
1
-
But you can keep your slaves if you don't try to leave, so tell me again what the war was really about.
“If Northerners... had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg... Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” London Times, September 13, 1862
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@woodrowcall3158 > the confederacy wasn’t some innocent house wife
By all means, yes, please, fill in the important details that you think justify a man physically beating a woman in order to deny her right to split up with him and maintain a relationship! Tell me the circumstances which you think justify maintaining a union on the basis of anything other than continued voluntary consent!
Yes, the woman wasn't morally pure/sinless, that's for sure. So is your point that if your girlfriend does things that are immoral, that that gives you the right to physically beat her back into a relationship if she decides to split up with you? Keep in mind, the evil things your girlfriend was doing weren't against the law at the time and she had been doing these things since before you formed your relationship -- in fact you had been doing the same things yourself (just not to the extent she was) when you first formed your relationship, and you hadn't altogether quit doing them yourself at the point you denied her right to split up with you.
If after entering your relationship you come to decide that the things your girlfriend is continuing to do are morally intolerable and you have no realistic hope of getting a law passed to make those things illegal -- and if the law, in fact, requires you to help your girlfriend do the immoral things she's doing so long as you're in a relationship with her (most notably, the fugitive slave clause), shouldn't you want to let her break up with you? Shouldn't you actually break up with her? But instead you feel justified in using violence and threats of violence to maintain that relationship, all while your president declares that he will "cheerfully" uphold "this provision [the legal requirement to help your girlfriend do the immoral things she's doing] as much as to any other"?
> our collective resources
> my weapons... my forts
Why are the weapons and forts "yours" but the resources used to unjustly subjugate people "collective resources"? Weren't those weapons and forts which, after all, were on her property in her house? (Although you and your "wife" had formed a relationship, you had never cohabited, but had continued to live in separate houses on separate properties.) If you had felt that an unfair share of the weapons and forts built with your collective resources had wound up on your wife's property you could have sought different divorce terms, but you denied your wife's right to any share at all of the forts built with your collective resources, and refused even to sell those weapons and forts to your "wife," and instead you insisted on maintaining your own armed forces in your wife's house and maintaining control over the entrance to your wife's house after she told you she was done with the relationship. This is the model of union you're defending, isn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ricj101 "This is like arguing: "Hey the bank robber wasnt actually ROBBING the bank... If the people who deposited their money at the bank simply let him walk away with their money, there would be no crime! How DARE those depositors demand their money not be stolen! They're the REAL criminals.""
Except that the "bank robbers" weren't robber at all but rather just depositors seeking to withdraw their own money from the bank.
As one abolitionist, Josiah Warren, said at the time, "...the advocates of "unbroken Union" abruptly refuse to negotiate with the receding party (who offer compensation for what they must take with them), thereby finally denying their right to become a separate party, and pronouncing the final word that the Union recognizes no two parties who can negotiate with each other; which is equivalent to saying that the political Union (or clanship) is more sacred than persons, or property, or freedom, or any other inalienable human right. Thus completely destroying the last vestige of union between the parties, and forcing both into hostile attitudes, and both prepare to destroy each other."
Or as another northern abolitionist, George Bassett, said, "It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation.
"In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
""The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some of Lincoln's words ring true today: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
Or conversely, as one abolitionist wrote in The Liberator on the eve of the war, forcible reunion would mean the “abandonment of our claim to be a government of the people.... The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc Yes, he said he hated slavery. I never said anything to the contrary.
But you said, "that he personally wishes he could end slavery" That is a complete lie, and that's what I said is a complete lie. He said no such thing. He didn't express any wish to personally do anything about slavery. He simply wished that "all men every where" (which is to say slaves in South Carolina, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Siam...) could be free. But he expressed no more wish to "personally... end slavery" in South Carolina than he did in Saudi Arabia, which is to say he expressed no such wish at all.
And he explicitly described it as "no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish," so it was the complete opposite of a change in position. He wasn't expressing any position that he hadn't expressed repeatedly over multiple years. There's absolutely no reason to interpret that statement as in any way inconsistent with his statement from March of 1861 (that was also a repetition of what he had said before) that he had "no purpose," not even an "inclination," "to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists," not directly and not even "indirectly."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@youareliedtobythemedia Ukraine's pre-war birth rate was almost as low as Vatican City, the lowest of any country in the world. Russia's is very low, but still close to double Ukraine's. Likewise, the population of Russia and Ukraine both dropped between the break-up of the USSR and 2014, but in percentage terms Ukraine lost nearly twice as many people as Russia in that time. And then a significant percentage of the people that have fled Ukraine since 2022 are now living in Russia. Ukraine's dire population issues are the reason that Ukraine is conscripting men over 40 but not "normal" fighting age men of 18-27. Yes, the pre-Russian invasion population of Ukraine was greater than post-WWII, but with all of the young women and children that fled since 2022 Ukraine's population now (even if you're not just looking at the parts of pre-2014 Ukraine that are currently under Ukrainian control) might be about as low as 1945, but the big difference between 1945 and today is that the Ukrainian population in 2021 was extremely heavy on old people. In 2021, there were more than twice as many 60 year old Ukrainian women as 18 year old women (or men), and, of course, it's overwhelmingly younger women and children that have left since then, dramatically exacerbating that problem even further, and many of those young women and children are never going to return for the same reasons so many were leaving even before 2014, and there will be even more reasons not to return after the war is over. You're not going to rebuild a country with 60+ year old women and disabled veterans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because the federal government had the power to declare war and make treaties the states didn't have the right to secede??? What???
James Madison: "The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wcg19891 1. I think Madison was being intentionally ambiguous as to how states should act so as not to be provocative or escalatory, but (1) if Madison had been talking about a convention of states, why wouldn't he have said so? He would have. And (2) it would be completely absurd to suggest that the way to check the federal representatives of a majority of the states from abusing their constitutional authority is for a super majority of state legislatures to take action, especially when prior to the 17th amendment the state legislatures were directly selecting the representatives in the chamber where each state had equal representation (as with calling a convention of states and ratifying amendments.) In other words, it's ridiculous to suggest that a super-majority is the appropriate check on constitutional abuses by the majority.
And perhaps Thomas Jefferson was more clear on more or less the same point: "That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
But in any case, you won't find any of the framers in the recordings of the Philadelphia convention or any of the proponents of the constitution in the ratification debates, neither in the recorded speeches at the ratification conventions nor in the public debates (including the Federalist Papers, etc.) saying that secession was being prohibited by the constitution.
If the constitution had really been meant to forbid the process by which the constitution itself was being established -- an arbitrary number of states on their own sovereign authority discarding the existing central government and establishing a new government for themselves, not necessarily (and not in actual practice) including all the other states -- then it would have been explicitly noted. It's absurd to suggest that was merely implied (not that it would have superseded the inalienable rights laid out in the Declaration of Independence even that legal principle had been explicitly asserted and legally ratified, but my point here is that you don't so much as have a valid legal argument against secession.)
1
-
1
-
@wcg19891 > he understood that such wasn’t to be done lightly or for transient causes but only when a long train of abuses and usurpations had forced such
Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence made it clear that people had every right to declare independence "whenever... [it] to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." And rights are no less rights, no less inalienable, whether they're exercised prudently or imprudently.
> when you have a precedent of doing it by a higher moral standard as laid out by Jefferson who knew he was committing treason against Great Britain
The North waged war both against the constitution and against that higher standard. As the abolitionist George Bassett said in early 1861, "In this unnatural attempt to subdue the seceding States and literally put them under tribute, your most formidable enemy will be... the great principles of popular liberty which you challenge to mortal combat. You will war against the principle of your own immortal Revolution, viz.: the right of any people to choose their own government."
And as James Madison said in 1793, "If there be a principle that ought not to be questioned within the United States, it is, that every nation has a right to abolish an old government and establish a new one. This principle is not only recorded in every public archive, written in every American heart, and sealed with the blood of a host of American martyrs; but is the only lawful tenure by which the United States hold their existence as a nation."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Votrae > generally countries aren't into losing land.
Indeed, as the abolitionist Joshua Blanchard wrote in The Liberator in March of 1861, "The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
> the North receiving escaped Southern slaves, combined with the limitation on new slavery territories during the expansion West.
Yes, the North refusing to abide by the constitution or the constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court was a big part of why the first wave of southern states seceded, but the war unambiguously wasn't fought to force the northern states to fulfill their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slave or to guarantee the rights of slaveholders in Kansas or any of the other formerly disputed territories.
Like I said to start with there wasn't anything either side fought (as in waged war) to get the other side to do or concede with regards to slavery, and you still haven't thought of anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Is your argument really so weak that you have to make what can only be an intentionally dishonest argument and pretend that the bloodiest war in American history didn't in any way alter the trajectory of anything else? Apparently so.
As one famous abolitionist said after the war, "And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before."
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Whatever reason the Union got rid of slavery is beside the point. The point is they got rid of it..."
Firstly, the Union, as distinct from the Confederacy, didn't get rid of it. That Union (as in the states that fought on the side of the Union) could have gotten rid of slavery, but they never did. Like you said, "It wasn't the EP that abolished slavery in America, it was the 13th amendment, which wasn't a war measure." And the 13th amendment was only ratified because multiple former Confederate states voted for it.
Secondly, the reason the United States got rid of slavery isn't beside the point. But you're going to go on pretending that the War of Northern Aggression didn't alter the trajectory of abolition, even while you play word games saying, did "I ever at any time claimed the Civil War didn't alter the trajectory of anything else? Of course I never said any such thing, so you had to make it up out of thin air." And yet you continue making your arguments that depend on the assumption that the War of Northern Aggression didn't alter the trajectory of anything else.
"apparently not famous enough for you to know his name"
After all this time are you still so ignorant of what the most famous abolitionists had to say that you can't recognize that quote? Others might not know, but I surely shouldn't have to name him for your sake, not unless you're willfully ignorant.
1
-
What a horrible neocon perversion of conservative values!
"If America could be, once again, a nation of self-reliant farmers, craftsmen, hunters, ranchers, and artists, then the rich would have little power to dominate others. Neither to serve nor to rule: That was the American dream." Edward Abbey
“Human rights are a fine thing, but how can we make ourselves sure that our rights do not expand at the expense of the rights of others? A society with unlimited rights is incapable of standing to adversity. If we do not wish to be ruled by a coercive authority, then each of us must rein himself in... A stable society is achieved not by balancing opposing forces but by conscious self-limitation: by the principle that we are always duty-bound to defer to the sense of moral justice.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
"capitalism against communism...If one must spend one's life as an employee, what difference does it make whether one's employer is a government or a corporation?" Wendell Berry
"...The majority are left with only their two poor values of personal peace and affluence.
With such values, will men stand for their liberties? Will they not give up their liberties step by step, inch by inch, as long as their personal peace and prosperity is sustained and not challenged, and as long as the goods are delivered?"
Francis Schaeffer
"A low-energy policy allows for a wide choice of life-styles and cultures. If, on the other hand, a society opts for high energy consumption, its social relations must be dictated by technocracy and will be equally degrading whether labeled capitalist or socialist." -Ivan Illich
"Curiously, only in sports do we agree to eschew technological advances, making rules, for example, to limit the power potential of baseball bats. We understand that technology will ruin our games, but we do not understand that it can also ruin cultures." Gene Logsdon
"I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural... When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe."
Thomas Jefferson Dec 20, 1787 letter to Madison
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm The EU (like the US until the Republicans upended our whole system of government in the mid-19th century) exists because the member states choose to be a part of the EU, and if and when they want to leave (like the UK) they can. The fact that participation in the EU requires certain things so long as they choose to be part of the EU doesn't mean the member states haven't retained their sovereignty. That's the same as the US under the Articles of Confederation which said, "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." And it's the same as the Confederate constitution which clarified in its preamble, "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronpaulhatesblacks4192 Obviously you're the one that's never read them, because they do. But as was said in the Richmond Examiner in 1864, "Yet neither tariffs nor slavery, nor both together, could ever have been truly called the cause of the secession and the war. We refuse to accept for a cause any thing… than that truly announced, namely, the sovereign independence of our States. This, indeed, includes both those minor questions, as well as many others yet graver and higher. It includes full power to regulate our trade for our own profit, and also complete jurisdiction over our own social and domestic institutions; but it further involves all the nobler attributes of national, and even of individual life and character."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid The southern states were willing to accept an anti-slavery president, one who won the election legitimately (albeit with the lowest percentage of the popular vote -- less than 40% -- of any president from George Washington to Biden to win an outright majority in the electoral college), so long as that president and his party weren't seeking to turn the constitutionally limited republic that respected the constitutionally protected rights of political minorities into a democracy in which the "majority" (such as it was) could do whatever it wanted, disregarding whatever parts of the constitution it wanted to disregard.
As the Georgia declaration of causes of secession said, "The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract..."
South Carolina summarized what the would-be results of Republicans taking control of the executive branch by saying, "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." (And, of course, history proved them right on every point: the guaranties of the constitution no longer exist today (and haven't since the first Republican administration), the right of self-government that once made America exceptional is now dead, etc.)
Texas said in its declaration of causes: "They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights."
So it's undeniable that the southern states seceded over multiple allegations of constitutional violations (which they alone had the right to judge for themselves -- as James Madison said, "...there can be no tribunal, above their [the states'] authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated...")
An anti-slavery president needn't have sought to destroy the guaranties of the constitution, needn't have destroyed the equal rights of the states, needn't have destroyed the right of self-government, needn't have been the enemy of the slaveholding states...
An anti-slavery administration that hadn't done those things the southern states could have accepted (not that they were under any obligation to accept any administration if another form of government seemed to them more likely to effect their safety and happiness.)
But, in any case, the fact remains that the southern states fought for their right to self-government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why the North fought that war?
Official Union declaration: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
Lincoln: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union [like a man beating his girlfriend is "saving the union" -- violently subjugating your partners is actually the destruction of union, because it's waging war against voluntary consent, which is what makes a union a union], and is not either to save or to destroy slavery... What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zenever0 But the war, in any case, was clearly all about control, about putting an end to "the Jeffersonian idea, that 'the best government is that which governs least," as Republicans proudly celebrated at the close of the war.
Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner: "And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” That they have “Saved the Country!” ...
"The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ...in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. ...
"This, too, they call “Preserving our Glorious Union”; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc What they said in their own words? From Jefferson Davis' inaugural address, emphasis added: "...I enter upon the duties of the office to which I have been chosen with the hope that the beginning of our career as a Confederacy may not be obstructed by hostile opposition to our enjoyment of the SEPARATE EXISTENCE AND INDEPENDENCE which we have asserted, and, with the blessing of Providence, intend to maintain. Our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations, illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established."
Which, of course, is the exact opposite of what the North said it was fighting for, namely subjugating the southern states in order to deny them their independence, which the North's leaders absurdly called "preserving the union," as if you could "preserve the union" with your girlfriend by beating her into submission, but in any case, it was the opposite of the independence for which the South was fighting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ultimaterankings1154 > I will correct it to say "nowhere in their writings did they say that they are seceding because of the tariffs
But part of your original claim was "the constitution of the confederacy make[s] no mention of tariffs being the reason that they were seceding" and you suggested that was somehow proof that the South's cause in the war was slavery. Nowhere in the Confederate constitution did they say "We're seceding for [any reason at all]," (let alone "we're fighting this war for...") but you seem to think it still somehow proves what the war was about. So you're employing a double standard. Either differences between the US constitution and the Confederate constitution prove what the war was about even though there's no "we're seceding for..." or "we're fighting this war for..." statement in them or they don't. You can't say an additional mention of slavery in the Confederate constitution proves the war was about slavery but an additional clause prohibiting protective tariffs proves nothing about the war.
> a war that they fought to keep slavery
How do you figure the war was fought to keep slavery? Do you have any explanation or proof for this theory?
Why don't you accept exactly what BOTH sides directly said the war was about from the very beginning (as opposed to this indirect and convoluted and ultimately inexplicable myth based on documents that don't even mention the war), namely purely independence and self-government for the southern states versus the precise counterpart that the North euphemistically called "preserving the Union" (as if any union could be preserved by forcibly subjugating the partners of the union or as if any true union could exist on the basis of anything other than voluntary consent)?
Official, nearly unanimous declaration of US Congress: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
Jefferson Davis, April 29, 1861: "we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind [with regards to slavery or anything else] from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone"
> As for states rights, the Fugitive Slave Act took away the North's state rights
What states right do you think the Fugitive Slave Act took away? You do know the constitution expressly obligated the northern states to "deliver up" fugitive slaves, right?
> The South obviously seceded to keep slavery and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.
"[S]eceded to keep slavery" as if the northern states had been on the verge of amending the constitution to abolish slavery and the southern states seceded to avoid that amendment applying to them? You know there's no historical basis for that myth, right? And it's complete nonsense to say the southern states seceded to keep something when seceding did nothing to prevent any threat that remaining in the union posed. Sure, the southern states wanted to "keep" slavery in 1861 (as they did when they fought for their independence the first time in 1776 and as did states like Kentucky that fought on the side of the union and even at the end of the war still voted against ratifying the 13th amendment), but if the southern states actually "seceded to keep slavery" tell me what threat remaining in the union posed to the southern states' desire to "keep slavery."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cornerstone speech: "...notwithstanding their [Republicans'] professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave."
Cornerstone speech: "This new constitution. or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark: it amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.
"Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AJ213Probably Sure, cops might do what they are told to avoid risks to their lives and families (although seeing where things are at or where they're going and choosing not to become a cop or choosing to quit and find another job in order to avoid those difficult situations is almost always an option, even if the other options available to them might earn them significantly less money), but the question isn't whether cops would follow orders or not. The question is whether you'd call them "good cops" if they did. And, next closely related question, if you'll ever answer the first one, is whether you'll excuse anything any cop does, continue calling them "good cops" so long as they're following orders.
As for the role of police as it relates to communism, you should read Solzhenitsyn, particularly the first section or two of the Gulag Archipelago where he discusses how police arrested people for no good reasons, but for just a one-liner, you could search for his famous quote beginning, "What would things have been like if during periods of mass arrests..." I'm not advocating Solzhenitsyn's position, but certainly it's clear what side the police were on. If you want a police state, it's the police that are going to do the real work of getting you there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
> Everyone, including a conservative like me, knows the states don’t have rights to restrict our human rights: including speech, tyranny defense, search and seizure, voting, etc. and certainly not being treated like cattle.
Legally speaking, under the constitution, prior to the incorporation doctrine, which wasn't invented until the 20th century and which was supposedly based on the 14th amendment which wasn't even a part of the constitution until after the war, states most certainly had the right to restrict speech, search and seizure, voting, etc.
What kind of conservative believes the 10th amendment should mean absolutely nothing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jukebot22 Lincoln, 1861, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Also Lincoln, 1861, "a proposed amendment to the Constitution... has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
Official Union declaration passed by a nearly unanimous vote through both chambers of Congress, July 1861, "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
1
-
1
-
1
-
@boneyards4369 How about an example that wasn't any sort of secession movement? I can't think of any bloody revolutions in the Old Testament. What am I forgetting? Certainly there were assassinations, coups... that sort of thing, but I wouldn't call those revolutions. All the examples of bloody revolutions I can think of didn't really help: the French Revolution, the 1848 revolutions, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, the Cuban Revolution, the Iranian Revolution... The English Revolution maybe wasn't as bad as those others. Would you put it clearly in the "helped" column? I don't know hardly anything about Mexican, Central American, South American, or African revolutions, of which it seems like there have been a lot in the last couple hundred years, but I have the vague impression that most of those revolutions didn't do a whole lot for any of those countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rundstedt1 You keep repeating the same quote saying that a constitutional amendment (the only constitutionally legitimate way the federal government could have abolished slavery in the slave states) was the threat posed to slavery, as if you believe that. Now you say Missouri and Maryland voted for the 13th amendment, as if that would have happened apart from the war and all of Lincoln's violations of civil liberties in the North, etc. But even if Missouri and Maryland had been on the verge of abolishing slavery and voting for the 13th amendment apart from the war -- nonsense, but even if -- there still wouldn't be enough states, even today in 2021, even counting West Virginia, which presumably wouldn't have become a separate state, even counting Oklahoma which was already firmly on the side of slavery... to ratify the 13th amendment without the support of the other slave states (besides Maryland and Missouri.)
You can keep spouting your nonsense about the Republicans "putting slavery on its path to its ultimate extinction" but until you can explain how they were going to do that, all that's left to your argument is your baseless faith that Yankees, even as they voted for the Corwin amendment irrevocably protecting slavery from federal interference, even as Lincoln raised no objections to its ratification, noting that it wouldn't have really changed anything anyway, were intrinsically holy and therefore deserved to rule over the deplorable South because of what they would one day in some inexplicable way do for the slaves. Not much has changed, has it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jeffrey-hu2gb > the failed articles of confederation
They didn't fail. As Patrick Henry said in the ratification debates on the constitution, "Consider our situation, sir: go to the poor man, and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig—tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society, — you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances." If you want to see a failure look to the war that resulted from the constitution. That's a failure.
> the confederate government also did similar things in what Lincoln did that were deemed unconstitutional
Every government does things that will be deemed unconstitutional, but the difference is what happens when the people of a whole state deem the constitutional compact broken. As Thomas Jefferson said, " the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." Those are the foundations of freedom that Lincoln led the North in destroying (and if you want to blame Buchanan for starting the North down the path, that's fine by me.)
1
-
1
-
@Jeffrey-hu2gb Did you not see my previous comment. Your response seems to suggest you didn't.
Here it is again:
> the failed articles of confederation
They didn't fail. As Patrick Henry said in the ratification debates on the constitution, "Consider our situation, sir: go to the poor man, and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig—tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society, — you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances." If you want to see a failure look to the war that resulted from the constitution. That's a failure.
> the confederate government also did similar things in what Lincoln did that were deemed unconstitutional
Every government does things that will be deemed unconstitutional, but the difference is what happens when the people of a whole state deem the constitutional compact broken. As Thomas Jefferson said, " the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." Those are the foundations of freedom that Lincoln led the North in destroying (and if you want to blame Buchanan for starting the North down the path, that's fine by me.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "The fact of the matter is Benning, Brown and the other Confederate leaders did full well believe what they said, and they were 100% right. As more and more free states were added to the Union, the slave states would face increasing pressure to abolish slavery..."
Obviously you don't believe what they said would happen would have happened either, because that's not what Brown said.
Politicians exaggerate the significance and consequences of their opponents' actions all the time. What are you saying? That politicians never exaggerate, particularly when talking about their political adversaries? Politicians from very Democratic states right now are talking about the draft Supreme Court opinion being a threat to abortion rights in their states.
And what Benning said in the quote you just shared was more or less true. If the North had respected the constitution, not supported anti-Southern terrorism, and generally been a good and upright neighbor, anti-slavery would have spread, probably one state at a time, and then altogether at the end, much like it did in Brazil. And the same thing would basically have happened if the North had peacefully negotiated secession. What are you pretending? That slavery would have lasted forever in the South if the North had negotiated a peaceful secession?
"Just 5 Union states ever ratified it..."
How many Union states ratified it had nothing to do with my point. But your argument for why northern states wouldn't have ratified it is absurdly dishonest. You obviously can't make an honest argument. You don't seem like a straight up liar, which means it's amazingly pathetic what you force yourself to believe for the sake of worshiping your god, DC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "you seem to deny what he said about slavery being "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution," and the Confederacy being the first government in the history of the world founded specifically for preserving slavery."
Of course, I deny it, because that's not what he said. He didn't say slavery was the cause. He said constitutional disputes and the agitations that arose from them were the cause. And it's flat earth, Holocaust denying crazy and 1984 level dishonest to suggest that Stephens was talking about a constitutionally legitimate threat of abolition as the cause of secession. And he didn't say anything about "preserving slavery" either. That's nothing but revisionist propaganda.
"Stephens have personally believe that, but he was soon proven spectacularly wrong."
Wrong? He said slavery would be more secure if the southern states remained in the Union. They seceded and slavery was abolished sooner than anyone imagined it would have been if the southern states hadn't seceded. Wrong?
"And no, Benning and Brown's state didn't deny slavery was their reason for secession."
What are you even talking about? What does it even mean for slavery to be a reason for secession? What precisely would you have expected them to deny? If one section of a union proves to another section of the union that it's going to trash the rule of law, and economically exploit the other section, and support murderous terrorism against them because they hate them, doing so under anti-slavery pretenses and claiming the political and economic advantages to their section are insignificant, would you summarize all that as "slavery"? If you're willing to be that dishonestly and misleadingly vague, then the problem isn't precisely that you're wrong but that you're being dishonestly and misleadingly vague.
"they refused to accept the Union plan to ban on its expansion."
They believed the constitution guaranteed that right, and the Supreme Court had already decisively ruled on the question, confirming their belief. What else might they have done, given the beliefs they held? Do you have a point?
"their causes of complaint were 'in reference to the subject of African slavery'"
So what? Is trashing the constitution justified if it's "in reference to" slavery? Is murderous terrorism justified if it's "in reference to" slavery? Is economic exploitation justified if it's "in reference"? Ending government by the consent of the governed? Hugely destructive and deadly wars of subjugation?
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "He said of slavery: 'This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.'"
No, he didn't. That's a lie.
"The cause of the Confederacy..."
That's just a BS propaganda framework. What's the "cause" of the United States today? What are you trying to say? That the Confederacy stood for one thing and one thing only? Of course, that's exactly how ridiculous your argument is. And the "cause" that's really significant is the cause that the North was challenging, namely the southern states' self-govermment. Lincoln himself said whatever he did about slavery was all about denying the southern states their right to choose their own government.
"He said the Union wanted to keep Texas to benefit from its slavery"
Republicans were absolutely "disinclined" as Stephens said to give up the benefits of slavery, but that certainly doesn't mean they were inclined to let the southern states secede in peace, and after a couple years of extremely costly war with successful subjugation still uncertain, they were willing to let go of some things they had been disinclined to give up. As one Massachusetts abolitionist explained, "They had been such accomplices for a purely pecuniary consideration, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money, were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slave-holders in the future, for the same pecuniary considerations. But the slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future – that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South – that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These – and not any love of liberty or justice – were the motives on which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may."
Do you have any reason at all to doubt what Spooner said?
"The point is George's motivation for secession was based around a desire to preserve and expand slavery."
Except, as even Lincoln said, secession didn't "preserve" slavery against the leading grievances of the southern states (fugitive slaves not being returned from northern states and others). Nor was there any expansion involved in or even promised by secession. So your argument is complete BS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm What do you think slavery in the territories had to do with the war? The only way you're going to win your battle is to hide behind misleading phrases that you never explain. The fact remains that the war was in no way over the territories. You're not denying that fact are you? You're just trying to hide from that fact, right? (If you were actually denying it, then your argument would depend on explaining how anything about the territories, let alone anything about slavery in the territories, was at stake in refusing the southern states the right to secede.)
If you had a real argument, you'd respond to what I actually said and dispute the truth of what I said in my last comment to you, but of course, there's no disputing the truth of anything I said.
And, no, the 1860 presidential election wasn't "about slavery in the territories," not in any other sense than what I said in my last comment to you (and none of the preceding events contradict anything I've said either.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc Indeed they do. But all you can do is take things they said that weren't about the war and distort them into an inexplicable myth of what was at stake in the war.
1864 Richmond Examiner editorial:
"Mr. [Jefferson] Davis... is reported... to have said, 'We are not fighting for slavery; we are fighting for independence.' This is true; and is a truth that has not sufficiently been dwelt upon. ...our enemies have diligently labored to make all mankind believe that the people of these States have set up a pretended State sovereignty, and based themselves upon that ostensibly, while their real object has been only to preserve to themselves the property in so many negroes, worth so many millions of dollars. The direct reverse is the truth. The question of slavery is only one of the minor issues; and the cause of the war, the whole cause, on our part, is the maintenance of the sovereign independence of these States.…
The whole cause of our resistance was and is, the pretension and full determination of the Northern States to use their preponderance in the Federal representation, in order to govern the Southern States for their profit. . Slavery was the immediate occasion–carefully made so by them–it was not the cause. The tariff… would have much more accurately represented, though it did not cover, or exhaust, the real cause of the quarrel. Yet neither tariffs nor slavery, nor both together, could ever have been truly called the cause of the secession and the war. We refuse to accept for a cause any thing… than that truly announced, namely, the sovereign independence of our States. This, indeed, includes both those minor questions, as well as many others yet graver and higher. It includes full power to regulate our trade for our own profit, and also complete jurisdiction over our own social and domestic institutions; but it further involves all the nobler attributes of national, and even of individual life and character.
...
It is right to let foreign nations, and 'those whom it may concern,' understand this theory of our independence. Let them understand that, though we are 'not fighting for slavery,' we will not allow ourselves to be dictated to in regard to slavery or any other of our internal affairs, not because thatwould diminish our interest in any property, but because it touches our independence."
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc "When you are talking about causes of events you believe..."
Did I say anything about "causes"? Quote me, if I did. I did speak about what the war was about, what was at stake in the war, a subject your propaganda distortions obviously depend on avoiding.
As for the declaration you've quoted, that obviously wasn't the cause of the war, because AFTER that declaration was published, Lincoln said, "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." The war hadn't started at that point, and whatever irreconcilable differences remained at that point had nothing to do with slavery. If they did, you could explain how, but as always, your position consists of inexplicable propaganda myths but never an intelligible understanding of history.
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc I'm not quoting other things Lincoln said that aren't relevant precisely because they're not relevant to what the war was about, and that includes his comments about disputes within the union. When Lincoln said, "beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no [war]" was he referring to anything at all having to do with the territories or slavery? No, he wasn't. The territories had been a subject of dispute between the states while they were part of the same union. They were not the central dispute between the Union and the Confederacy, not even close. What the Union disputed -- and you do the same -- was the mere right of the Confederacy to exist as a sovereign entity. Sovereignty, not anything related to slavery, is challenged by another government claiming the right to collect duties and imposts and to hold, occupy, and possess military forts in those places. You know it, but you feel the need to deflect, because you hate truth and love lies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dstblj5222 The constitution didn't have to be "unratified" any more than the Articles of Confederation had to be "unratified." The states wanting a new government for themselves just needed to choose a new government for themselves, just like happened with the 11 states that initially ratified the constitution in 1787-8 and the 11 states that ratified the Confederate constitution in 1861.
What do you think was said in the Federalist Papers to deny the right of states to do precisely what the authors of the Federalist Papers were advocating at the time (i.e. the states forming a new government on their own authority)?
"That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act." Madison, Federalist #39
1
-
@dstblj5222 "It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition." Madison
"However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve." Madison
"to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." Jefferson
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SovereignStatesman What does legality ultimately matter, particularly when, as Thomas Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions, "as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress"?
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.” --Lysander Spooner
“Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.” Address of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 1787
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snidelywhiplash Is your "leaves no doubt" understanding of the supremacy clause compatible with what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1798?
Jefferson: "Resolved that the several states composing the US. of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style & title of a Constitution for the US. and of Amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are unauthoritative, void, & of no force. that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, it’s co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brucebostick2521 Of course, you didn't answer a single one of my questions, my challenges to you, in my last comment, because your position depends on vague lies that can't be explained or exposed.
"THAT, and much further expanded upon here, is what they, as a new govt, fought for!"
You think that's what the North was challenging? No, you don't, but why are you pushing that lie? The fight between the North and South was about what the North and South couldn't agree about, couldn't even agree to disagree about. That's what every fight is about: what the sides can't agree about and can't agree to disagree about.
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races …there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” -Lincoln
Why do you feel the need to hide from the basic reality that wars are about what the two sides can't agree about and can't agree to disagree about? Because you're just like those degraded slaves that the abolitionist George Bassett described on the eve of the war, the kind of slaves that defended slavery: "But remember, that when South Carolina falls, she falls not alone. The suicidal hand which strikes down the sovereignty of the people of South Carolina, demolishes that of Massachusetts with it, and the whole fabric of American Liberty falls by the same stroke. Then not one star escapes from the galaxy of free sovereignties, but all are blotted out by this sweeping stroke of despotic usurpation. We are no longer a voluntary confederation of sovereign States, but each and all of us conquered provinces of a centralized and consolidated despotism. We of the North may be voluntary in this subjection, like the more degraded of slaves—yea, we may be the unnatural agents of it; but it is subjection still."
"While slaveholders yelled about their "rights," under their beloved "Fugitive Slave Law," they, to a man, strongly supported govt support for slavers violently going north, into states that outlawed human slavery, seized African Americans while committing violence agst those opposing that vile institution, drug them back to slavery in the south."
In other words, they supported the constitution: "No person held to service or labour 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 labour may be due."
And your position is obvious: if the party that you favor takes control of DC you want it to trash the rule of law, trash the constitution to advance its agenda, to use all power it can seize, the constitution be damned, to destroy its political opponents. That's your idea of democracy and of freedom and that of other degraded slaves like you. According to you, destroying the constitution and the rule of law and the democratic process is "saving our nation."
As to the speech you referenced of Alexander Stephens, Stephens in that speech did indeed make it perfectly clear what was really at stake and what caused the war: "...the present administration of the United States the republican party... notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tpxchallenger You said, "Foreign nations made treaties with tje US, not with individual states."
The 1783 Treaty of Paris in which England recognized the independence of the States declared, "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."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid They were not in the South because of anything about slavery, and especially not what you said in your previous post about trying to limit where slaves could be taken. They were in the South, as Lincoln said, "to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government [sic] and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force..." Nothing at all about slavery there, and those were indeed the North's motives: maintaining political control and the force necessary to maintain that control over the South and using that control to support Republicans' crony capitalist agenda. And that was precisely what was at stake in the war (objectively, apart from each sides' motivations), too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid And, of course, it's a mighty poor justification for the North's part in the war if you're arguing that Republicans were actually going to trash the constitution and the rule of law but were just telling all sorts of lies to hide the fact.
And ultimately it doesn't really matter whether Southerners believed that Republicans were going to respect the Constitution (including the fugitive slave clause, etc.) or trash it. As Joshua Blanchard wrote in The Liberator, the abolitionist newspaper, forcible reunion would mean the "abandonment of our claim to be a government of the people... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrHejke > The South, on the other hand, seceded to protect its state's right, of which, sadly, upholding the institution of slavery was a key element.
"Seceded to protect... upholding the institution of slavery" from what??? What are you trying to suggest seceding was intended to protect slavery from? What are you trying to suggest the seceding states thought would have happened to slavery if they hadn't seceded that seceding was intended to protect against? Just tell me as clearly and succinctly as you can in your own words.
> The North started this war to keep the Union intact under a strong federal government.
It's ridiculous to call any relationship in which the members are held in the relationship by violence and threats of violence a "union." If you're threatening to beat your partners in union (or actually violently beating them), you're destroying consent as the basis of your relationship, and any relationship not based on continuing consent isn't really a union, so you're doing the opposite of keeping the union intact.
As one abolitionist said on the eve of the war, "...the doctrine of coercion... is the destruction of the government, because it is a political revolution. It is a change of the whole spirit of the government, from a confederacy of sovereign States, held together by mutual interest and common attachment, to a consolidated empire, bound together by military force.
"...it is forgotten, that the true glory of our government—the queen beauty of our system is, that it ceases with the will of the people. Its true strength lies not in navies and battalions, but in the affections of the people. Numbers in our midst... are vainly boasting that we propose to show the world that we have a government that is strong enough to meet the exigency and to suppress rebellion. But they fail entirely to apprehend and appreciate the true theory of the American system. Their is the old European, and not the American, idea of government. ...
"The true strength of a free government—and they are the strongest of all, is in the devoted attachment of its citizen sovereigns. Let this be forfeited, and the government falls.
“A government which is strong by the exercise of military power over its own citizens, is not a free government, but a despotism."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm The Confederacy was indeed formed from the consent of the governed in every sense that Thomas Jefferson understood those words when he wrote them. And the assertion that all men are created equal was never any claim about how the 13 newly independent states were going to govern themselves, and most certainly not any condition by which anyone else had a right to judge any other people's choice (or method of choosing) their own government. On the contrary, the principle that all men are created equal meant that the English had no right to impose their government on any of the states without their consent. It meant no one was judge, but everyone was on equal footing. It meant, as Jefferson said in 1798, that there was no judge but "as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress." And the same principle is in the Declaration of Independence: "as TO THEM shall seem most likely to effect THEIR Safety and Happiness." No one else had any right to question the judgments the states had made for themselves. Do you have some other explanation as to why the words "all men are created equal" were said to King George?
> it certainly wasn't for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the whole of the Southern population.
Nor was the independence of the 13 states that asserted their right to choose their own government in 1776 chosen for the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the whole of the population of the 13 states (all of which states were practicing slavery at the time.) So what's your point?
You asked how the union had become destructive of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the southern people. The northern states that had figured out a way to control the federal government without even trying to appeal to any southern voters were so unconcerned with the well-being, even the lives of Southerners, that they had even supported murderous terrorist attacks against random Southerners, directly violating the constitution in order to do so. Is that not extreme enough for you? But what's extreme enough for you is ultimately irrelevant. The relevant question was what to the people of each individual state, "TO THEM shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rupertsmith5815 > Once again you keep going about how i misquoted it but you never say in what way i misquoted.
Did you never read the original yourself? Is that misquotation just something you copied from some other lying propagandist? But if you read the original and edited it like that yourself, then you know exactly what you did, what you completely left out, what you added, and what you changed.
> You continue to ignore Mississippi,Georgia,Alabama
So far as I know you didn't misquote anything else. Clearing up what actually is real history and what's just fake propaganda is the first order of business before we can discuss what to make of the actual history.
But none of the declarations of causes -- Alabama didn't even issue one -- mention anything Republicans/Northerners were doing or threatening to do to abolish slavery in the southern states, so you're completely misrepresenting them if you're trying to represent any of them as an expression of the southern states seceding to prevent or avoid abolition. There was no such threat, no such secret plot/conspiracy, no such perceived threat... that's just an entirely historically baseless propaganda myth.
Alexander Stephens, just before his state (Georgia) seceded: "I consider slavery much more secure in the Union than out of it."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's what northern abolitionists said: "The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ... in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. ...
"All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” ...are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..." -Lysander Spooner
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joshuawillis602 I'm an anonymous nobody on the internet. I'm obviously not asking anybody to take me seriously (or to take me any other way.) But it appears you want to avoid the historical facts and talk about me instead. In any case, the history is clear for anyone willing to look at the historical record.
If the southern states fought to stop the northern states from taking away their right to own slaves, then there would be some historical evidence that the northern states were fighting (directly/indirectly/intentionally/unintentionally) to take their slaves away. But THAT is the blatant lie.
And even northern abolitionists called it out at the time. Lysander Spooner: "The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's what some Englishmen had to say around the time of the war:
"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces." -London Times, November 7, 1861
“If Northerners... had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg... Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” London Times, September 13, 1862
“The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”
London Spectator in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation
“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” Charles Dickens, 1862
Lord Acton, letter to Robert E. Lee after the war: "I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ApostleMarduk I'm sure you have theories about lots of things. What you obviously don't have -- or you would have presented it already -- is a theory of what the people seceding thought would have prevented them from continuing to keep slaves if they hadn't seceded. And since there wasn't anything that would have prevented them from continuing to keep slaves if they hadn't seceded and since they knew that, it couldn't possibly make any sense to say they seceded in order to keep slaves.
Do you even think A, B, or C were things that seceding offered any prospect of preventing? In any case, none of those things were things that would have prevented them from keeping slaves so even if seceding had offered some prospect of preventing or avoiding those things it didn't offer any prospect of preventing or avoiding what you claimed they seceded to avoid, namely something that would have prevented them from keeping slaves.
> If a slaveholder heard people from free states were sympathizing with the guy who wants you dead, would he not be worried?
First of all, none of the people that Brown's gang murdered were even slaveholders, so the threat they represented wasn't a threat particularly against slaveholders. It wasn't even particularly a threat against white Southerners as the first person they murdered was a free black Southerner. But more to the point, it most certainly wasn't a threat of Republicans amending the constitution to abolish slavery or anything else that would have prevented Southerners from continuing to keep slaves. So they obviously didn't secede in order to keep slaves, did they?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@orbituary > states stating in their secession documents it was so they could keep slaves
That's not true. Your summary there necessarily implies that they thought they couldn't keep slaves if they didn't secede, and the declarations of causes don't support that implication at all.
The fact that they wanted to continue keeping slaves clearly isn't proof they seceded "so they could keep slaves," because Americans in 1776 wanted to continue keeping slaves, and no halfway reasonable person tries to argue that the original 13 states declared independence "so they could keep slaves," so you need to provide evidence for more than just the fact that they wanted to continue keeping slaves if you want to back up your claim. In particular, you need to show that they wouldn't have been able to continue keeping slaves if they hadn't seceded, such that secession was necessary for them to continue to do so. But, of course, that's not true.
> The Confederate government itself was born upon their core belief that slavery should be upheld and in accordance with natural law.
So what? What does that matter with regards to their desire for independence from the North? There wasn't anything they wanted to do because of those beliefs that the Union government wasn't willing to let them do as states in the Union, so what difference does it make?
If Sam works for Bob and then Sam decides he wants to quit do you think Bob would be justified in denying Sam the right to quit and physically beating him back into submission if he tries to quit if it also happens to be true that Sam beets his wyfe? If Sam has been beeting his wyfe all along and Bob has known about it all along but has recognized that under the laws where Sam and Bob live that Sam is entirely within his legal right to beet his wyfe and if Bob also repeatedly declares that he has no intention of interfering with Sam beeting his wyfe, how do any of those facts about Sam and his wife give Bob any right to violently subjugate Sam and to deny him the right to quit working for him?
1
-
@orbituary The secession of SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, LA, and TX triggered the formation of the Confederate government, and their secession was triggered by the election of a Republican to the presidency.
You don't think Republicans represented an abolition amendment or anything else of the sort (which is to say any attempt to use their constitutional power to abolish slavery in the slave states), do you? Not only did they (as a party and Lincoln as their candidate) repeatedly and categorically deny any interest in doing so, but they (1) wouldn't have had the votes to do so even if every state (and multiple more besides) that has been added to the US since Hawaii became the 50th state in 1959 had voted on their side so long as the already existing slave states hadn't supported it, and (2) they (Republicans in DC) actually helped pass a constitutional amendment through Congress in early 1861 (with Lincoln declaring that he had no objections to its ratification) that would have irrevocably removed even that possibility.
Republicans did not represent any attempt to abolish slavery in the southern states through the federal government or by the northern states. That's just a completely historically baseless lie if that's what you believe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ashcarrier6606 > your argument assumes that a course of action in order to achieve a desired endstate can never have an outcome contrary to what you wanted.
But that's not my argument at all. The southern states did not "secede in order to preserve slavery." And that's clear, because...
(1) That's not at all what they said.
(2) There was nothing that the Republican-led North was doing or threatening to do that seceding offered any hope of protecting slavery from. The issue is not, as you said, that the outcome was contrary to what they wanted; it's that even if they had achieved what they wanted (independence), that wouldn't have "preserved slavery" from any of the things Republicans had been doing or threatening to do.
(3) "their stated, WRITTEN DOWN ON PAPER reason[s] for seceding" were grievances that seceding never so much as offered any hope of "preserving slavery" from. Southerners never thought, let alone stated, let alone officially declared on paper that seceding would "preserve" their ownership of fugitive slaves that had escaped to the northern states. On the contrary, seceding meant forfeiting their constitutional right not only to those slaves, but most likely also to those slaves that would escape to any slave states that remained in the union. Likewise, Southerners never thought that seceding would "preserve" their right to take slaves to Kansas or any of the other territories. On the contrary, seceding meant forfeiting their rights as members of the union and to the territories where their right to slavery had been disputed.
1
-
1
-
@ashcarrier6606 > Since secession did not help or preserve slavery, slavery cannot therefore be the reason they decided to secede.
But that was never my point. Not only did secession not help to preserve slavery, it didn't even, as I said in my first comment (after editing for added clarity) offer to do anything for slavery. Obviously they didn't secede to accomplish something that they didn't even think seceding would or even could accomplish.
Do you even have an answer to the question of what you think they seceded to "preserve" slavery from? What would have happened to slavery if they hadn't seceded that seceding offered any hope of "preserving" slavery from? The answer is clearly nothing, right? And if there was nothing that they even thought seceding might "preserve" slavery from, then they obviously didn't secede to "preserve" slavery.
> And it is contrary to what basically every governor and state legislator who made a speech prior to the vote to secede was saying.
How so?
> They openly declared secession to be about preserving an institution they felt was imperiled.
They never used this word "preserve" that you're so hung up on, not in any of the declarations of causes, not with respect to slavery. So if you want to impute this word to them that they didn't use themselves, it's on you to be clear about what you mean by it, because it's your word, not theirs. So when you say they "declared secession to be about preserving" slavery, do you mean they declared there was some threat to slavery that they were seceding to try to avoid? If so, what was that threat? Because none of the things they complained about the northern states doing with regards to slavery (at least nothing more directly related to slavery than protectionist tariffs for northern industries) were things that they said (or even thought) seceding might even possibly "preserve" slavery from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Whatever the Emancipation Proclamation was about, it (1) came after both sides had already fully committed to war so provides no evidence as to why the South seceded and went to war (and the North officially declared that its purposes in the war had nothing to do with interfering with slavery, which Lincoln reaffirmed after issuing the preliminary emancipation proclamation), (2) didn't apply to the South as a whole (not even to all of the states that had seceded), and was conditional on the areas where it did "apply" (which I put in quotation marks, because it only applied where the North at the time had no power to enforce it) continuing to assert their independence beyond the effective date, which is to say it wouldn't have applied at all if those states had forfeited their American birthright (which was, of course, what the war was really about), and (3) was a war measure, and whatever effect it had on slavery was entirely incidental to its real purpose of subjugating the southern states, as Lincoln himself said. Add all that up and yes, absolutely, it's very fair to say the emancipation proclamation wasn't about the North abolishing slavery in the South.
And, yes, Republicans didn't want power in order to help slaves, let alone abolish slavery in the South, which they had no constitutionally legitimate means of doing even if they had wanted to. Republicans wanted power for much the same reasons they want power today: to advance the big business interests that they represented. There was nothing they did with regards to slavery that wasn't in those interests. It didn't do slaves any good to keep them in the South and out of the territories. The benefits of that leading Republican plank accrued to Republicans, not slaves.
"All of those things were about the main thing at stake in the war: Slavery."
Ha ha! If only you could say what about slavery was at stake in the war! Did those things relate to slavery? The one things that's undeniably clear is that they didn't have anything whatsoever to do with the North abolishing slavery in the South.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "You can't reasonably say something was not about doing something it actually did."
So you think US participation in WWII was about supporting communism? Or are you just making another stupid, indefensible argument? Of course, you are, because you yourself said it would be absurd to claim that WWI was about digging trenches.
"Also, claiming 'it only applied where the North at the time had no power to enforce it', is just silly."
Call the historical facts "silly" if you want, but they're still the historical facts. The fact is the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't enforced in any part of the South (or the border states) that were under Union control at the time the Emancipation Proclamation took effect, because it only "applied" where the Union didn't have the power to put it into effect at the time. As the London (England) Spectator said at the time, “The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”
"To preserve and expand slavery."
Here you are begging the question again. None of the things in that long list was about the North abolishing slavery in the South, and therefore, there was nothing to "preserve" slavery against. And the war certainly wasn't about the Confederacy trying to expand its borders by taking territory from the North (or anyone else.) Even you don't believe that BS, but maybe you're enough of a liar to say you do.
The day after the preliminary emancipation proclamation was issued Lincoln said, "Understand, I raise no objections against it [slavery] on legal or constitutional grounds … I view the matter [emancipation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion [sic]." And you say it was about the North abolishing slavery in the South - ha!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because your idea of "patriotism" is vile.
Joshua Blanchard wrote in the March 1861 issue of The Liberator that forcible reunion would mean “the entire subjugation of one of the parties, maintained by a perpetual occupation of military force, military tyranny over all the states, abandonment of our claim to be a government of the people.... The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
> in the sense that every thing that caused it was ultimately rooted in slavery
Whatever truth there is to that statement, you're still left with an argument as faulty as trying to justify the entire "War on Terror," the invasion of Iraq, etc., etc. on the basis that "everything that caused it was ultimately rooted in" Islam, arguing that Islam is bad, and therefore the US was fully justified in every aspect of the War on Terror. It doesn't matter how bad Islam is or is not, whatever your opinion on that question the answer is irrelevant to whether the War on Terror was justified.
Even if the Republican-led North had been trying to abolish slavery in the South -- which Lincoln and the rest of the Republican party most definitely were not -- the South would still have had a right to independence self-government, contingent at best on meeting the North's demands on behalf of the South's slaves, but the historical reality is that the North didn't go to war making a single slavery-related demand of the southern states but went to war offering additional concessions to slaveholders on the condition that the southern states forfeit their right to independence and self-government.
The North thus didn't have even a shred more justification in denying independence and self-government to the southern states than England had justification in denying independence and self-government to the 13 colonies, and the South had every bit as much right (and more) to defend their right to independence and self-government as the 13 colonies (which, of course, also practiced slavery) had in 1776.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "They didn't just vote to do it and then keep complying with federal laws and the constitution, they voted to do it and then stopped complying with them."
In other words, they voted to secede, and then they seceded as opposed to voting to secede and then acting as if they hadn't had a vote at all.
But regardless, the question was when the "rebellion" started. (Your original comment to which I first replied was, "They have nothing to do with why the Confederate states started their rebellion.") If the vote was the start of the "rebellion," as you said above, then the vote was sufficient to meet your definition of rebellion, and a vote certainly meets the definition you quoted of an "open resistance to an established government," as much as anything the Confederate states subsequently did (although other things met the "or violent" part of the definition you quoted.) And in that case, Brexit was likewise based on a vote, and the EU is certainly an established government, not just a "trade organization." Calling the EU merely a "trade organization" is ridiculous. Even the name identifies the EU as a Union, the same root word as identifies the US. But based on your reasoning, we should call Brexit a rebellion (even if you defy your own reasoning.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm "The UK signed a mutual treaty with the EU for all sides to recognize its departure and independence from the trade union."
Are you referring to the EU as a "trade union." Are you saying it's necessary to sign a treaty in order to exit a trade union? Would the US not be able to exit NAFTA/USMCA without a treaty that all the members states of NAFTA/USMCA mutually agreed to? What do you think would happen if a country tried to exit a trade union without signing an exit treaty beyond that member state simply ceasing to receive (or give) the advantages of the treaty?
Your "trade union" foolishness aside, I guess the UK did finally sign an exit treaty, but a No-Deal Brexit was a very real possibility that was much talked about and would have involved nothing more than the discontinuation of special arrangements, certainly nothing essential to the state sovereignty of the UK or the power of the EU.
And it's not true that the "The UK signed a mutual treaty with the EU for all sides to recognize its departure and independence..." The treaty had nothing to do with recognizing the UK's departure or independence. The treaty was about EU relations following the UK's departure and independence, which facts didn't depend on the subsequent treaty whatsoever.
"It was born purely out of mob rule, nothing more."
By "mob rule" do you mean the democratic process? Does representative democracy, by the way, not count as "democratic process" in your book? In any case, the North never contested the process by which the southern states expressed their will; the North contested the right of the southern states to unilaterally secede completely regardless of the process by which they would express their will. But, of course, your argument is little more than obfuscation of the relevant facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Money generated from exploiting the southern states.
Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner: "The whole affair... has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. ... And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” That they have “Saved the Country!” ...
"The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ...in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before.
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc I don't agree with everything the original commenter said, but...
...what was the first thing Alexander Stephens said after saying in the speech from which Righteous Cause Myth apologists most often quote, "...taking the whole new [Confederate] constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old [US constitution]"? It was to talk about tariffs and other forms of crony capitalism: "Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevemitz4740 Indeed, but as the South Carolina theologian James Henly Thornwell said, "If they [the Republican-led North] prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God, and when all the checks and balances of the Constitution are gone, we may easily figure to ourselves the career and the destiny of this godless monster of democratic absolutism."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lisayarrow2007 The US has brought the horrors of war to far more places than Russia. That's no justification for what Russia or any other country has done or may do, but it's reason to be at least as concerned about further US/NATO aggression as Russian aggression. And Russia has very clearly over many years expressed serious concerns about NATO aggression. NATO brought the horrors of war to one of Russia's allies in 1999 (at least as much as Russia has done now) in defense of a separatist movement even though there wasn't so much as an allegation of Russia's ally posing any threat to any NATO member state or any other country.
But Russia hasn't really brought the horrors of war to Ukraine. Ukraine has been at war since 2014, and the US and EU are primarily to blame for that. Overthrowing democratically elected leaders in violent coups isn't the way to promote peace and democracy.
So, to your question of whether Russia's invasion is legitimate, I think, as the US Declaration of Independence says, that the only basis of just government is the consent of the governed. By that standard, it does appear that Moscow is the legitimate government of Crimea. If Ukraine had called for a fairer referendum, that would be one thing, but Ukraine denied the right of the Crimean people to have a referendum, so I think it's fair to say Ukraine forfeited any right to object to the referendum that was held. And the situation is similar in eastern Ukraine. Kiev has no more legitimate claim to govern Donetsk than Moscow has to govern Kiev. The only basis of legitimacy I would recognize is the consent of the governed.
If Russia is willing to withdraw from the parts of Ukraine that want to remain part of an independent Ukraine on the conditions that Ukraine respect the self-determination of the parts that don't and that Ukraine remain neutral (not join NATO, etc.), then yes, I think Russia's invasion is legitimate. So long as Ukraine and the West object to those terms, I don't think it matters if Russia would fulfill its end of the deal. Russia has made the offer; if Ukraine and the West refuse, then it's on them. If Ukraine and the West accept the deal and Russia doesn't follow through with its end, then Russia can be blamed, but we can't legitimately blame Russia without even giving Russia a chance to respect Ukrainian independence on those terms. So to your question of whether occupying the entire country and installing a puppet regime would be legitimate, no, it wouldn't be, but Russia is denying those are it's aims and it's offering peace on terms that wouldn't include occupying the entire country and installing a puppet regime. What is there to lose from giving Russia a chance to respect those terms?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nathanbrady8529 Whether Poland or Scotland or Quebec have any right to secede/withdraw from a union/alliance in the first place is another question, but to the extent they do, it's ridiculous to blame a people for not tolerating foreign troops on their soil.
As one northern abolitionist wrote in early 1861, “As to the proper possession of the military forts within the boundaries of a seceding State or territory... The whole object of those forts is... protection. While the peoples of those States or territories are protected by the United States, the United States authorities occupy and garrison those forts at an expense which is defrayed by a revenue voluntarily paid by the people. Here is a fair, legitimate transaction, a quid pro quo. A sovereign people paying the United States, by a revenue, for protecting and guarding her national interests. But when any State ceases to require the protection of the general government and proposes to protect herself, and the United States authority ceases, for the want of the requisite consent of the people interested, there is no reason why the general government should retain possession of those forts, but every reason why they should go into the hand of the people of that territory... Keep ever in view the only legitimate object of government—the protection of the people—and you cannot but recognize the absurdity of forcing protection upon an unwilling people at the point of the bayonet.”
And also from the same person, "It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation.
"In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ricardoconqueso "The union didn’t have one single initiative. It was abolition."
The Union officially and categorically denied any abolitionist purposes: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States..."
Lincoln, 1861: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Lincoln, 1862: "What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
And, of course, Lincoln meant "save the union" in the sense that a man can "save the union" with his girlfriend by physically beating her into submission when she tries to leave him, as if one could save unions by physically attacking one's partners and killing their children.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The war obviously wasn't fought to free slaves. If we're having any kind of honest discussion, then we first need to recognize that for the complete BS myth that it is. If the war had been a war that could be simply summarized as a war over slavery, then (1) both sides wouldn't have practiced slavery throughout the entire war, (2) pro-slavery states, states that voted against the 13th amendment even after the war, wouldn't have fought on the supposedly anti-slavery side, (3) the supposedly anti-slavery side wouldn't have repeatedly and categorically denied any purpose of interfering with slavery, even to the extent of offering to irrevocably amend the constitution to prohibit federal interference with slavery in the slave states, and (4) instead of the North telling the slave states they could keep their slaves if they forfeited their independence, the North would have told the slave states they could have their independence if they freed the slaves. Obviously independence, not slavery, was the central issue. And if slavery was even a secondary issue, it was only a future hypothetical issue, a question of what the North might do in the future, not anything it was doing at the time; neither side went to war making any slavery-related demands whatsoever of the other side.
So the clear and obvious and most direct answer to the question of what caused the war is that South Carolina wanted to govern itself, Buchanan and Lincoln and the North more generally didn't recognize their right to declare independence, and then war broke out over the question of whether South Carolina (and the states that sided with South Carolina, some initially choosing not to secede for the reasons South Carolina seceded but then later choosing to side with the Confederacy only after and in response to Lincoln's call to go to war to force the states that had already seceded back under DC control.)
If the fundamental questions we're getting at are whether the Union was justified in waging war to deny the states' right to secede or whether the Confederacy was justified in fighting for its right to declare independence and self-govern, then the secondary question of what caused South Carolina (or any of the states that followed) to want to declare independence in the first place is ultimately as unimportant to me as the question of why an employee decided to quit his job in the context of a discussion of whether his employer has a right to deny him the right to quit and use force to beat him back into submission.
Combine that fundamental principle (just government requiring the consent of the governed) with the absurd misrepresentations exposed by 4 the slavery-related facts I listed at the beginning, and then any honest person out to be able to see strong reasons for at least seriously doubting (if not outright rejecting) any slavery-based arguments for justifying the Union cause in the war and condemning the Confederate cause in the war.
1
-
1
-
@Rebel-cd6gc > Preserve means maintain as is.
Americans in 1776 maintained slavery as is after seceding, so then you're not saying anything about Southerners in 1861 that you couldn't equally accurately say about Americans in 1776. But no one talks about Americans "preserving" slavery in 1776, because no one actually believes the definition you gave of "preserve" makes sense to use.
But preserving actually means more than what you just said. If you talk about canning tomatoes to preserve them you're also necessarily implying that those tomatoes aren't going to be stored in a deep freezer where bacteria wouldn't be active anyway. You're implying that the person canning those tomatoes expects something to happen to the tomatoes if he doesn't can them that he intends to prevent by canning them. And that's the lie you (whether knowingly or foolishly repeating others' lies) are trying to hide behind the dishonest use of those words: the only reason to speak of the South "preserving" slavery is to imply what would clearly be a lie to say directly, namely the lie that the North was trying to abolish slavery.
> attempting to ensure it isn't taken away
And how was seceding any sort of attempt to ensure it wasn't taken away? What's the connection? How are you trying to suggest it could have been taken away if they hadn't seceded, such that it could make any sense to say what you said? Are you trying to suggest, for example, that a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery could have been forced on the southern states? But there's zero evidence/mention of an abolition amendment in any of the declarations of causes of secession. There are, of course, plenty of specifics in the declarations, so tell me specifically what could have happened that's specifically described in the declarations of causes that you think seceding was intended to avoid or prevent. Your claim is either just vague nonsense or it's historically baseless and easily disproved.
> Lincoln reassured he would keep it around in order to keep the union. The Southern States didn't trust his words
The declarations of causes say nothing about Lincoln abolishing slavery.
> If Lincoln was running things chances were good that he would stop it.
How could a president have abolished slavery if they hadn't seceded anyway? What an absurd myth! But, please, if you think it's more than an absurd myth, try to flesh it out for me.
> Lincoln had also spoken out against it in a moral sense
And do you think seceding was an attempt to ensure Lincoln didn't continue speaking out against it in a moral sense? Obviously there's no support for your argument there either. And, of course, it's absurd to equate speaking out against it with taking it away, as if a politician speaking out against the opposite party is equal to a politician trying to abolish the opposite party and deport all its members.
> You just have to go through the history of the south afterwards to see how much more inferior they viewed African Americans.
Northerners (including Lincoln) likewise thought blacks were inferior. But you're just arguing with a straw man if you're arguing against the idea that Southerners didn't want to continue practicing slavery. I've already made it very clear that the problem with your argument isn't that the South didn't want to continue practicing slavery; the problem is that Lincoln and the Republican-led North weren't trying to abolish slavery. If they had been trying to abolish slavery, maybe the South would have fought to stop them, but they clearly didn't fight to stop the North from doing what the North wasn't doing in the first place.
1
-
1
-
@IronWarhorses Alexander Stephens, March 1861: "As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been. The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln's inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would feign hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry."
Lincoln, March 1861: "there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
"The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jfedermesser There were plenty of Democrats in the North that were just as opposed to slavery as the Republicans. The real difference between Democrats and Republicans was that Democrats respected the rule of law (and the interests of farmers and other independent Americans) and Republicans were trashing the rule of law (for the interests of robber barons and others that wanted to directly and indirectly profit off of crony capitalism.)
President Franklin Pierce: “If there are provisions in the Constitution of your country not consistent with your views of principle or expediency, remember that in the nature of things that instrument could only have had its origin in compromise, and remember, too, that you will be faithless to honor and common honesty if you consent to enjoy the principles it confers, and seek to avoid, if any, the burdens it imposes. It cannot be accepted in parts; it is a whole or nothing, and as a whole, with all the right it secures, and the duties it requires, it is to be sacredly maintained... It is no matter what our peculiar views may be, or what prejudices may take possession of our minds or hearts. If, as American citizens, we find ourselves constrained by a law higher or more imperative than this law, we then deny the obligations which the Constitution imposes, and can have no just claim to the protection and blessings which it confers.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 Presidents? Do you not know how slavery was finally abolished in the US? Presidents play no official role in amending the constitution. Slavery was abolished after most of the legislatures of the former Confederate states (VA, LA, TN, AR, SC, AL, NC, GA), plus the legislatures of another 3 states that were slave states or part of a slave state at the start of the war voted to ratify the amendment abolishing slavery. There was no remotely feasible way the constitution could have been amended to abolish slavery if the slave states hadn't seceded, not until the slave states decided for themselves (whether through a free, uncoerced democratic process or otherwise) to amend the constitution. The complete and total lie that that had been a threat to the slave states that led them to secede is the foundation of the Righteous Cause Myth, though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisjones7347 It's very simple:
Lincoln, 1848: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
That's the sacred right that Americans fought for in 1776 and that the southern Americans fought for in 1861, and it's the right the so-called Union fought to destroy. And everything else is just red herrings and ad hominems.
The abolitionist George Bassett wrote in early 1861: "It is constantly said... that if our government cannot prevent a State from seceding at will, it is no government at all. But it is forgotten, that the true glory of our government—the queen beauty of our system is, that it ceases with the will of the people. Its true strength lies not in navies and battalions, but in the affections of the people. Numbers in our midst... are vainly boasting that we propose to show the world that we have a government that is strong enough to meet the exigency and to suppress rebellion. But they fail entirely to apprehend and appreciate the true theory of the American system. Their is the old European, and not the American, idea of government...
"The true strength of a free government—and they are the strongest of all, is in the devoted attachment of its citizen sovereigns. Let this be forfeited, and the government falls.
"A government which is strong by the exercise of military power over its own citizens, is not a free government, but a despotism."
Abolitionist Lysander Spooner: "The whole affair... has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. ... And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” That they have “Saved the Country!” ...
"The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ...in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. ...
"This, too, they call “Preserving our Glorious Union”; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..."
> the Fugitive Slave Law at least serves in part to contradict the nonsensical State vs Federal rights argument.
Only if you have no idea what anyone meant by "states rights" in the 19th century and have assumed some novel definition for yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raymondchen8241 > who did he not free?
He didn't free any of the slaves in any of the slave states fighting on the side of the Union. And he didn't free any slaves in the parts of the Confederate states that were already under Union control when the emancipation proclamation took effect. And he issued a preliminary emancipation proclamation approximately 3 months before the emancipation proclamation offering to respect the seceded states' right to continue to keep slaves -- i.e. not to free any slaves at all -- if those states would submit again to DC rule before the date he announced he would issue the emancipation proclamation.
As the London Spectator said at the time, "The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."
Or as the famous Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner said, "And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ...in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before."
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this – that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot." -Lysander Spooner
"Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty. If, with this great truth ever before them, a majority of her people should prefer despotism to liberty, I would say to her, as to a wayward sister, 'depart in peace.'" -Alexander Stephens
"...it is forgotten, that the true glory of our government—the queen beauty of our system is, that it ceases with the will of the people. Its true strength lies not in navies and battalions, but in the affections of the people. Numbers in our midst... are vainly boasting that we propose to show the world that we have a government that is strong enough to meet the exigency and to suppress rebellion. But they fail entirely to apprehend and appreciate the true theory of the American system. Their is the old European, and not the American, idea of government...
“The true strength of a free government—and they are the strongest of all, is in the devoted attachment of its citizen sovereigns. Let this be forfeited, and the government falls.
“A government which is strong by the exercise of military power over its own citizens, is not a free government, but a despotism.
“Instead of the peaceful separation of these States being a disgrace to our government in the eyes of the world, it will constitute in all coming time its truest glory, and will demonstrate the infinite superiority of the voluntary system of self-government over the despotic usurpations of the past.” -George Bassett
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derps8690 Your personal behavior is as vile as what you're defending -- if you can even call a defense with no substance a defense -- what the abolitionist Joshua Blanchard described in the March 1861 issue of The Liberator, the abolitionist paper: "The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid The Joseph Brown quote? Is that all you have? If it's such an anomaly, why even look at it? Or is the rest of the evidence too hard for you to twist and misrepresent like you do the Brown quote?
As for Mosby, you can't really call something a lie that's too vague to be either proven or disproven. What was he saying was at stake? The fugitive slave clause? The 13th amendment? Or what? Of course, he didn't say. No one defending the North ever does. Why was he defending the North? Why do corporate executives today practically without exception say that racism and "institutional racism" are THE reason blacks get shot more often by cops? Because you don't get rewarded by corporate America or by the railroads for speaking the truth. You get rewarded by corporate America by spouting whatever the politically correct nonsense of the day is, by proving yourself willing to completely sell out. But who cares what Mosby said decades after the fact? What did Southerners say of the war at the time of the war? Nothing of the sort. What they said were things like: "...it has been reserved for your own State, so lately one of the original thirteen, but now, thank God, fully separated from them, to become the theatre of a great central camp, from which will pour forth thousands of brave hearts to roll back the tide of this [fill in the blank]." What do you think that Southern leader said in June of 1861? Abolitionism? Why can't you find any Southerner actually saying so of the war at the time of the war? Because it's a revisionist propaganda lie. The best you can do is find some vague statement by a corporate sell-out decades after the fact. Pathetic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm “However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the [federal] government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact [the states], from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.” James Madison
1
-
@jaranarm “It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” Madison
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FernandoDiaz-nl8eh You say, if you don't think fighting for basic human rights is worth it, then I don't know what is... but, first of all, what are the odds Ukraine can defeat Russia? Will Ukraine have more rights if it comes to terms now or if it sacrifices lots of people to a war that it ultimately loses? Or are you justifying a nuclear war for the sake of basic human rights?
Secondly, do you really think the West has the kind of freedom of the press, etc. necessary to democracy. Is the press free when a few big tech companies are censoring political debate or manipulating the flow of information with their algorithms, etc.?
Thirdly, what's to prevent terrible leaders from getting elected even if the foundations of democracy (free speech, press, etc.) are respected? What evidence is there that democracy has the power to save us from evil governments?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc > Nothing in the Constitution allows secession.
Nothing in the constitution forbids secession, and the constitution explicitly reserves all rights to the states not forbidden.
And not only that, but the constitution itself was established on the basis of the right of the states to abandon the existing government and establish a new government for themselves on their own sovereign authority (Article 7). If the states don't have the "voluntary" right to do that, then the constitution itself is invalid.
And further, the constitution clearly established a limited central government, and in the words of Thomas Jefferson, " to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonnie106 Assuming it's even a real quote, obviously not the North's war to force its rulers on the South without its consent and to deny the southern states the right to independence and self-government, because the southern states were still part of the union and it was a year and a half before the start of the war.
Why do you figure all these vague supposed allusions to a future war are so much more important and conclusive than what people said directly about the actual war itself that the North and South actually fought?
Jefferson Davis, April 29, 1861: "we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honor and independence; we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms. This we will, this we must, resist to the direst extremity. The moment that this pretension is abandoned the sword will drop from our grasp, and we shall be ready to enter into treaties of amity and commerce that cannot but be mutually beneficial. So long as this pretension is maintained, with a firm reliance on that Divine Power which covers with its protection the just cause, we will continue to struggle for our inherent right to freedom, independence, and self-government."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscarbenigsen4538 > If two or more people join in an acceptance of a common statement of terms, then that acceptance constitutes a union. If even one of the union's members should "withdraw" from that union, the union is broken.
So the EU, by your terminology, was "broken" when the UK withdrew.
> The parties agreed that their first union was weak and that they needed a better union.
But only 11 of the 13 parties agreed that the proposed alternative was an improvement. And only 11 of the 13 parties initially chose to accept the new "statement of terms," as you put it, which "constitutes a union," and therefore the old union was "broken," right?
> The government must fail to permit its subjects equal freedom of the pursuit of happiness.
So how did the government established by the Articles of Confederation "fail to permit its subjects equal freedom of the pursuit of happiness"? Rather some of the states just decided on their own sovereign authority (just like the 13 states had in 1776) that they preferred another system of government, and that was sufficient.
> The South withdrew from The Union without having a roundly established agreement as to whether such a thing was acceptable.
And in 1788 11 states withdrew from the previous union without all the parties agreeing to it, but Americans still understood at that time that North Carolina didn't have any right to deny Delaware the right to choose a different government together with whichever other states wanted to join Delaware.
> There was no protest against it.
You're not asserting that North Carolina would have had a right to "protest" and deny the other states the right to establish the new government for themselves, are you? They didn't protest because everyone agreed there was no such right to protest.
> The consent clause is not unlimited
So consent doesn't really mean consent? Lack of consent only matters if the rulers that want to rule over you without your consent want to accept your reasons for not consenting? Do you say the same thing to slaves? Their lack of consent to their "employment" only matters if their masters agree to their reasons for not consenting to their enslavement?
No, the standard in the Declaration of Independence is whenever it to them, the seceders, shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness, i.e. whenever they want to. And anything beyond that is just out of "respect to the opinions of mankind," but rights aren't contingent on others' opinions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pokepals2780 > since most of the debates surrounding it when the founding fathers were making the constitution were against the idea of it
Most? BS! There's not a single shred of evidence for any, let alone most.
> very likely for the above mentioned reasons.
For the non-existent ones, you mean.
"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States, and in uniting together, they have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so…" -Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America
The southern states seceded on their own sovereign authority without appealing to any higher authority because there was no high authority.
Madison: "It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."
> no matter how you view the land part of it being legal or not the stealing federal weapons paid for by national taxes was illegal in every way
As if they didn't have a right to a fair share of the assets that had been purchased with their own tax dollars (dollars which, incidentally, had been generated overwhelmingly disproportionately on the back of southern agriculture)! BS! Even abolitionists called out that BS at the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sabin97 A formal declaration of the purpose of the war issued by the side in the war that invaded the other side is "cute"?
You're not sure what more evidence anyone would need? You'd have to rebut things like formal declarations of the purpose of the war by the Union more seriously than merely dismissing them as "cute."
But before we can even get to the evidence, I need you to explain what you're even trying to prove: what specifically do you mean when you say the war was about slavery? What could the South have done "about slavery" to end the war? Obviously, nothing. Lincoln went to war even supporting an irrevocable constitutional amendment protecting slavery. Lincoln: "a proposed amendment to the Constitution... has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
So that takes us back to the question of what you mean when you say the war was about slavery. But even if I grant the absurdity that respecting the United States' declared founding principles and allowing the 7 states that seceded pre-war to peacefully secede was an impossibility and therefore whatever motivated the first 7 states (so not counting VA, NC, TN, and AR) to secede was what the entire Confederacy was fighting for and the Union was fighting against -- which would lead to the absurdity of arguing that what the Confederacy and Union were fighting for and against were really irrelevant to what the war was about -- you'd still have to explain what about slavery was at stake if none of the southern states had seceded. For sure, the southern states wanted to continue practicing slavery in 1860-61. (So did some of the states that fought on the side of the Union, so that obviously doesn't prove much by itself.) But if you're suggesting that the South seceded because the North was threatening to abolish slavery or some such thing, you'll have to explain what you're saying and then provide evidence to back it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ApostleMarduk > It's not noble, when the only reason states secede is so they can continuously enslave other people.
First of all, whether a slave has a noble reason for wanting to be free and independent of his master ought to be irrelevant to the question of whether he has a right to freedom and independence. And if he, as the southern states did, is forced to fight for his right to freedom and independence, that's a noble fight regardless of what he wants to do with his freedom. What he wants to do with his freedom may or may not be noble, but his fight for freedom and independence can indeed be noble regardless.
And in any case, fighting to deny other people their right to freedom and independence -- what the North did -- is unquestionably ignoble, and it couldn't be more disgustingly absurd to try to justify denying other people their freedom and independence on the grounds that slavery is bad.
But secondly, the seceding states most definitely did not "secede... so they can continuously enslave other people," not if you mean they seceded in order to be able to continue to enslave people -- and if that's not what you mean, then you're just using misleading language to promote a lie. They knew they would be able to continue to enslave people regardless of whether or not they seceded, so the myth of some threat of abolition of perceived threat of abolition is entirely a lie with no basis in historical fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LegalAutomation Here are a couple quotes that hopefully begin to explain how. Both of these men happened to be outspoken abolitionists before the war, by the way.
"Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, 'a government of consent.' The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this – that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called 'peace.'
"Their pretenses that they have 'Saved the Country,' and 'Preserved our Glorious Union,' are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call 'Saving the Country'; as if an enslaved and subjugated people – or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) – could be said to have any country. This, too, they call 'Preserving our Glorious Union'; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated." -Lysander Spooner
“But remember, that when South Carolina falls, she falls not alone. The suicidal hand which strikes down the sovereignty of the people of South Carolina, demolishes that of Massachusetts with it, and the whole fabric of American Liberty falls by the same stroke. Then not one star escapes from the galaxy of free sovereignties, but all are blotted out by this sweeping stroke of despotic usurpation. We are no longer a voluntary confederation of sovereign States, but each and all of us conquered provinces of a centralized and consolidated despotism. We of the North may be voluntary in this subjection, like the more degraded of slaves—yea, we may be the unnatural agents of it; but it is subjection still.” -George Bassett
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "You're using an anarchist standard"
Do you really not know where the line "governments... deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed" comes from?
"I was just pointing out how the CSA violated..."
And that's your excuse for destroying government by the consent of the governed? Even if that is your excuse, it remains a lie to say that the southern states already had freedom. That was unambiguously proven to be a lie when DC went to war to subjugate the southern states to its rule against their will.
You said, "A rebellion is just fighting against government authority. Whether or not that involves seeking freedom depends entirely on the context for doing so."
In response I asked, And do you say the same about the slave that rebels against his master trying to get out from under his control and gain the power of self-government? Do you say, "Whether or not that slave's rebellion against his master in trying to get out from under his control involves seeking freedom depends entirely on the context for doing so"?
You answered, "No because living under a democratically elected government in a nation isn't the same thing as..."
So the difference you're now drawing between (a) rebelling and trying to get out from the control of others and to gain self-government and (b) "seeking freedom" is completely detachable from any and everything to do with African slavery? And it doesn't depend, as you said earlier, "on the context for doing so [for trying to get out from under the control of others and gain the power self-government]", but the reason the southern states' "rebellion" can't be called "seeking freedom" is simply because you deny any possibility of "seeking freedom" for a people that you would say are "living under a democratically elected government in a nation"? For example, you would definitively say that the Algerian people were not and could not have been "seeking freedom" when they rebelled against France in 1961 (to pick just one year) because they were "living under a democratically elected government in a nation." Or are you going to abandon both those earlier arguments and move on to indefensible argument #3 now?
"If a bunch of murderers want to rebel against a nation so they can keep murdering people, then obviously they aren't rebelling to seek freedom."
"Nat Turner wasn't rebelling for the specific purpose of continuing to murder people."
So the difference between seeking freedom and not seeking freedom can be illustrated by the difference between (a) a bunch of murderers that are rebelling and murdering a people and intending to continue murdering people and (b) a bunch of murderers that are rebelling for the specific purpose of continuing to murder people? People can be "seeking freedom" if they're murdering people (women and children included) and have every intention and desire of continuing to do so, but not if that's their "specific purpose"? And what then was Nat Turner's "specific purpose"? Of course, it would be begging the question to say "seeking freedom" or escaping slavery. Your standard requires asking and judging what people want to do with their freedom in order to determine whether they are actually seeking it, right?
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Even you wouldn't deny that the southern states were seeking independence from DC and the North, would you? But you're saying there's a difference between seeking independence and seeking freedom, and that difference comes down to what one wants to do with one's independence or one's motivation for seeking independence or something like that, and you think what someone wants to do with his independence determines whether his seeking independence can be called seeking freedom?
I, of course, don't believe there's any difference between seeking independence, seeking to get out from someone else's control, seeking self-government... and seeking freedom. If someone is seeking to get out from someone else's control, then he's seeking freedom. If someone is seeking independence, then he's seeking freedom. What he wants to do with his freedom (or whatever else you want to call it) is irrelevant to question of whether he's seeking freedom.
Just as freedom of speech must be content neutral to be true freedom of speech, just as true freedom of speech can't depend on whether a person is saying something good or bad, neither can freedom from someone else's control/the freedom of self-government/freedom in general depend on what someone wants to do with his freedom (or whatever else you want to call it.)
As I said originally, saying that when the southern states sought their freedom that the ensuing conflict was "complicated" is like saying that when a slave sought his freedom from his slave master that the ensuing beating was "complicated." It's really not. People have a right to self-government. That ought to be very simple.
Likewise, however much freedom a master grants his slaves is irrelevant to the question of whether a slave that seeks to get out from under the control of his master is seeking freedom. No matter how much freedom a master gave his slaves, it's entirely fair to say that a slave seeking to get out from under the control of his master is seeking freedom, just like any person or people seeking independence and self-government can fairly be said to be seeking freedom (at least if their masters/rulers wouldn't freely grant it.)
"Claiming they didn't have freedom just because they were not legally allowed to take over part of the United States..."
Claiming that Algerians didn't have freedom just because they were not legally allowed to take over part of France and turn it into an Islamic republic... is actually fair, just like claiming any people didn't have freedom just because they were denied the right to independence and self-government is fair.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "They already had freedom in the United States. They had full representation and participation in the government."
The same could be said for Algeria in France. Does that prove Algerians weren't seeking freedom (by whatever your crazy definition of freedom you're using, if your use of the word means anything at all)?
"If they didn't like the laws they could work to change them or just leave the United States and go to some other nation."
And if a larger, more populous democratic country -- not that our electoral college system or other aspects of our federal government are really even democratic -- conquers a smaller country and seeks to incorporate that smaller country into itself and give those people citizenship rights (similar to the way the United States took over American Indian nations or Hawaii, even if those weren't all outright conquests), would you say to the people of that smaller country that if they don't like the laws they could just work to change them or just leave their former country and go to some other nation? And would you say that fact proves that when they resisted conquest by the larger country there's no way they could have been fighting for their freedom? That's the absurdity of your logic.
"because they didn't like the results of a free and fair election they agreed to participate in."
They didn't dispute the right of the politicians that won their elections to rule. They just chose not to be ruled by that government any more.
If you're part of any other organization (a church, a club, a business partnership...) that elects its leaders, and that organization moves through its elections in a direction you don't want to move with it, then it's perfectly normal reasonable to choose to leave that organization without disputing the right of whoever won the election to continue to lead the organization with whoever wants to remain in it. The current split in the Methodist church, for example, is the result of differences over votes that denomination has held. The UK voted to leave the EU because it objected to policies that resulted from EU elections, but the UK didn't dispute the right of the other EU member states to be ruled by the winners of those elections, and the UK didn't try to destroy the EU, and the UK didn't dispute the right of any other member state that wanted to remain in the EU to remain.
Your questions about freedom of speech and movement are questions I'd definitely like to answer, but I'm out of time for now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Cdaragorn No, you just want to believe revisionist propaganda instead of the truth. The Confederate constitution only prohibited the central government, not the states, from banning slavery, which, like I said before, is no different than what the US Supreme Court had already declared was the law as implied by the US constitution.
If your claim were true, tell me why the restriction in Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 4 on slavery isn't repeated in Article 1, Section 10 (the "No state shall" section), Paragraph 1, even though the prohibitions on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws in section 9 is repeated in section 10.
Clearly the reason it's not repeated, is because it didn't apply to the states and therefore wasn't included in the section restricting the states.
Nor would there be any reason for the Confederate constitution to protect "the right of [the citizens of each state to] transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves..." unless the authors of the Confederate constitution were particularly foreseeing a circumstance where some states of the Confederacy would abolish slavery, so they obviously weren't providing for a circumstance they were banning.
You should really try to educate yourself with more than just dishonest propaganda sources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alex-12381 If I hire a security company to man the gatehouse in front of my mansion, have a disagreement with the security company, and fire them, but they continue to maintain an armed presence on my property, refuse to leave, and under threat of firing on me refuse to let me come and go without continuing to pay fees to them, if after months of repeated warnings I then fire on them until they surrender the gatehouse, and if the security company responds by coming and taking over my whole property, burns my house down, steals my silverware, jewelry and other valuables, steals some of my animals and kills the rest and leaves them to rot, and forces me to sign a contract with them, obligating my children and grandchildren and their children forever to pay them for whatever services they want to offer on whatever terms they want to offer, you'd call me the aggressor?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrdan2898 "The west does not control those countries. They are independent, sovereign countries." Brussels sure doesn't seem to be treating Hungary that way.
"If Russia is such an amazing country then why is no country asking to join Russian..." Who said Russia was such an amazing country? But the DPR and LPR have been asking to join Russia for the last 8 years and finally have.
"USA is Russian Civilian best country to live in, with the most freedoms.
I'm sure you yourself are applying for American citizenship."
People don't move to America for freedom. They move to America to get their little part of the plunder, the exploitation. And America is destroying itself in the process. American neighborhoods, strip malls, schools, etc., are as ugly as third world slums, just a whole lot more wasteful. Of course, Soviet apartment blocks are pretty awful, too, but at least if you wife gets mad at you she can't get the government to chemically and/or surgically emasculate your son for vengeance.
There are a few freedoms I appreciate in the US: the freedom not to buy into any government medical insurance program (at least for the first ~65 years of your life... even if the government has pretty much killed off the alternatives), 2nd amendment rights -- despite all the many ways in which the government regularly violates those rights, the US still seems to be a world leader -- and the right to homeschool (which Russia respects better than the average EU country, at least.) But if you look at freedom-crushing regulations (e.g. of small farms, businesses...), the US is one of the least free places in the whole world.
1
-
@mrdan2898 You get lost easily, don't you? You were the one that said, "why is no country asking to join Russian" and then "the DPR and LPR have been asking to join Russia for the last 8 years. Coincidentally ever since the Russian War that started in 2014" And now you say, "The Donbas is Ukrainian territory not Russia territory." Why is it Ukrainian territory and not Russian? Because you don't respect the self-determination of the people of the Donbas any more than Kiev does?
But in any case, the people of the Donbas sought a referendum on independence before the war started, not after or in response to it. They sought a referendum on independence, a referendum that Kiev refused to recognize or offer any alternative to, not because of anything Russia did, but because of the US-supported coup that ousted Ukraine's democratically elected president. That wasn't "Russia attempt[ing] to destabilize Ukraine"; that was the West destabilizing Ukraine.
"It's funny how Putin's plans..."
It's funny how you think you know what all Putin's plans have been. But, of course, Putin is nothing to you except your own little cartoon caricature, your own invention, and so you can read his mind just like a cartoon narrator.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidmcpherson7451 "Lincoln was a moral man of high character"
If a moral man of high character has a partner that wants to leave him for whatever reason, does he physically beat his partner into submission to "preserve the union." What kind of union is based on people being beaten into submission rather than on consent?
"and wanted slavery gone"
Probably not. Plenty of people at the time didn't believe it. Consider what both an abolitionist and the vice president of the Confederacy said about him and his party:
Lysander Spooner: "...these lenders of blood money [whose "servile, slavish, villainous tool" Lincoln was] had, for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders... They had been such accomplices for a purely pecuniary consideration, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money, were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slave-holders in the future, for the same pecuniary considerations. But the slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future – that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South – that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These – and not any love of liberty or justice – were the motives on which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may....
"The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of “maintaining the national honor.” Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white."
"...notwithstanding their [Republicans'] professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave." Stephens, March 1861
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lets.Go.Brandon "you can't escape discrimination laws by only refusing to offer some of your services to the group you dislike"
A web site for one type of event isn't a different service from a web site for a different type of event -- what's different is the event, not the service -- and that's further proved by the fact -- as I've already pointed out -- that if we were talking about the exact same event, it wouldn't matter who came in to request those services, whether the person contracting for the services were a heterosexual friend/relative/etc. But it remains a fact, regardless of what a prior court said, that sex and sexual orientation aren't the same thing, but even if Congress had passed a law protecting homosexuals from discrimination, it certainly didn't pass a law protecting homosexuality, just like it didn't pass a law protecting Christianity, even though it did pass a law protecting Christians. So, no, once again, "homosexuality" is not "a protected class," not according to any previous court rulings, let alone the law. But even if we ignored all those arguments, no law Congress passed could trump the first amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion anyway (although the Supreme Court obviously has the power to illegitimately invent any meaning of the constitution that it wants, so long as there isn't enough opposition in Congress to impeach them, which has never happened and never will, and so long as there isn't an uncontrollable public uprising, so what the court might illegitimately do is a completely separate question from the question of what's legitimate under the law as we've been arguing here.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@houstonhayward1113 "Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty. If, with this great truth ever before them, a majority of her people should prefer despotism to liberty, I would say to her, as to "a wayward sister, depart in peace." I want to see no Maryland this side of the Potomac."
-Alexander Stephens, speech before the Georgia legislature, March 16, 1864
1
-
@houstonhayward1113 The CSA was only a failed state in the sense that the Second Polish Republic became a "failed state" when Hitler and Stalin invaded, conquered, and subjugated the people of Poland.
Obviously the Vice President of the Confederacy either didn't take the preamble of the Confederate Constitution to mean what you're wanting to make it out to mean -- and I challenge you to provide any evidence that any leading Southerner did -- or he was willing to disregard it. Either way, that's dramatically more respect for the principles of the US Declaration of Independence than can be found from any leading Republican of that time. And it shows that at least some Southerners did indeed take a principled stand for the right not to be ruled over by any government except as they would freely consent to as individual states.
And why must there be a "legal mechanism" for secession anyway? The Confederacy went to war to defend the right to secede apart from any constitutionally defined legal mechanism. They very clearly didn't believe the right to secession depended on constitutionally spelled out mechanisms.
I don't know what you take "states rights" to mean, but to the extent it includes the right to secede, which is how some people would define the term, then that was undeniably what the war was about, right?
I agree that a speech from one politician, even a vice president, doesn't necessarily reflect a government's position as well as that government's actions, which can sometimes contradict each other to varying degrees.
There is plenty of evidence in the changes made from the US Constitution in establishing the Confederate Constitution that the CSA was fighting against a tyrannical federal government, including the preamble you quoted and its clarification that the CSA was a confederacy in which "each state [was] acting in its sovereign and independent character..."
As for the use of the word "permanent," that can probably best be understood in the context of the explicitly "provisional" constitution passed just a month earlier.
1
-
@houstonhayward1113 What evidence is there that the word "permanent" was not in reference to the Constitution, particularly when it replaced a provisional constitution from just a month earlier? Do you think it's true just because you want it to be true?
Aren't federal representatives supposed to live in their districts anyways? You think there's something wrong with them not being able to live long-term in DC? I've got no problem at all with federal representatives "packing up" on a regular basis. Why do you?
As to the need to constantly be packing up, here's what one wise northern abolitionist, George Bassett, had to say about how to avoid constant secession movements:
“...the doctrine of coercion... is the destruction of the government, because it is a political revolution. It is a change of the whole spirit of the government, from a confederacy of sovereign States, held together by mutual interest and common attachment, to a consolidated empire, bound together by military force.
“It is also, to some extent, an efficient cause of the present dissolution of the Union. It is the belligerent doctrines and attitude of the dominant politicians of the North, which have precipitated this movement of secession. If the right of secession had been conceded at the first, the movement would have been deprived of its essential vigor and intenseness. The people, feeling that they had a conceded right to secede at will, would naturally have delayed an act so fearfully pregnant with possible evils. … Nor could so many States have been induced to follow the momentous experiment in such hasty succession. It is very doubtful if the movement could have been effected at all, if the right to make it had not been denied.”
If it were true that "Any reasonable and honest reading of the Confederate constitution... makes it incredibly clear that they had one primary issue causing them to secede... and that reason was their desire to preserve the institution of slavery," why did the Confederate Constitution, how do you explain that the Confederate Constitution, which was mostly just a word for word copy of the US constitution include these changes:
The preamble added the phrase, "each State acting in its sovereign and independent character."
Powers were not "granted" to the federal government, like in the US constitution, but rather "delegated."
The Confederate Constitution added: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole power of impeachment except any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the (State’s) Legislature …”
The president was given line-item veto power in all appropriation bills.
The power to collect tariffs and other taxes was limited to purposes "for revenue necessary" to running the government.
Tariffs to “promote or foster any branch of industry” were specifically disallowed.
"...neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce” except along waterways and harbors.
"...of the several states" was added to the 9th amendment.
The 10th amendment was changed from "to the States respectively, or to the people" to "to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.”
Sounds like an awful lot of opposition to crony capitalism and centralized government to me, especially considering how few changes were made overall.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ > govt must only be altered and abolsihed if it becomes tyrannical.
So had the Articles of Confederation become tyrannical? If not, on what basis can you accept the constitution?
In fact, the constitution itself was built on the foundation of the right of an arbitrary number of states (9 of 13) -- a number chosen by the states themselves independent of the central government -- choosing to abandon the existing government and establish a new government for those states consenting to the new government. In other words, the constitution itself was built on the sovereignty of the states to abandon a government that hadn't become tyrannical and establish a new government of their own choosing on their own sovereign authority.
But, no, the Declaration of Independence says no such thing.
> Remind me how is forcibly abbolishing slavery tyranny.
Forcing the abolition of slavery? Can't you hide your lies any better than that? Or are you actually that ignorant of what the North actually said and did?
Official Union declaration: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner: "The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ...in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. ...
"All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” ... of having “preserved the union,” ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dan Beech Whatever you think you know, one thing is clear, and that's that you can't explain or make any sense of your revisionist myth.
As I already said to the person that started this thread and repeated already once before, sure, slavery was threatened (as it was threatened everywhere inside and outside the union, in Cuba, Brazil, etc.), but you seem to be saying that slavery in the southern states was threatened particularly by remaining in the union. Is that indeed what you're suggesting? And if so, how do you think the union threatened slavery? And how do you think seceding offered any hope of protecting against those threats?
Righteous Causers never have any real answers to those questions, which is to say they can't explain their own Righteous Cause Myth. It's inexplicable nonsense, BS propaganda, historically baseless myth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First, as d s already noted, Fort Sumter isn't in the North.
Second, the North was completely unwilling to even come to the bargaining table to negotiate any terms of separation whatsoever, and meanwhile was doing things and declaring that they were going to go on doing things that would be considered acts of war by any other country and which were, in any case, wholly incompatible with secession. You can ask whether the North would have continued those acts of war if the South had played its cards differently, but the only options for the South were to (1) give up without a fight and forfeit all the rights they had claimed, including independence, (2) fight for those rights, and (3) buy their time and hope that the North would give up what the North had shown no intention of giving up at all. It's ridiculous, in any case, to suggest that the North had shown any willingness at all to respect the South's right to independence and self-government. Of course, the South, prior to Lincoln's call to war didn't include VA, NC, TN, and AR, states which only seceded after and in opposition to Lincoln's call to subjugate the states that had already seceded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid How do you reconcile the following excerpt from Jefferson Davis' February 22, 1862 second inaugural address to your the South was fighting to invade some other place in the future argument?
"When the independence of the Confederate States is recognized by the nations of the earth, and we are free to follow our interests and inclinations by cultivating foreign trade, the Southern States will offer to manufacturing nations the most favorable markets which ever invited their commerce. Cotton, sugar, rice, tobacco, provisions, timber, and naval stores will furnish attractive exchanges. Nor would the constancy of these supplies be likely to be disturbed by war. Our confederate strength will be too great to tempt aggression; and never was there a people whose interests and principles committed them so fully to a peaceful policy as those of the Confederate States. By the character of their productions they are too deeply interested in foreign commerce wantonly to disturb it. War of conquest they cannot wage, because the Constitution of their Confederacy admits of no coerced association. Civil war there cannot be between States held together by their volition only. The rule of voluntary association, which cannot fail to be conservative, by securing just and impartial government at home, does not diminish the security of the obligations by which the Confederate States may be bound to foreign nations. In proof of this, it is to be remembered that, at the first moment of asserting their right to secession, these States proposed a settlement on the basis of the common liability for the obligations of the General Government."
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid However little popular support the Corwin amendment may or may not have had, it passed both houses of Congress with the necessary 2/3 votes even after the southern states that had already seceded had withdrawn their representatives (i.e. even without their votes), and even though it passed before Lincoln was inaugurated, the president has no role in passing constitutional amendments (so neither Buchanan nor Lincoln), so whether he had been inaugurated or not was totally irrelevant, and in any case, he made a point of saying he had no objections to irrevocably and constitutionally protecting slavery from federal interference (let alone abolition.) So unlike the war measures you cited, the Corwin amendment was precisely the "Northern response to Southern secession."
As for the Emancipation Proclamation, which you misconstrued as the Northern response to secession, even though it came in response to lots of later developments, Lincoln said of it, "I view the matter as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” In other words, the war, neither at the beginning nor at any other point, wasn't at all in opposition to slavery except insofar as opposition to slavery happened to coincide with opposition to the South's independence. And that was obviously the constant: the North opposed any consideration of recognizing the right of self-government even as it went from the Corwin amendment to the Emancipation Proclamation.
As for the motives you've ridiculously tried to impart to all the advocates of the right of self-government, one outstanding disproof that nonsense among countless others (not that the claim isn't so patently ridiculous that it needs any disproving) comes from what the abolitionist Bassett wrote in 1861: “Suppose the case reversed, and, instead of South Carolina desiring to secede from the Union, for the interests of slavery, Massachusetts should wish to secede, for the interests of liberty. Suppose the people of the latter should feel conscientiously bound to withdraw political fellowship and complicity with slavery, and to exercise their natural sovereignty in a just, humane, and impartial system of government,–would it not be oppression to coerce her to remain? Would not the combined tyranny of thirty-three coercing States be a more intolerable despotism than any single tyrant? Would it not be oppression for the general government to collect an involuntary tribute from an unwilling State, to support a government whose flag protects not only the crime of slavery but the African slave trade itself? … The friends of liberty and a free conscience should be careful how they sanction a principle against South Carolina, which may have equal power against the holiest instinct of humanity in the people of the Northern States.”
But, of course, your argument against the right of self-government can't stand on its own merits but rather depends on resorting to these sorts of ad hominem arguments.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "I showed you what the Confederate leaders said on this issue. They knew what their own cause was. They determined the Confederate cause, not you."
Is there a single thing any Confederate leader said that I've disputed the accuracy of? Yes, there were some vague statements 50 years after the war by generals that had gone to work for northern industry, but you haven't shown a single piece of evidence from within 100 years of the war of anyone, not even a fringe historian, not from a former Confederate general working for the railroad companies, not even so much as a random person from an insane asylum asserting what you've asserted, that the reason the South fought in the war was in order to be able to invade some other place in the future, that that was the meaning of every reference to "slavery." So (1) if you want to claim that your argument isn't the revisionist one, start by showing me a single clear presentation of your argument from within 100 years of the war. And (2) if you think there's a single thing any Confederate leader said, especially anything that was said when the questions of secession and the war were decided, so in the lead-up to secession through until 3-6 months after the start of the war (or even up until the very end of the war), that contradicts anything I've said (including my refuting what you've said), quote me and repeat the contradictory quote(s) from the Confederate leaders.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "You haven't been able to refute any of those..."
I repeat: Just for the record, you didn't accept my challenge to "quote me and repeat the contradictory quote(s) from the Confederate leaders" because you obviously can't.
What do you think any of those quotes prove that I need to refute to hold any position I've taken? Nothing. But quote me if there's anything I've said you think you can challenge with any of those quotes you've tried to distort.
"I've shown you Robert Toombs explaining the necessity of expanding slavery."
And I've shown you the president of the Confederacy denying any such need and explaining why the Confederacy's well-being was exceptionally consistent with peacefully minding its own business.
All you've presented are quotes from before secession, that weren't in any way about the war or the Confederacy's war aims. You continue to allege that the war was fought over the "expansion of slavery" even though you don't have a single quote or shred of evidence from anyone saying any such thing about the war, not by any leaders of the Confederacy, not by any Northern leaders, not by any propagandists, not by any revisionist historian until well over 100 years after the end of the war.
I can back up every single point I've made with historical evidence from that time, including from lots of sources that had no Confederate bias whatsoever, like, for example, abolitionists and founding fathers that lived long before the war.
And you can't even explain how the "expansion of slavery" was at stake in the war anyway. Your argument rests on the assumption that the Confederate states' whole reason for seceding was to be able to invade some other undetermined place in the future, even though you can't find a single quote of any Confederate leader saying so. And, in any case, denying the southern states the right to self-government because of what they weren't trying to do but might try to do in the future is equivalent to justifying slavery on the basis of what black people might do if they were allowed their freedom. So it would be a lousy argument even if it weren't historically preposterous, which it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@olp3850 One northern abolitionist spoke to your question in early 1861, shortly before the start of the war:
"...the doctrine of coercion... is the destruction of the government, because it is a political revolution. It is a change of the whole spirit of the government, from a confederacy of sovereign States, held together by mutual interest and common attachment, to a consolidated empire, bound together by military force.
"It is also, to some extent, an efficient cause of the present dissolution of the Union. It is the belligerent doctrines and attitude of the dominant politicians of the North, which have precipitated this movement of secession. If the right of secession had been conceded at the first, the movement would have been deprived of its essential vigor and intenseness. The people, feeling that they had a conceded right to secede at will, would naturally have delayed an act so fearfully pregnant with possible evils. … Nor could so many States have been induced to follow the momentous experiment in such hasty succession. It is very doubtful if the movement could have been effected at all, if the right to make it had not been denied.
...
"In this unnatural attempt to subdue the seceding States and literally put them under tribute, your most formidable enemy... will be the great principles of popular liberty which you challenge to mortal combat. You will war against the principle of your own immortal Revolution, viz.: the right of any people to choose their own government."
1
-
1
-
@Mountaineer3615 "But the southern states' motivation was the expansion of slavery. They said so in their articles of secession..."
No, they didn't! Seceding meant forfeiting their right to take slaves to Kansas, Nebraska, etc., not securing that right.
"The experiment instituted by our revolutionary fathers, of a voluntary Union of sovereign States for purposes specified in a solemn compact, had been perverted by those who, feeling power and forgetting right, were determined to respect no law but their own will...
"...never was there a people whose interests and principles committed them so fully to a peaceful policy as those of the Confederate States. By the character of their productions they are too deeply interested in foreign commerce wantonly to disturb it. War of conquest they cannot wage, because the Constitution of their Confederacy admits of no coerced association. Civil war there cannot be between States held together by their volition only. The rule of voluntary association, which cannot fail to be conservative, by securing just and impartial government at home, does not diminish the security of the obligations by which the Confederate States may be bound to foreign nations. In proof of this, it is to be remembered that, at the first moment of asserting their right to secession, these States proposed a settlement on the basis of the common liability for the obligations of the General Government."
-Jefferson Davis, February 22, 1862
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm What diplomacy are you imaging the Confederate government refused?
As one Massachusetts abolitionist wrote: "It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation.
"In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?"
1
-
@jaranarm No, not Spooner, another Massachusetts abolitionist, George Bassett, but why does it matter? Why do you need an excuse for ignoring the actual content of the quote? I repeat, particularly in light of the argument I quoted, what diplomacy are you imagining the Confederacy refused?
As for becoming the world's mightiest economy, enriching robber barons was ultimately what the war was about, that and putting an end to the principles on which the union had previously been founded. As Patrick Henry said, "You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc You ask what issues did they discuss beyond slavery. If by slavery you mean the abolition of slavery according to the rule of law, they didn't discuss that at all. If that's not what you mean by slavery, you'll have to say what you mean.
In any case, you said, "I never said that the North was threatening to abolish slavery in the South." They weren't, certainly not in any kind of constitutionally legitimate way, nor in any other kind of way. So the question then is what you mean when you speak of issues "beyond slavery." When, for example, Republican governors refused to honor their constitutional obligation to extradite terrorist murderers, are you defending the unconstitutional protection of murderous terrorists by calling it the issue of slavery? If your definition of the issue of slavery has nothing to do with abolishing slavery according to the rule of law but does have to do with protecting murderous terrorists that were acting under shallow abolitionist pretenses, then the problem is your vague and misleading definition of your terms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Klako-ls6yt Three points there to respond to: (1) What does it matter if later on in the war the North had challenged something they hadn't challenged at first, (2) the emancipation proclamation, and (3) the 13th amendment. I'll save the last two for separate comments.
Suppose England after initially going to war with no slavery-related aims and denying any purpose in the First American Independence War of interfering with slavery, but waging war only to deny the 13 colonies their independence and maintain them as colonies, i.e. for all the actual historical reasons, had then halfway through the war taken whatever anti-slavery position you'd like England to have taken. Are you saying the States would have then lost the right to independence which they had had at the start of the war, that the States, if they had not been willing to make any changes to slavery at that point, should by right have then laid down their arm and given up their claim to independence, and that England then would have been justified in subjugating the States to its rule because of the anti-slavery position it hypothetically then took? Is that the same principle as you're asserting? If not, what's the difference between that and the principle you are asserting when you assert that what the North did later on in the war with regards to slavery mattered?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nubbe999 The annexation of Crimea is only another example: it only happened after Western countries supported the overthrow of the democratically elected, Russian-friendly president of Ukraine. Was the guy corrupt? Very probably so, maybe even worse than the average politician, but if you go overthrowing/sidestepping the democratic process, what do you expect as a result? And why shouldn't the people of Crimea be free to secede from Ukraine and join Russia anyway? If a fair referendum could have been held, how would the Crimean people have voted?
But even more to the point, NATO should have ended with the collapse of the USSR, but unfortunately bureaucratic inertia kept NATO going for no purpose. Russia's foreign policy seems reasonable enough in response to not only the continuation of NATO but its expansion up to the borders of Russia. Latvia and Georgia need to figure out how to live peaceably with Russia. The US and/or NATO certainly don't need to get involved if they can't. Russian-Georgian foreign policy really shouldn't matter to the US. If the US can live peaceably with Saudi Arabia and China, as we have for decades, then we can live peaceably with Russia, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Mr. Davis... said, “We are not fighting for slavery; we are fighting for independence.” This is true; and is a truth that has not sufficiently been dwelt upon. ...our enemies have diligently labored to make all mankind believe that the people of these States have set up a pretended State sovereignty, and based themselves upon that ostensibly, while their real object has been only to preserve to themselves the property in so many negroes, worth so many millions of dollars. The direct reverse is the truth... the cause of the war, the whole cause, on our part, is the maintenance of the sovereign independence of these States.…
The whole cause of our resistance was and is, the pretension and full determination of the Northern States to use their preponderance in the Federal representation, in order to govern the Southern States for their profit. ... Yet neither tariffs nor slavery, nor both together, could ever have been truly called the cause of the secession and the war. We refuse to accept for a cause any thing… than that truly announced, namely, the sovereign independence of our States. This, indeed, includes both those minor questions, as well as many others yet graver and higher. It includes full power to regulate our trade for our own profit, and also complete jurisdiction over our own social and domestic institutions; but it further involves all the nobler attributes of national, and even of individual life and character...
It is right to let foreign nations, and “those whom it may concern,” understand this theory of our independence. Let them understand that, though we are “not fighting for slavery,” we will not allow ourselves to be dictated to in regard to slavery or any other of our internal affairs, not because that would diminish our interest in any property, but because it touches our independence."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid What was the free government of the founding fathers? You wouldn't have a clue, would you? Or if you do, you would never admit it, because you despise it. It certainly wasn't the absence of slavery.
The freedom of the founding fathers was, in the words of Jefferson Davis, "the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us... [that] the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born -- to use the language of Mr. Jefferson -- booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal -- meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed."
Or in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "that every state has a natural right, in cases not within the compact [casus non foederis] to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them... and the barrier of the constitution thus swept away for us all, no rampart now remains against the passions and the power of a majority in Congress, to protect from a like exportation or other more grievous punishment, the Minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors, & counsellors of the states, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the states and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their elections or other interests public or personal... that these & successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold necessarily drive these states into revolution and blood, and will furnish new calumnies against republican government, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is every where the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence... that they will view this as seizing the rights of the states & consolidating them in the hands of the genl govm’t with a power assumed to bind the states (not merely in the cases made federal, but) in all cases whatsoever, by laws made not with their consent, but by others against their consent; that this would be to surrender the form of govmt we have chosen, & to live under one deriving it’s powers from it’s own will & not from our authority..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid The Articles weren't ratified until 1781, and in any case, they established a confederation, which is why they were called the Articles of Confederation. So even if you want to say the United States were founded on the principles of the Articles, they were founded on the principles of confederation.
But that's all an attempt to avoid the core principles on which the States were really founded, the principles of just government requiring the consent of the governed, of all men being created equal not in the sense of any rejection of slavery but in the sense, as Jefferson Davis said, "that no man was born... booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal -- meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed."
Those principles are what made the United States uniquely free. That was the freedom for which the 13 states fought, and it was the very same freedom for which the southern states fought and which the Lincoln and the Republicans fought to destroy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"to accomplish"
As if abolishing slavery had been a war aim of the North! Ha!
As one Massachusetts abolitionist said after the war, "And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WeaslyTwin Even northern abolitionists were calling BS on your claims before the bloodless Battle of Fort Sumter even happened.
Abolitionist George Bassett wrote in early 1861: “Suppose we simply collect the revenue of South Carolina, as the Government proposes to do, and as the people generally demand and claim the right to do, what is she any longer, I ask, but a conquered province? and what is your revenue but a forced tribute? … I hear it every day gravely maintained and with apparent sincerity, by many of the Northern citizens, and they catch it from our members of Congress, that we do not intend to conquer South Carolina, but only to collect her revenue, and probably blockade her ports and keep possession of the military posts! But does any intelligent person fail to see that that is the full extent of political subjugation? Taxation, direct or indirect, is one of the highest functions of sovereignty, and to blockade a port, is one of the most belligerent acts. It is truly ridiculous for grave members of Congress to disclaim any purpose of conquest or war, when they advocate the extreme measures of military hostility.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WeaslyTwin It's not "changing history to make a point" if you fault the southern states for "starting the war" and I ask you what they should have done differently. If you'd fault them just as much regardless of whether or not they "started the war," then it's a meaningless criticism. So unless there's a better alternative you think they should have followed, you don't have a point, and if there is a better alternative you think they should have followed, then it's fair to ask what that is.
As for the South "starting the war," if an anti-aircraft gunner had fired on the Japanese bombers at Pearl Harbor before they dropped any bombs or fired any shots, would you therefore say (if that were what had happened) that the US started the war with Japan? And if Americans firing on Japanese combat forces that were in Hawaiian airspace for no good reason (even if Americans had fired first) wouldn't make Americans guilty of starting the war with Japan, why does Confederate forces firing on Union combat forces in South Carolina (after giving them months to leave, repeated warnings, etc.) make the South guilty of starting the war with the Union? If you were in charge of anti-aircraft forces in Pearl Harbor in 1941, would you have ordered your forces to hold their fire until the Japanese bombers started dropping bombs first? It really doesn't matter who fired first. What really matters is simply that the Japanese planes were where they didn't have a right to be.
As for slavery in the territories, which of my questions do you mean to answer with those comments? I'll hold off on responding to give you a chance to put that into context for me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 Hold Lincoln quotes in high regard? No, but they do, of course, provide some insights into what he and the Republicans represented:
1848: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
September 13, 1862, the day after the Preliminary Proclamation was issued: “Understand, I raise no objections against it [slavery] on legal or constitutional grounds … I view the matter [emancipation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.”
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”
“The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [western] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people.”
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races …there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid So you can't imagine a politician using a wedge issue for ulterior motives?
Lincoln's racist views were entirely out in the open, as the quotes I shared prove. His crony capitalist agenda was, too (in the Republican platform, for example), although, of course, he and the Republcians sold that agenda dishonestly, much like his slavery rhetoric was really a way to undermine what had been the dominant policies of "free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures," as Georgia explained the Republicans real agenda in its declaration of causes of secession. As Alexander Stephens explained in the cornerstone speech Republicans were actually "disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave."
In any case, it's typically absurd of you to call Lincoln's racist views about the territories "distractions from the actual issue" and at the same time say the issue of the territories was the main issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Oriental despotism is slavery, and that's what the North was fighting for.
That's why Spooner, albeit after the war, spoke of "the slavery they [Northerners] were fighting to preserve..."
But that language was nothing new. The minority at the Pennsylvania constitutional ratifying convention issued a report in 1787, for just one of many examples equating despotism and slavery: "Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another."
So, want to try again with your "revisionist" BS?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc I'm referring to the inalienable right that applies to every state and every territory everywhere, the right explicitly described in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, not a legal right limited to the US, although of course, that inalienable right was the basis on which the 13 states established their independence and also the same basis on which the US constitution itself was established (Article 7), and the constitution never tried to take that right away (not that inalienable rights can be taken away), so therefore a 10th amendment right.
"If there be a principle that ought not to be questioned within the United States, it is, that every nation has a right to abolish an old government and establish a new one. This principle is not only recorded in every public archive, written in every American heart, and sealed with the blood of a host of American martyrs; but is the only lawful tenure by which the United States hold their existence as a nation." -James Madison
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc I think some, maybe a lot, of the founding fathers would have only applied that principle at the state level, but I don't see any reason to stop at states. There are some tiny island countries and city-states in the world, but a city-state would have to be willing to accept an international border with its neighbors that its neighbors could regulate (or completely close) however they pleased. That would be one major disincentive to people choosing to secede into very small territories. But the founding fathers in the first decades after independence undisputedly recognized the sovereignty of states.
Madison, for example: "Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority... [but] Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc "2. What are you talking about specifically?"
You seem to be arguing that states need to have sufficient cause in order to ditch the existing government. Apparently you believe the 13 colonies had sufficient cause in 1776. And apparently you believe the states had sufficient cause to ditch the Articles of Confederation. So my question is who do you think had the right to be the judge of whether the states wanting to ditch the Articles of Confederation had sufficient cause? The Congress of the Confederation?
That's very nearly the same question as my 3rd question.
"3. Of course states need a reason to secede. They also need the permission of the other states."
My third question was, "Who do you think should answer that question [your question of whether states need a reason to secede]?" So apparently your answer is "the other states." But who exactly do you mean by "the other states"? Does that mean the unanimous vote of all the other states? Or just a majority of the states? Or some other arbitrary proportion (like 9 out of 13)? Or does the central government (Congress) need to pass a bill approving of the reasons?
"4. Yes, democracy does require the consent of the governed, but that doesn't imply that people can simply opt out of governance whenever they want to. If that were the case, government would be impossible."
How is "simply opt[ing] out of [the] governance [of England]" not what the 13 colonies did in 1776? They didn't submit their reasons for wanting to opt out to King George or any other Englishmen to judge and then abide by the ruling of those judges on whether they had sufficient reasons or not. They stated their reasons but they simply seceded (declared independence) on their own authority. Likewise, the states did essentially the exact same thing again in 1787 when they ditched the Articles of Confederation on their own authority. That didn't make government impossible, did it?
And the EU clearly allows the member states of the EU to "simply out out of [EU] governance whenever they want to" (as with Brexit.) That doesn't make the EU an impossible form of government.
You could just as well argue that allowing workers to leave their workplaces, to "simply out of" their employment "whenever they want to" would mean that employment would be impossible, that workers must be kept at their workplaces by force (as slaves), couldn't you? And you'd be just as wrong, wouldn't you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm What do you think it shows that the Czar didn't recognize the right of secession? And England near the peak of its colonial empire didn't recognize the right of secession either. Nor did it in 1776. That only shows that secession was at odds with Old World imperialism, which I readily admit.
“If Northerners... had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg... Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” London Times, September 13, 1862
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GuythatplaysApiano > you’re not even gonna answer why you’re defending the institution of slavery
What have I said that you're interpreting as a defense of slavery? I basically didn't say anything at all about slavery. I certainly didn't make any defense of it.
But you asked a different question earlier. You asked, "Why are you defending a country that tried to keep people enslaved?"
And I answered, "Why are you defending a country that tried to keep people enslaved?" Both sides in the 2nd American Independence War kept people enslaved the entire time, so no matter which side anyone thinks was in the right with regards to the war, he's defending a country that tried to (and did) keep people enslaved. And, as I noted before, the 13 states when they declared their independence from England tried to (and did) keep people enslaved, too, so not only does your proposed disqualification apply to both the Union and the Confederacy in the 2nd American Independence War, but it applies to the USA in the 1st Independence War, too. Obviously it's an absurd excuse for determining which side is right or wrong in a war.
> The rebels attacking fort Sumter proved that it was impossible to make any attempt at peace now.
What do you mean by an "attempt at peace"? Do you mean simply that the southern states were determined to stand up for their right to independence and self-government and that evicting northern forces from their own border defenses proved to the North that the seceded states weren't going to forfeit those rights? Or are you completely unaware of the fact that the North had already for months completely refused all the southern states' attempts to negotiate a peaceful separation, that the North had already made it unambiguously clear that it would engage in no peaceful negotiations on the terms of southern independence?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone"
Jefferson Davis, April 29, 1861
Official Union declaration, July, 1861,: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petermacmillan6756 Whether any northern states were slave states at whatever point you want to say the original 13 states joined the union is completely beside the point. The point was about the southern states. You claimed slavery caused the southern states to secede, but all the states that seceded had been slave states since long before they joined the union, so the point stands completely that it's nonsense to claim that something that was a constant since long before the southern states declared their independence from England and joined the union through the time they seceded from the union was the cause of them seceding. Constants don't explain changes, but people regularly use terminology like you've used to hide from the fact that the Republican-led North at the time of secession wasn't doing or threatening to do anything with regards to slavery that independence offered any prospect of preventing or protecting against.
As an aside, however, it's really not true that Pennsylvania ceased to be a slave state in 1780. There were still slaves in Pennsylvania into the 1840's. Pennsylvania passed a law for the gradual abolition of slavery in 1780, but that law didn't fully take effect until the 1840's, and in the basic sense of Pennsylvania being a place where people legally owned and practiced slavery Pennsylvania remained a slave state for many more decades after 1780.
> The southern states adapted the US Constitution with a few minor changes, except for the section that established slavery as a protected institution to make their own.
What specific difference between the US and Confederate constitutions are you referring to? There wasn't any major change with regards to slavery. The Confederate constitution did, however, prohibit protective tariffs as well as other crony capitalist measures.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Republicans won the 1860 election on a promise to defy the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1857: “3. Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property.
4. The Constitution of the Unite I States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind.”
The 1860 Republican platform declared: "8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States."
There is no talk anywhere of getting the Supreme Court to overturn its decision. The 1860 election was largely about whether the North would submit to the constitution as mediated by the Supreme Court. The Republicans wanted to defy the constitution. Some Republicans openly spoke of defying the constitution even as they themselves understood it in the name of a "higher law." The northern Democratic position, in contrast, was expressed by Pierce: “If there are provisions in the Constitution of your country not consistent with your views of principle or expediency, remember that in the nature of things that instrument could only have had its origin in compromise, and remember, too, that you will be faithless to honor and common honesty if you consent to enjoy the principles it confers, and seek to avoid, if any, the burdens it imposes. It cannot be accepted in parts; it is a whole or nothing, and as a whole, with all the right it secures, and the duties it requires, it is to be sacredly maintained... It is no matter what our peculiar views may be, or what prejudices may take possession of our minds or hearts. If, as American citizens, we find ourselves constrained by a law higher or more imperative than this law, we then deny the obligations which the Constitution imposes, and can have no just claim to the protection and blessings which it confers.”
Yes, the South seceded because the North had voted to defy the constitution particularly with regards to the territories. You've presented no evidence that the South particularly cared about the territories beyond the constitutional issues and beyond the role the territories would play in influencing the balance of power in DC. It's ridiculous to suggest the South went to war over the territories, as if the balance of power between North and South in DC (something that obviously wouldn't be an issue for an independent Confederacy) hadn't been an issue since at least the time the constitution had first been written, when almost all the northern states were still practicing slavery.
1
-
@patient_6925 What evidence is there that Lincoln intended to end slavery when he ran for office, denied the right of the southern states to secede, and went to war to subjugate them to DC rule? And how do you explain the following quotes that contradict that assertion?
1860 Republican platform: "That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends..."
From his March 1861 inaugural address:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
And later in the same address:
"a proposed amendment to the Constitution... has passed Congress," by the way, with the necessary 2/3 vote in both chambers even without the support of the slave states that had already seceded and withdrawn their representatives, "to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "...challenge that view with a specific law and see if SCOTUS would issue a different ruling." It's ridiculous to suggest that they would expect a different ruling. What evidence is there for the interpretation that they intended to see if the Supreme Court would issue a different ruling and that they intended to submit to the court's ruling if they didn't? BS! But your argument clearly depends on such BS myths.
"Again, we have a system in place for challenging laws one thinks are unconstitutional. If the rebels felt they had the constitution on their side, they should have taken their case to the courts, not the battlefields."
The Confederate states passed laws to secede. By your logic, if Lincoln felt he had the constitution on his side, he should have taken his opposition to secession to the courts, not the battlefield.
"...in response to Lincoln merely proposed to do."
That was far from their only grievance. You should know what their leading constitutional grievance was, and it wasn't one that was merely proposed. Their grievances began: "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..."
"Can you find even a single quote from any Confederate leader or document stating 'We are totally fine with the North taking steps to eliminate slavery so long as they do it with laws we think are constitutional?'"
Sure, as Georgia, after describing the ways in which the northern states were trashing the constitution said in its declaration of causes, "The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations..."
Georgia specifically noted that the Republicans' refusal to respect even the Supreme Court.
And here from Texas' declaration of causes: "By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights."
The threats the South cared about clearly involved and depended on Republicans disregarding their constitutional oaths and trampling the southern states' constitutional rights.
You quote Mississippi and South Carolina's declaration of causes where they talk about the territories and say, "Nothing about constitutional issues in that line."
But the declarations of causes are all about constitutional grievances. South Carolina summed up what its grievances amounted by saying in its declaration: "The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist..."
Texas said specifically about the territories: "...to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government..." Power in the common government was why the states cared so much about the territories, not any issue which applied to an independent Confederacy, and you still haven't presented any evidence that proves otherwise, only baseless and false interpretations of what were really constitutional disputes motivated by desire for power in the common government, which the southern states completely abandoned when they seceded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid I want a quote, preferably from Davis or Stephens, or an official declaration from the Confederate Congress, or something closely comparable, from the time of the war (1861-65), saying that the war was really about territorial expansion. That's the crux of your argument. Let's see any direct proof for it.
Sure, there were expansionist hawks in the South before the war, just like there were in the North, and just like there were in the North and South after the war, and just like there are today. But the main issue of the territories was clearly power in the federal government (which the seceding states abandoned/forfeited when they seceded). Do you deny that the states saw the territories as future states that would affect the balance of power in DC? Do you think that wasn't very significant? Quotes from before secession (or backward looking quotes explaining the reasons for secession) can and ought to be understood in that context, especially given the direct evidence for that understanding and given the total absence of any evidence for you myth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronfleming9426 As to the emancipation proclamation, as the famous Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner said, "And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ... in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before."
> The emancipation proclamation freed slaves everywhere the Union army went.
And that's not even true. The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the territory the Union army didn't control at the time it took effect. It didn't free slaves in the slave states that hadn't seceded, and it didn't free slaves in the parts of the Confederate states that were already under Union control, and that was for the obvious reason that it wasn't at all about freeing slaves but was entirely just a war measure, just like Lincoln said: "I view the matter [emancipation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." And "suppressing the rebellion" was, of course, nothing other than Lincoln's twisted euphemism for denying independence and self-government to and subjugating the southern states.
> But that would have defeated the very purpose of the war, wouldn't it have?
And what are you trying to suggest was the purpose of going to war for the southern states? To prevent a war measure that never would have come about apart from the war? That's obviously absurd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 In reference to the terrorists which, under shallow abolitionist pretenses, had murdered random civilians in Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia), beginning with a free black Virginian who was just minding his own business, South Carolina said in its declaration of causes of secession, "the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder..."
Texas said in its declaration of causes: "They [the northern states] have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved."
Georgia said in its declaration of causes of secession: "Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates."
1
-
@yoloswaggins7121 "...how small an area can claim that right?"
I believe that right ought to be respected with regards to any area, however small, in which the people of that area wish to exercise that right. Even today there are some awfully tiny countries in the world, some of which have a longer history as independent states than the US. But seceding from the US would mean forfeiting all the rights of US citizens, including the right to work in the remainder of the US... even to enter the US. So there are major practical limitations on very small areas seceding, and in any case, whether areas smaller than states could claim the right to secede wasn't at stake in the war (although the North did assert the right of part of Virginia to secede from the rest of the state.)
“The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States, and in uniting together, they have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so…” -– Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America (~1835)
“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'” Thomas Jefferson
“That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.” Madison, Federalist #39
1
-
@yoloswaggins7121 Here are some quotes from abolitionists relating to the allegation that Southerners were traitors:
George Bassett, 1861: “When a government becomes so corrupt as to forfeit the respect and support of the citizens in whose name it is exercised, and for whose protection and benefit it professes to act, it is very apt to resent disloyalty with the charge of treason and rebellion. …
“The secession of South Carolina has been called in Congress 'a revolt,' and 'rebellion.' But this charge could come only from a total misapprehension of the nature and object of free government. Revolt is resistance to the supreme authority. But the true idea of free government is, that the people themselves are this supreme authority. How, then, can a whole united people be chargeable with this crime? Can they 'revolt' against themselves? The idea is absurd.”
Joshua Blanchard: “'Rebellion' is defined by Webster, 'an open and avowed renunciation of the authority of the government, to which one owes allegiance.' This can only apply to government on the European principle – there can be no such thing as owing allegiance in a government expressly held on the will of the people.”
Blanchard, March 1861: "The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
Bassett: "The same principle that has always made me an uncompromising abolitionst, now makes me an uncompromising secessionist. It is the great natural and sacred right of self-government."
Josiah Warren: “The right of self-sovereignty in every human being, which gives you the supreme right to leave us without asking our leave gives to your slaves the same right to leave you...”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pavitrprabhakar3981 Your comparison of Phelps to India is very funny.
I guess I don't see any advantage to living in the same country as leading scientists or athletes, though. I think it's pretty crazy how much money Americans spend on sports programs (including tax dollars for sports programs that are parts of schools), plus all the time spent driving children back and forth to sports programs and other activities. I think I'd prefer a mellower lifestyle where children just got to go outside and play (including playing athletic games with neighboring children, but not in highly organized and specialized ways), besides helping with their families' work.
Wasn't Gandhi very supportive of initiatives for local self-sufficiency and critical of industrial dependency? Do any Indians still hold views like that? I'm personally inclined to views like that, but it seems like very few Americans think like me nowadays. I think there's a lot of common ground between those views of Gandhi (based on my very limited and possibly mistaken knowledge) and the Patrick Henry quote I shared. I see becoming "a great and powerful people" (quoting Henry), including Olympic champions, leading scientists, a powerful army, etc. largely as seductive things that lead people away from things of greater value like healthy and reasonably independent, self-determining families/homesteads/communities.
How well remembered is the Bhopal disaster in India today? To me that disaster represents the modern American way.
1
-
@pavitrprabhakar3981 I'm in my 40's, and I think I just randomly read something that mentioned the Bhopal disaster within the last 5 years and made note of it, but prior to that I don't think I knew anything about it at all, and I'd guess less than 10% of Americans (maybe more like 1-2%) know anything about it. I might ask some slightly older people to get a better feel.
Shamefully, I had to look up what 26/11 was and when I did it seemed totally unfamiliar to me, although I surely must have heard about it at the time.
When I mentioned Gandhi before I didn't mean to say anything about non-violence, only about the self-sufficiency ideas that I connect to him when I think about India (although not as much as non-violence, but that just wasn't where I was going.)
It sounds like India is doing more to avoid dependence on China than the US is. I wish the US were more like what it seems India is.
I'm also troubled by how much control a small number of large social media companies (facebook, twitter, etc.) manipulate and control the flow of ideas and information, completely apart from any international issues, but that's probably another subject entirely.
You ask how lots of scientists and innovators can not be a good thing. I didn't mean to say that they're bad (although I do think the costs of scienc and innovation -- I would consider the Bhopal disaster one example of those costs -- are
often poorly calculated such that the net benefit is exaggerated), but what I meant to say is that the benefits of science tend to be globally accessible, so it doesn't seem to matter much whether those scientists are in my country or another country. People can buy the latest cell phones anywhere in the world, for example, no matter where the technology in them was developed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscarbenigsen4538 "Lincoln publicly and directly encouraged Americans to calibrate to The Declaration of Independence by"
So you're unable to recognize/unwilling to admit that the main point of saying "all men are created equal" was to defend the right of the colonies to secede from England and choose their own government? You really feel the need to blind yourself to the simple fact that that was the whole main point of the Declaration of Independence?
"against absolute Despotism"
Against anything that should seem to them less "likely to effect their Safety and Happiness," just like the delegates to the Philadelphia convention did 11 years later when they threw off the Articles of Confederation and chose a new government for themselves based on an arbitrary standard they established for themselves (9 of 13 states) on their own authority. Did the Articles represent "absolute despotism"? Of course, not.
Did Lincoln try to twist the meaning of the Declaration of Independence in order to gain more political power for himself and the robber barons he worked for? Sure. So what?
"For several years, long before he became president, Lincoln implored America to..."
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." -Lincoln
"a power that the South had once wielded against the North with impunity."
Not at all! When Southerners dominated the federal government they (Thomas Jefferson) said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'"
The way you destroy a union is by threatening to physically beat and beating your partner into submission when she tries to leave you. You preserve a union (not that some unions shouldn't sometimes be left) by compromising and respecting the agreement you made with your partner and making your partner want to freely choose to remain in union with you, not by beating her.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner: "Their pretenses that they have “Saved the Country,” and “Preserved our Glorious Union,” are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call “Saving the Country”; as if an enslaved and subjugated people – or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) – could be said to have any country. This, too, they call “Preserving our Glorious Union”; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war, ... or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RayB50 Most of the time when people make claims like in your opening comment they're not actually thinking about things people at the time said about the war, and consistent with that norm, the quote you shared in your first reply wasn't about the war either. But if you are talking specifically about the war, as your original claim certainly suggested, then let's see evidence of your claim, which is to say quotes specifically about the war, not about disputes that preceded the war, but specifically and explicitly about the war itself, which, of course would mean quotes from during the time of the war, especially not from before the start of the war.
And then that takes us to my second question: when you say "slavery" what about slavery do you think was being disputed? Telling me why the North didn't go to war isn't an answer to that question. If you recognize that the North wasn't trying to abolish slavery in the South, then what did seceding "protect the institution of slavery" from?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dennis-nc3vw And Obama didn't come out in favor of homosexual marriage at the time either. But Bush II's wife did publicly support homosexual marriage. Bush I served as an official witness to a homosexual marriage. There are reports Bush II offered to officiate a homosexual marriage himself. The neo-con position as represented by those like Bush II is more than clear enough.
As summarized over 100 years prior by R. L. Dabney (Stonewall Jackson's chief of staff), "Northern [Connecticut, Maine...] conservatism... is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom... The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip."
1
-
1
-
@alexlazar4738 If the West gets out of the way, Ukraine will negotiate in a hurry, and Ukraine will be a lot better off for it.
If Russia continues to make territorial gains through all of 2023 (even if very minimal, like Russia's recent advances), and if Ukrainian losses continue to be heavy (no matter how Russian losses compare), and if a leading Republican presidential candidate is threatening an end to DC's current "as long as it takes" policy, perhaps the Ukrainian people will push back against their Western stooge leaders then.
Or perhaps if Russia is very successful on the battlefield and a total conquest of Ukraine begins to look like a real possibility (what doesn't seem like a very probably scenario), Ukraine will come to the table while it still has any negotiating power left at all. (If, on the other hand, Ukraine is very successful on the battlefield, I don't see that increasing the chances of a negotiated peace.)
But I agree, prospects for a negotiated peace don't look good at the moment. Western and Ukrainian leaders definitely wouldn't seem to benefit from a negotiated peace, even if their peoples very much would.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "how the supposedly poor bankrupt Yankees who couldn't pay their federal taxes managed to pay for the war"
Spooner, 1870: "The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” That they have “Saved the Country!” That they have “Preserved our Glorious Union!” and that, in now paying the “National Debt,” as they call it (as if the people themselves, all of them who are to be taxed for its payment, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply “Maintaining the National Honor!”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc I responded to your moral high ground argument, and then you ran away, which, of course, there was good reason for you to do.
I'm impressed, though, that you actually went and read the Declaration of Independence and corrected the ignorance with which you made you first comment about it. Congratulations!
I'll repeat the counterargument to your moral high ground foolishness:
The fact that in 1861 one side was for slavery is really irrelevant when the other side is (1) also practicing slavery, and (2) goes to war declaring no intention of interfering with the other side's slavery, and (3) goes to war stating that he has no objections to ratifying a constitutional amendment that his party has already helped pass through Congress (even without the representatives of the states that had already seceded and withdrawn their representatives) to make the constitution's protections of slavery "express and irrevocable." No matter how much higher ground there was for the North to take, how could the North have stayed off that high ground any more thoroughly?
But taking the high ground would have meant doing the exact opposite of what the North actually did, namely opposing slavery while supporting the southern states' right to independence and self-government rather than declaring no purpose or intention of interfering with the southern states' right to practice slavery while waging war against voluntary union (not that there's any other kind of union that can even be called a union), against government by the consent of the governed, against the same kind of government that you're so opposed to today apart from any and all issues relating to slavery, that you're distorting 150+ year old history to try to undermine voluntary union.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "The EU has an exit policy"
In other words, the EU recognizes the right of unilateral secession. Which is to say, no, contrary to your claim, every government wouldn't be slavery if only governments founded on coercion, not consent, counted as governments.
"Then why do you say a government that rules through coercion is slavery, when all governments use coercion in the form of laws, laws that some people don't agree with?"
Yes, all governments use "coercion" in the sense that they use force, but not all governments derive their powers from coercion. It is certainly possible for governments to derive their powers from consent, just like the US Declaration of Independence declared is the only just basis of government power. Is the idea of a government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed impossible for you to even imagine? Are America's founding principles so completely foreign to your un-American mind?
"If a bunch of child molesters wanted to declare a part of the country to be their own nation just so they could molest children without fear of being arrested, would you be in favor of allowing it?"
I think child molesters should be prosecuted and convicted according to the law with all the rights that should always be respected for all accused or convicted criminals. But any other category of child molesters other than convicted criminals should be legally treated as innocent until proven guilty and enjoy the same rights as anyone else (with limited exceptions for those charged with crimes not yet tried), and rulers have no more right to deny self-government to people that should be legally treated as innocent than people that are simply innocent.
So your turn now. My questions again: When you define freedom as having "full representation" (whatever that means and whoever gets to be the judge of that) and having "the ability to leave," does that mean if a bunch of child molesters wanted to leave a nation just so they could molest children without fear of being arrested, you'd be all for allowing them to leave? What property would you allow them to take with them when they left? Anything except real property? And why aren't these hypothetical child molesters in prison to start with? Is child molestation legal in this hypothetical country that these hypothetical child molesters want to leave?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid You said, "they haven't been convicted of a crime yet. The reason for that doesn't matter in regard to this thought excersize. What matters is that they want to secede for the specific express purpose of molesting children. Should they be legally allowed to do that?"
I responded, "But you apparently completely reject the legal idea of innocent until proven guilty, the 5th amendment, etc.?"
You answered, "Not at all. I don't reject that."
Either they're presumed innocent until proven guilty or they're not. If they've been charged with a crime and haven't been tried yet, then I would have no problem prohibiting them from leaving (in any sense/by any definition) the union or even just their state until their trial is completed, assuming their 6th amendment right to a speedy trial is respected. But you've said that's not the case in your hypothetical either. If they haven't been charged or convicted there's no just basis for legally discriminating against them.
"These people haven't been arrested or charged yet, but they are worried that might happen some time in the future"
If they haven't been convicted, then they should be presumed innocent, which is to say they shouldn't be treated by the state any differently than anyone else. If you're arguing that they should be treated differently, even though they haven't been so much as charged with a crime yet, then you're absolutely rejecting the legal idea of innocent until proven guilty and the 5th amendment.
"So then you would say yes, a bunch of child molesters would have the right to..."
I would reject the premise that they should even be viewed as child molesters if they haven't so much as been charged with, let alone convicted of any such crime. Particularly as relates to any legal questions, I don't think we should even admit of any such category as a child molester that hasn't been convicted of child molestation. In other words, I think criminal suspects deserve to be presumed innocent. How can you say otherwise and also say you don't reject the legal idea of the presumption of innocence and the 5th amendment? Child molesters should be charged, given a fair trial by a jury of their peers, and then punished after conviction, not deprived of the protections afforded criminal suspects and discriminated against as if they had already been found guilty while being left mostly free to move about the country.
"Whether or not the EU was involved in the vote, they were still involved in the process."
I'm all for involving the union from which the state is seceding in the separation process, as long as the decision is entirely up to the state choosing to secede (i.e. unilateral) and as long as being "involved in the process" doesn't become a shallow pretext for deciding whether a state may peacefully secede or not.
You quoted me saying, "Who says we can't use force beyond our borders?"
And then you responded, completely missing my point that countries can and sometimes do use force beyond their borders, "a bunch of child molesters would have the right to secede... and once they did that, US authorities could no longer do anything to stop them?" The US could wage war against another country, like we did in the example I already cited of Syria, in order to try to stop that country from doing something it was allegedly doing entirely within its own borders. Of course, that's not the only example of the US waging wars against other countries because of what they were doing within their own borders. We also waged war against Serbia to defend the right of the people in one part of Serbia to secede. Under what circumstances (if ever) we should wage such wars is another question, but it's certainly possible; the US has done so on multiple occasions; and it's certainly not necessary to deny Syrians or Serbians or the Barbary states, etc., the right to independence and self-government in order to get them to do or stop doing some particular thing. In other words, wars can and very commonly are waged with objectives that don't include denying the enemy the right to independence and self-government.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Well that's certainly not what happened with the Confederate states, which didn't involve the Union in their separation process at all."
Only because the North refused to negotiate. As one Northerner said:
"If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation.
"In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?"
"Or are you saying the involvement is just optional? Because if it's just optional, then you aren't talking about the EU, since their exit policy does not say EU involvement in the process is optional."
As I already said, "as long as the decision is entirely up to the state choosing to secede (i.e. unilateral) and as long as being "involved in the process" doesn't become a shallow pretext for deciding whether a state may peacefully secede or not." Providing an excuse to deny a state the right to decide for itself whether to secede or not is exactly what you're trying to do, isn't it?
"Going outside that process is not legally permitted."
Neither is DACA for the children of illegal aliens. What's your point? The equivalent of saying we should use that illegality as an excuse to murder the children of illegal aliens?
"What other term would you use?"
Use whatever term you want. If they haven't been convicted of a crime, then for legal purposes they're innocent until proven guilty, and whatever you want to call them provides no excuse for legally discriminating against them. As I already said, child molesters should be charged, given a fair trial by a jury of their peers, and then punished after conviction, not deprived of the protections afforded criminal suspects and discriminated against as if they had already been found guilty while being left mostly free to move about the country.
"These people want to secede and create their own nation for the specific purpose of molesting children. Should they be allowed to do it? Yes or no?"
I don't believe they should be discriminated against for crimes they haven't even been charged with, let alone convicted of. Why do you think they should be? If you can't even find enough evidence to charge these alleged child molesters with a crime, then how can you think you'd have justification for waging war against them to supposedly stop them from committing crimes you're not stopping them from committing before they secede? Why are you trying so hard to circumvent the legal process and the Bill of Rights? Your whole agenda must be to attack constitutional liberty.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "federal property. It's like a robber stealing your stuff and then coming back later to "negotiate" how much money he might give you for it."
Except that it was as much their stuff as anyone else's to start with, so it's a whole lot more like a couple that separates and then after separating negotiates the terms of the separation and how to divide up the property they previously held jointly.
"Because if the seceding state has to follow a process from the host government in order to legally secede, then it's not unilateral."
Not in order to secede but in order to negotiate the terms of the separation once the people have decided for themselves (unilaterally) to separate, to negotiate the division of the previously jointly held assets/liabilities, etc. What else is there for any separation process to resolve?
"The point is the EU is not an example of a government that legally permits unilateral secession, since they have a formal process for secession that needs to be followed for it to be legal, so you shouldn't try to cite it as one that does."
That's like saying the existence of divorce court proves that married individuals don't have a unilateral right to leave their spouses. States do indeed have an undisputed legal right to unilaterally secede from the EU.
I said about these hypothetical people that you're calling child molesters (even though you say they haven't been charged, let alone convicted of child molestation), "I don't believe they should be discriminated against for crimes they haven't even been charged with, let alone convicted of. Why do you think they should be?" And you said, "I didn't say they should be."
So if you don't think these people that you're calling child molesters should be treated any differently than anyone else, why are you asking me hypothetical questions about child molesters? If you don't think it should make any difference that they're child molesters, why hypothetically stipulate that they are something that doesn't matter? If you can't think of any reason or justification for treating them any differently, why should I?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Why does it matter that Lincoln won 40% of the popular vote...?"
I already answered that question in the same comment you replied to. And the answer is it doesn't matter. As I already said: according to America's founding principles, he wouldn't have had a right to rule over them without their consent if he had won with 99% of the vote. The 13 colonies were, after all, only a very small minority of the English Empire.
The important question is, given that Republicans didn't even represent a majority and couldn't even claim a right to rule over the southern states on that basis (which wouldn't have been a valid basis even then, as I already explained and repeated again above), what basis did they have for their claim? The answer, of course, is no valid basis at all, but I'm sure you have other ways to deflect from that central question.
"in a 4-way race"
The race was in no way that's relevant to this discussion a 4-way race. The Republicans won because they won an absolute majority in enough states to win the electoral college, not because, as with the lie you're surely trying to suggest, the majority their opponents represented was divided and the Republicans won a plurality of votes. The Republicans didn't win with a plurality. It's impossible to win the electoral college with a plurality. As I've said before, and as you know, even if all his opponents' votes, totaling over 60% of the popular vote, had gone to a single ticket, the Republicans would have won just the same. The Republicans won with thirty-some percent of the popular vote because the electoral college system is such that if one ticket wins a majority of the vote in a majority of the states and the second ticket comes in a close second in most of those states and completely dominates the other states, such that the second ticket dominates the popular vote, the first ticket nonetheless wins. That system was intended to protect against a tyranny of the majority, but in the case of the 1860 election, it allowed for a tyranny of the minority, not that either one is justified, but a tyranny of the minority is even more gallingly unjustified.
"Do you think the South would have complained if Breckenridge had won with the same percentage?"
Of course they wouldn't have complained if the rules had allowed a candidate they preferred to win. But that, of course, is a stupid question that only deflects from the relevant question. The relevant question is whether they would have been justified in denying northern states the right to secede under the reverse circumstances (or under any circumstances at all.) There's no good reason to think Southerners wouldn't have respected the right of northern states to secede, but even if they had it would have made Southerners hypocrites; in any case denying other people the right to self-government is unjustifiable.
"The Confederate states certainly didn't have a problem with their preferred candidate James Buchanan winning a 3-way race with 45% of the popular vote in the previous election."
For the reasons I just gave above, whether they would have "had a problem with their preferred candidate... winning... with 45% of the popular vote" tells us nothing about the question of whether the North was justified in claiming a right to force DC rule onto the South against its will.
But it's also ridiculous to compare Buchanan's win to Lincoln's, as if the difference were merely or even mainly a difference of 6 percentage points or as if either the Democrats in 1856 or the Republicans in 1860 had won by a plurality of the vote. In both cases the presidency was won by the winning party winning an absolute majority in the electoral college. The popular vote percentage and the number of whether the opposing vote split had no direct bearing on either election. But there are huge differences between them: first of all, Buchanan was himself a Northerner; secondly, Buchanan won an outright majority in a couple northern states and over 40% of the vote in most of the northern states he lost. Those two facts prove that Buchanan wasn't remotely the sort of sectional candidate that Lincoln was. In other words, Buchanan was more popular in the South than in the North, but he had significant support throughout both sections and couldn't have won without winning states in both sections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 Nothing I've said is inconsistent with Stephens saying that the South thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. If it were, you could explain how.
Here are some other Stephens quotes for you, though:
1860: “slavery was much more secure in the Union than out of it.”
1861: "The principles and position of the present administration of the United States - the republican party - present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch 'of the accursed soil.' Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave."
1864: "Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty. If, with this great truth ever before them, a majority of her people should prefer despotism to liberty, I would say to her, as to a wayward sister, 'depart in peace.'"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 > - The south seceded and cited slavery as the "immediate cause"
No, Stephens didn't. You only quoted half of the first sentence.
> - The south, acting as a separate nation, attacked the Union
Perhaps in the sense that the 13 states, acting as separate states, attacked England in 1776. So what?
I repeat for the 4th (? -- it's hard to keep track) time now: So you tell me HOW the war was about slavery. Sure, the South was pro-slavery, but that was true when the southern states seceded from England in 1776, too. Yes, the northern states were doing things (like supporting terrorist attacks against random Southerners) under shallow anti-slavery pretenses that England hadn't been doing in 1776, but the northern states could have gone on doing those things after secession if they had wanted to continue supporting terrorism, etc. None of those such things were at stake in the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid I'd be ashamed to repeat your earlier nonsense if I were you, too. And I'd certainly want to avoid having to defend it.
Defend slavery against what? What threat are you pretending there was?
Even multiple northern abolitionists recognized that, "Their pretenses that they have ... “Preserved our Glorious Union,” are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call “Saving the Country”; as if an enslaved and subjugated people – or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) – could be said to have any country. This, too, they call “Preserving our Glorious Union”; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..." -Lysander Spooner
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Literally everything Confederate leaders contradicts what [I] say"?
We can get to your foolish assumptions later, but since you made such a foolish assertion, tell me how the following quotes contradict anything I've said?
"A succession of glorious victories at Bethel, Bull Run, Manassas, Springfield, Lexington, Leesburg, and Belmont, has checked the wicked invasion which greed of gain and the unhallowed lust of power brought upon our soil, and has proved that numbers cease to avail when directed against a people fighting for the sacred right of self-government and the privileges of freemen." -Jefferson Davis 1861
"…slavery is... merely the pretense [used by our enemies] to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." -Patrick Cleburne
"I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. They are about to invade our peaceful homes, destroy our property, and murder our men and dishonor our women. We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be left alone." -Patrick Cleburne
"The principles and position of the present administration of the United States - the republican party - present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch 'of the accursed soil.' Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave." -Alexander Stephens
"Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty."
-Alexander Stephens
“We are not fighting for slavery; we are fighting for independence.” This is true; and is a truth that has not sufficiently been dwelt upon. ...The whole cause of our resistance was and is, the pretension and full determination of the Northern States to use their preponderance in the Federal representation, in order to govern the Southern States for their profit. Slavery was the immediate occasion–carefully made so by them–it was not the cause. … We refuse to accept for a cause any thing… than that truly announced, namely, the sovereign independence of our States.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid What does "slavery was the reason for secession" even mean? It certainly wasn't the case that the northern states were threatening to abolish slavery according to the rule of law and the southern states seceded in order to avoid that or any other constitutionally legitimate threat to the ability of the southern states to continue practicing slavery.
But the fundamental question in this video isn't why the southern states seceded but rather what the war was about. You can conflate those two questions in order to hide from your inability to honestly confront the fundamental question, but they are separate questions, and, of course, the northern states could have chosen to negotiate terms for the southern states to peacefully secede.
But back to the question of why the southern states seceded, I recognize that the northern abuses of the constitution and the rule of law and of the spirit (expressed in the preamble of the constitution) necessary to union were related to slavery. It certainly wasn't the case that the northern states were motivated by a concern for slaves, but they were exploiting anti-slavery pretenses for the sake of, as Jefferson Davis said in 1861, "greed of gain and... lust of power..." Or as General Cleburne said, "…slavery is... merely the pretense [used by our enemies] to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." So there was certainly an anti-slavery pretense to the North's abuses of the southern states' rights and liberties. You can dishonestly summarize all that simply as "slavery" if you don't have an honest argument to make, but that still doesn't justify the North's cause in the war.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "THIS WAS THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THE LATE RUPTURE AND PRESENT REVOLUTION. How much more clear does it get then that?"
Read the rest of the speech if you want to understand, and keep in mind that the speaker of that speech had been an opponent of secession until his state seceded and that he had argued that slavery would be MORE secure if his state remained in the union. Your interpretation depends on simply ignoring the rest of the speech, these other facts, and the context. It fails to make any kind of coherent sense of where even this one person stood, let alone where the southern states stood generally.
Stephens clearly did NOT believe that the Republicans were not trying to put slavery on the course of ultimate extinction -- not that it would be remotely honest to summarize doing one thing that could possibly lead to another thing that could possibly lead to another thing that could possibly lead to another thing, etc. as "threatening to abolish slavery according to the rule of law," and it's an even greater distortion of the truth to present that quote from Brown as suggesting that he saw any threat to slavery that was proceeding according to the rule of law -- but Stephens believed rather that the Republicans were (from the same speech you quoted) "disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor." In other words, it was the North that went to war for slavery. The South certainly wasn't against slavery, but it was the North that went to war to fight for the spoils of slavery. "In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may." Lysander Spooner
"The principles and position of the present administration of the United States - the republican party - present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch 'of the accursed soil.' Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave." -Alexander Stephens
And other northern abolitionists recognized the same reality from their perspective as abolitionists:
“It seems so clear that slavery in the South could not long exist when deprived of the support of the North, that we are surprised that this evident consequence is so overlooked or disregarded... It is plain, then, that this war is not an anti-slavery, but a pro-slavery war.” Joshua Blanchard
“I will not say that the civilized world should not unite to wipe out chattel slavery, as too inhuman to be tolerated; that they should not unitedly proscribe it, as they do the African slave trade, and inaugurate true popular supremacy in its place. But this is not the question between the United States and South Carolina. With us it is not a question of philanthropy, but of aggrandizement.” George Bassett
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "and they weren't going to let the rebels take it over any more then George Washington would let the Whiskey rebels have Pennsylvania"
I can agree that their reasons were very similar to that other event that was totally unrelated to anything about slavery.
"if he thought slavery was more secure in the Union, he was soon easily proven wrong"
Proven wrong? How do you figure that? If Georgia hadn't voted against seceding as Stephens had advocated the worst case predictions other Southerners were making were along the lines of the 25 year forecast in the Brown quote you keep repeating, and especially in hindsight there's good reason to think slavery would have ended within that time frame if the North had peacefully recognized the right of the people of each state to choose their own government, which is to say seceding combined with Republican party inclinations toward despotism surely brought about the accidental end of slavery sooner than any other conceivable scenario.
"He said in no uncertain terms the CSA was the first government in the history of the world founded on the notion that slavery is the African man's natural and normal condition and must remain so. To deny that slavery was the Confederate cause"
So if a country declares that it's founded on some particular religious beliefs (Shia Islam or whatever) does that prove that any war that country might get in is a war over that religion? That's the nonsense of your logic.
Or if a people with one set of ideas about how they want to govern themselves (whether that includes sharia law, cutting off the hands of thieves, capital punishment for things that wouldn't even be crimes in other places, or whatever) doesn't want to be governed by a people with another set of beliefs and they go to war over whether they can govern themselves, does that prove the war was over those religious beliefs or whatever other kind of beliefs they were? Even if the people demanding the right to rule over the other people were willing to let the other people continue to legally uphold those beliefs, just so long as they acknowledged that they were ultimately subservient to the ruling government (and whatever that government might "ultimately" do that would relate to their beliefs)?
Davis said in 1861 (as I already quoted in this thread) the South was "a people fighting for the sacred right of self-government and the privileges of freemen." Is there even a single quote from single Confederate leader from anytime between the beginning and the end of the war that says anything like, "We're fighting for the right to keep slaves"? Show me all the "We're fighting for..." quotes, quotes from the time they were actually literally fighting (not fighting in the sense that representatives "fight" for things in Congress, etc.) that you think support your position. You haven't shared a single "We're fighting for" quote from any Confederate leader, have you? So aren't you the one denying everything Confederate leaders actually said about what they were fighting for?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid " 'In other words, it was the North that went to war for slavery.'
No it wasn't. You can't cite a single Union leader saying that. The Confederates said slavery was their cause. The Union did not."
I can (and have) cited Northerners that said so. Obviously it wasn't a point that political leaders had any interest in admitting, but impartial Northerners, foreigners, and Southerners all recognized the fact.
"'The South certainly wasn't against slavery, but it was the North that went to war to fight for the spoils of slavery.'
No because if that was true, then they wouldn't have passed a war measure just 2 years into the war that freed all the slaves in the rebel states."
They didn't "pass" anything. Lincoln just issued a royal decree, and he only did it because it was looking like he wouldn't be able to win the war or that his political support might erode before he could win the war if he couldn't gain extra advantages. Or in the words of Massachusetts abolitionist Spooner, "In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may."
And the EO didn't free "all the slaves in the rebel states." It specifically exempted those slaves in Union-controlled parts of "rebel" states. What excuse do you find for that, by the way?
"They certainly wouldn't have amended the constitution to ban slavery completely."
Who's "they"? It wouldn't make any sense if you meant the states that had seceded. And it wouldn't make any sense if you meant the Republicans that passed the Corwin amendment through Congress. Who else is there? And how could they have passed, let alone ratified a constitutional amendment without those other groups? Obviously they couldn't have, so all you have left is nonsense.
"Their desire to gradually eliminate it is the whole reason the South seceded in the first place."
That's your historically indefensible myth. And it certainly isn't supported by the speeches you quote where Confederate leaders said, "they [the Republicans] are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor." And, of course, it isn't supported by what Republicans said either.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "What Davis quote from 1861 are you referring to? I showed you a quote from him in 1861 where he cited slavery as the sole reason for secession, just like the other Confederate leaders did."
What do you mean by "slavery"? A desire to continue practicing it with the implication that remaining in the union posed a threat that would prevent them from continuing to practice it? And the further implication that that threat was constitutionally legitimate? That is in no way supported by anything any Confederate leader or anyone else at the time said.
But if you don't mind, copy whichever Davis quote you're referring to for me again. The 1861 quote I was referring to was when Davis said they were "fighting for the sacred right of self-government and the privileges of freemen."
"Brown said the election of Lincoln would lead to the abolition of slavery..."
And Democrats have been saying for decades that the election of Republicans would lead to abortion becoming illegal. Do you not believe that politicians ever exploit divisive social issues for political gain even when they're not really motivated to do anything about those issues?
There were lots of ways in which slavery could have come to an end. President Buchanan said, "Before [the abolitionists] commenced this agitation, a very large and growing party existed in several of the slave states in favor of the gradual abolition of slavery; and now not a voice is heard there in support of such a measure. The abolitionists have postponed the emancipation of the slaves in three or four states for at least half a century." It's quite possible that slavery would have ended sooner if Northerners hadn't widely supported terrorist attacks against Southerners under anti-slavery pretenses (and other similar but less extreme offenses against peace and the general welfare and against the rule of law and the constitution) than under a number of other scenarios that would have seemed as likely at the time (e.g. the southern states not seceding, or the southern states returning to the union with something like the Corwin amendment passing, or the North allowing the southern states to secede peacefully, or the South winning independence on the battle field, or the North deciding that the cost of subjugating the South was too great and giving up the fight, etc., etc.)
And in hindsight, there's very good reason to think slavery could have ended as soon or sooner in most of those scenarios than it would have in a scenario full of the disrespect of the constitution (including the spirit of promoting domestic tranquility, etc., not just a narrow legal adherence) that actually took place but where the southern states had never seceded or been forced back into the union more easily. But really, I don't care what anyone thought would lead to something else that would lead to something else that would lead to something else that would lead to whatever. That's extremely speculative, of course. And who cares? What does it matter?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "I said you haven't cited a Union leader saying that."
And I had said, "Obviously it wasn't a point that political leaders had any interest in admitting, but impartial Northerners, foreigners, and Southerners all recognized the fact." So why do you think we should expect Northern leaders would have admitted that profiting off of the southern economy, especially the southern slave economy, was the reason they didn't want to let the southern states exercise their fundamental rights as Americans and choose a different government for themselves if that had been their leading reason, and if they didn't admit it, then it couldn't have been true? Are you telling me that politicians never have ignoble purposes that they try to hide behind false pretenses? Were George Bush II's stated reasons for invading Iraq indisputably the full truth of his real reasons? That would be a ridiculous assumption, wouldn't it? So why do you press such a ridiculous assumption?
"...neither Lincoln nor Congress would have done that if the goal of the war was to maintain Southern slavery and use it for themselves." That was the goal originally, but after a couple years of failing to conquer their opponents they were pressured into compromising in order to get what they could, to sacrifice some of the profits they could have exploited from the South in order to help ensure they could exploit the South at all. Great Britain originally declared war on Germany in WWII in order to protect Poland's independence, but then Great Britain allied with the USSR and allowed the USSR to essentially deprive Poland of its independence. The fact that Great Britain eventually allowed the USSR to control Poland is no proof that Great Britain didn't originally go to war over Poland's independence (no more than the EO is proof that the Republicans wouldn't really have preferred to continue profiting off of slavery.)
"He couldn't legally apply a war measure to an area that was no longer at war with the Union."
So do you think President Trump, if he had wanted to, would have been legally justified in permanently seizing the property of any or all property owners, business owners, etc. in CHAZ because CHAZ was in rebellion? Why did a Virginia or Louisiana slave owner that was no less likely to have supported secession deserve legal protections of his property just because of where the battle lines fell than a slave owner from the same state on the other side of the battle lines? Were they, according to you, not still American citizens? If I happen to live in or have a business in CHAZ does that justify the president disregarding all my rights as an American, regardless of whether I even support CHAZ or not? How do you figure the president had authority to take/burn/destroy/steal/etc. the property of people he claimed to represent just because of where they lived?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Well Stephens sure was proven wrong about slavery being secure in the Union, wasn't he?"
No, not at all. Even you've admitted that slavery would have almost certainly lasted longer if the southern states had remained in the union. And you're distorting the question when you say "slavery being secure in the union". What Stephens said was "much more secure," so there was a comparison there, not some absolute. That's a straw man. Slavery wasn't secure under any government in the Americas by the second half of the 19th century, not in the Union, not in the Confederacy, not in Cuba, not in Brazil...
You asked earlier about why slavery would have ended in the Confederacy if the North had allowed the southern states to peacefully secede (or something like that.) There are multiple reasons.
(1) I think you recently talked about the economic inefficiency of slavery. Technological progress would have increasingly undermined the economic incentive for slavery.
(2) The southern defense of slavery had been heavily fed by northern hostility to the South (and I don't mean to the institution of slavery but to the South and its people generally.) If the South had been a separate country, the North wouldn't have had hardly any more incentive to hate the South than to hate Cuba, and then the cause of slavery wouldn't have been bolstered by opposition to things like the murderous terrorism at Harpers Ferry (and lesser things of the same nature.) Murdering random Southerners in the name of opposition to slavery obviously didn't endear Southerners to the abolitionist cause. As President Buchanan said, "Before [the abolitionists] commenced this agitation, a very large and growing party existed in several of the slave states in favor of the gradual abolition of slavery; and now not a voice is heard there in support of such a measure. The abolitionists have postponed the emancipation of the slaves in three or four states for at least half a century." So an independent South would have pretty much eliminated the fuel that the North was pouring on the fire of the anti-abolitionist cause.
(3) An independent South would have meant the complete end of the protections afforded to the seceded states by the constitution's fugitive slave clause, not just to those slaves that escaped to free states but probably even to those slaves that escaped to Union slave states. As one slave state congressman said, “...the dissolution of the Union [would be] the dissolution of slavery... Just as soon as Mason and Dixon's line and the Ohio river become the boundary between independent nations, slavery ceases in all the border states. How could we retain our slaves, when they, in one hour, one day, or a week at the furthest, could pass the boundary? Sooner or later, this process would extend itself farther and farther south, rendering slave labor so precarious and uncertain that it could not be depended upon; and consequently a slave would become almost worthless; and thus the institution itself would gradually, but certainly, perish... Slavery in the States would fall with the Union.”
(4) An independent South would have been susceptible to economic sanctions and pressure from other countries (potentially also including the Union) that would have been much less likely to have been applied to the entire US. Keep in mind, the Confederacy was originally only 7 states, and those 7 states could have been much more effectively pressured through peaceful isolation measures (like were applied to South Africa over apartheid) than the entire United States could have been.
(5) Since the formation of the Republican party, national politics had divided more and more around slavery. We have a two party system because the winner-take-all system established by the constitution (which was the same in the Confederate constitution) leads to a two party system, but an independent Confederacy would have then divided politically rather than having united against northern Republicans. Slavery would have been much less secure in politically divided slave states than in one-party slave states made possible only by competition with Republicans at the federal level, particularly when states had the power to abolish slavery and the federal government didn't.
(6) A couple decades after the end of slavery in the US, abolitionist pressure forced an end to slavery throughout the rest of the Americas, most notably Spanish Cuba and formerly Portuguese Brazil. Those same forces would have played out in an independent Confederacy just as much as in Brazil and Cuba where slavery ended without any sectional Righteous Cause Myth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm It's ridiculous to say "Americans voted for this fair and square in the 1860 election" when only thirty-some percent of Americans voted Republican in the 1860 election. It just happened that due to the quirks of the constitution and the system for electing presidents that it's possible to win elections without winning the popular vote (as has happened in recent years, too, but not with anywhere near such a small percentage of the popular vote as in 1860.) And it's further ridiculous to say "American voted for this fair and square" when the Supreme Court had already ruled that they had no constitutional authority to decide the question through federal elections at all. What they voted for was to defy the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution (not that the Supreme Court's authority stood above the states anyway. As Thomas Jefferson said, "to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, it’s co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress.")
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nowthisnamestaken "How about people don't have a right to own people? Lets start there. Full stop."
If people don't have a right to own people how can they have a right to govern other people without their consent?
"There were people in the south that were Americans, were trapped and needed rescue didn't want to leave the nation. Were told they no longer were Americans were no longer under the Constitution."
It happened in 1776 and with every other independence movement in the history of the world (not that the States were a nation in 1861.)
But if you still count citizens of the southern states as citizens of the United States, deserving the protection of the federal government, then the federal government had no constitutional authority or other right to treat them as rebels, did it?
"Americas defenses from attack included forts in the south that the south had no right to take by force."
So do you think the crown's defenses from attack included forts in the 13 colonies that the colonies had no right to take by force?
"I always find it interesting how people say they were defending their homes but that 'defending' sure involved a lot of taking."
Versus what? Recognizing the right of King George to continue to control the border defenses of the United States, continue to maintain his military in the States, and deny the States their right to choose their own government?
"Richmond was an American city in America. Some people who called themselves Virginians one day decided it wasn't They were wrong."
Richmond was a city of the English empire in America. Some people who called themselves Virginians one day decided it wasn't, based on the inalienable right they had to alter or abolish the existing government and institute a new one that suited them better. Americans did the same prior to the Second American Independence War.
"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces." -London Times, November 7, 1861
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@generalsmite7167 > Independence why?
Does it really matter? If a slave wants independence from his master do you ask, "independence why"? Do you defend the master's right to beat his slave back into submission depending on the slave's reasons for wanting independence? I don't place conditions on the right to independence, and I don't think anyone has the right to judge anyone else's reasons for wanting independence and then violently subjugate him if his reasons are bad (all the more when those claims of "bad reasons" only come after the fact and the people making claims about "bad reasons" really want to justify violence against people that want independence for any and all reasons.)
Speaking of which...
> To believe that the confederacy was justified is to believe that the United States should not exist.
That's like saying to believe men don't have a right to beat their wives into submission is to believe marriage should not exist. The United States should exist among the states that consent to the union and no further, just like marriage should exist between couples that consent to the union and no further. A union based on violence and subjugation can no longer truly be called a union. Unions cannot be maintained but are destroyed by violence against one's partners.
> The north in the beginning only fought for the preservation of the union
In the sense that a man physically beating his girlfriend into submission is "only fighting for the preservation of the union". That's a sick, twisted euphemism for domestic violence.
> The southern states feared Lincoln was going to prevent the expansion of slavery
They believed Lincoln wanted to prohibit slavery in US territories (which was part of the Republican platform), and they believed that was a violation of the constitution. And the Supreme Court had already declared, "Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property. The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind." So there had been a constitutional dispute relating to the rights of citizens of the states of the union, but the war, of course, wasn't in any way fought over those rights. Southerners fought for independence which is the opposite of fighting for their rights as citizens of the union.
> You have yet to state a reason why the southern states seceded besides for independence which is the definition of secession.
Because they didn't want to be ruled by Northerners that had already evidenced their willingness to rule in disregard of constitutional limits and the rule of law, especially when those Northerners (Republicans) were so hostile to them that they had widely celebrated and even violated the constitution in order protect terrorists that had murdered random Southerners. But their right to independence and self-government didn't in any way depend on their reasons. Those rights are inalienable.
> as secession was illegal (as the founding fathers intended with the constitution)
The constitution was founded on the right of states to abandon the existing government and establish a new government for themselves and other states choosing to join with them on their own sovereign authority. Otherwise the constitution could never have replaced the Articles of Confederation. But where do you get your crazy idea about the founding fathers?
James Madison: "It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."
> but they would change the goal to slavery
The North never deviated from its goal at all. What makes you think that? Just because they tried different things to achieve their goal you think they changed their goal?
> 2 million Americans fought for the preservation of my country and so that he country would be free
By "free" you mean not allowing them to leave (while declaring "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery]")? That's an awfully strange definition of "free."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@generalsmite7167 > you’re forgetting the emancipation proclamation which made ending slavery a war aim
No, it didn't. Lincoln made explicitly clear that his emancipation plan wasn't about changing his war aims at all. He explicitly said in his first announcement of the emancipation plan that, "hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for" the same aims as before, which were "not... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but to... preserve the Union [i.e. deny freedom to the southern states]"
> the south in the fact that it held slaves was tyrannical of the highest order.
Then the Union in the fact that it held slaves throughout the entire war was tyrannical of the highest order.
> The southern people did not secede from the union, the white plantation class in control of state legislatures did.
By that logic the American people in 1776 didn't declare their independence from Great Britain either. But it wasn't just the plantation class that supported secession. The citizens of the southern states broadly and overwhelmingly supported secession, especially after Lincoln called for war to deny independence to the states that had already seceded. North Carolina, for example, despite having previously narrowly voted 47,323 to 46,672 to remain in the union, elected delegates to a secession convention that voted unanimously to secede after Lincoln's call to war. And, of course, secessionist sentiment was only stronger in the states that had voted to secede earlier.
> Note the fact that Lincoln did not appear on the ballots of several southern states.
And the Dixiecrats didn't appear on the ballots of several northern states. So what? You're not suggesting that Lincoln would have come remotely close to winning even a single one of the southern states if he had been on the ballot, are you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbnwnc "Neither would the majority of the rest of the states. That is democracy. Too bad if you don't like it."
That's certainly not how the constitution was sold by its proponents. Nor is that how the constitution itself operates nor how the union re-established by the constitution came together.
“That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.” Madison, Federalist #39
1
-
@sbnwnc You said having a right to negotiate a secession isn't unilateral secession, that the rest of whatever country or union in question would have to agree to let the seceding section secede. But that, of course, is nonsense. The right to a negotiated secession no more gives the other parties to a government the right to deny the right of secession altogether than the right to a negotiated divorce gives the other party to a marriage the right to deny the right of one spouse to leave.
As the Northerner George Bassett aptly said in early 1861:
"It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation.
"In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dpmjole > as if universal health care and free education inevitably leads to N.Korea-like dictatorship
No, I don't believe that having a government that operates like North Korea in some respects will inevitably lead to having a government that will operate altogether like North Korea, so that certainly wasn't my point. But on the other hand, there's no getting around the fact that "free" healthcare and education are inevitably going to be part of any totalitarian government like North Korea's.
> the fact that you perceive US
The only fact to note here is that you're attacking a straw man, because I didn't say anything about the US.
> universal healthcare and free education literally do mean being free
free from fear of getting sick and going to the doctor, free from risking bankruptcy if you call an ambulance, free from losing healthcare if you lose/quit your job, free from student debt,etc etc
Your vision of "freedom" could just as well be a description of a prison inmate (or North Korea.) Maybe you need to find another word to use besides "freedom" for describing the life of a prison inmate. Maybe you don't have a clue what it means to be more or less free.
Maybe you are that kind of person Alexis de Tocqueville described: "It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood... For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances – what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.
"...Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1860 Republican platform: " the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential..."
Lincoln, March 1861: "a proposed amendment to the Constitution... has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
Official Union declaration, July 1861, passed by a nearly unanimous vote through both chambers of Congress: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronfleming9426 > Secession was (primarily) about protecting slavery, as of course we all know from reading the Declarations of Causes
Protecting it from the North doing what? What are you suggesting Northerners were doing or could have done that secession would have protected slavery from?Certainly nothing you'll find any evidence for in the declarations of causes. If it's not just a completely inexplicable nonsense myth, tell me what you think could have happened to/with slavery that secession could have protected against.
> Now, why did the Union respond to the rebellion with force? Primarily to preserve the Union
Those are just sick, twisted euphemisms, but unlike your "protecting slavery" myth at least they refer to real history. But what you're talking about is the equivalent of a woman telling a man she's breaking up with him, offering to negotiate a division of the assets and liabilities they had shared in common, the man denying the woman's right to break up with him and asserting his right to use force and violence to maintain the relationship, destroying the previous consensual basis of the relationship (not just for the states that seceded but for all the northern states as well), and then physically beating the woman back into submission and killing her children and trying to justify all that by calling it "preserving the union."
> For decades before the war, southerners were willing to put up with all sorts of violations of the Constitution to protect slavery.
What nonsense are you trying to suggest there? Are you trying to suggest that Fugitive Slave Act was a violation of a constitution that included a clause guaranteeing that fugitive slaves would be delivered up? You can't possibly have that strict an interpretation of the constitution or you wouldn't invent some constitutional prohibition on secession out of thin air.
> But the one thing they steadfastly refused to do - and notably the thing that would have given them the greatest chance to win - was to free their slaves. That speaks volumes about what they were fighting for.
That says nothing about what they were fighting for. If they had been fighting for slavery they would have at least taken interest in the Corwin amendment, but they were indifferent to it, and it didn't appease them at all, because it didn't offer them anything they fought to try to win, namely independence under a government that was accountable to them according to the rule of law. That's what Republicans were doing that secession offered a hope of protecting against, and that's what they fought for. The southern states clearly never had any reason to believe that they could appease the North and gain their independence by freeing their slaves. Lincoln and the Republican-led North clearly didn't care (not with respect to the war) whether the southern states freed the slaves or not. That speaks volumes about what they weren't fighting for. But go on pretending the North's demands were irrelevant to what the war was fought over. And as for the South's demands: "we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone" -Jefferson Davis
1
-
@ Are you asking what things Northerners were doing or threatening to do or were perceived as threatening to do that led the southern states to secede? Read the declarations of causes of the four states that issued them. They describe those things very clearly. But, of course, they nowhere mention or even hint at any threat of an abolition amendment or any other remotely similar threat to slavery posed by remaining in the union.
But those declarations don't really represent the states that following South Carolina's lead voted on the question of secession and voted against it and then only subsequently voted to secede in opposition to Lincoln's call to invade and forcibly subjugate the states that seceded in the first wave (from which all 4 of the declarations of causes come.)
Arkansas representatives, for example, voted 55 to 15 against seceding for the reasons that South Carolina gave, but then they voted 69 to 1 in favor of secession when Lincoln declared that the US would no longer be a free country bound together by consent. They issued an ordinance calling to "resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas.”
Even some northern abolitionists saw things pretty much the same way. As one abolitionist wrote in The Liberator, the abolitionist newspaper published by William Lloyd Garrison, in March of 1861, "The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Every people everywhere is justified in choosing independence and self-government if that's a choice they make for themselves.
In Lincoln's own words from before he saw a personal interest in subjugating other people: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
And your claims about the Republican-led North trying to abolish slavery or the South mistakenly believing the Republican-led North was trying to abolish slavery or just completely historically baseless myths used to try to justify subjugating other people.
As the famous Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner said, "The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ...in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before... All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” ...are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..."
As for "returning to the Confederacy" we should certainly return to a system of government built on the consent of its citizens rather than on subjugation, which is what you keep trying to find false historical reasons to try to justify.
As another northern abolitionist said about confederacy in early 1861, "...the doctrine of coercion... is the destruction of the government, because it is a political revolution. It is a change of the whole spirit of the government, from a confederacy of sovereign States, held together by mutual interest and common attachment, to a consolidated empire, bound together by military force."
Even northern state newspapers recognized this fundamental American principle even after Lincoln's election: "We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy [the United States] to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute – that, in other words, if South Carolina wants to go out of the Union, she has the right to do so, and no party or power may justly say her nay. This we suppose to be the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence when it affirms that governments are instituted for the protection of men in their lives, liberties, and the pursuit of happiness; and that ‘whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..." Cincinnati Daily Press, November 21, 1860
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1