The Confederacy and States' Rights

[JakeStarkey]

was caused by the South demanding that slavery be permitted in the territories (although it already had Dred Scott) and a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the national boundaries of slavery forever.

All warlike actions were done by the South, not the North.

The seizing of federal properties and exiling of federal official was done by the South, not the North.

Every action positive to fomenting war was taken by the South, not the North.

The South fired on Old Glory at Ft Sumter, not the North.

God turned His face from the South, and guided His hammer, even Abraham Lincoln, in defeating and despoiling an enemy of the nation, even as God upheld Joshua in the despoling of the Canaanites and taking the enemy's lands as their own. Selah. (It's fun to write like that!)

Anyway, every contemporary of the Civil War thought the main cause was slavery.

 

[JBeukema]

funny how you refuse to address the original question, now that you see that you're demonstrably wrong

 

[JakeStarkey]

JB, I have proved that slavery was the main cause with the simple statement of the Vice-President of the CSA's 'cornerstone speech.' Not one has posted any other cause excluding slavery, not one.

They argue as poorly as do you on atheism, which requires more faith than believing in deity.

You really are too easy to defeat in this threads, JB.

 

[JBeukema]

JB, I have proved that slavery was the main cause with the simple statement of the Vice-President of the CSA's 'cornerstone speech.'

Noone ever denied that slavery was a factor, yet you continue to repeat yourself like a rabid fool on MSNBC. For those with poor memory, the question was regarding the right to secession as a peaceable alternative to open rebellion and war. The Constitution does not deny any such rights (making the law clear), and the words of several of the Founding Fathers were also cited as extra-constitutional clarification of the FF's intent and beliefs, upon which this nation was founded.

Once these facts were pointed out, and SCOUTS' dancing around the matter also referenced, you began this evasion, seeking instead to attack the CSA on the grounds of whether one approves of slavery, rather than addressing the matter at hand. Such actions as you have taken are classic and to be expected of one who knows he is wrong.

They argue as poorly as do you on atheism, which requires more faith than believing in deity.

A pathetic ad hom, which is inaccurate in the first place. Theism requires faith

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Hebrews 11:1

My position is grounded in logical positivism and one does not accept a hypothesis for which there is no evidence. As one who makes decisions and draws conclusions based on reason and the evidence available rather than on glorified ignorance and superstition, I had, in the words of Laplace, 'no need for that hypothesis'. Now, if you wish to address that matter further, make a thread in the appropriate section and present all available evidence to support your hypothesis that your preferred deity exists.
​

Until then, your baseless proclamation of 'victory' merely highlights the ignorance, arrogance, and intellectual dishonesty you have displayed throughout this discussion.

-J.T.B.
​

 

[JakeStarkey]

JB, you just don't have what it takes to be a philosopher. Constructive critical thinking comments do not equate to ad hom, while you, JB, misstated my position on faith. Of course believing in deity requires faith. However, atheism is a faith-belief system desperately in search of proof that does not exist -- empirical data and critical thinking skills fail your premise.

OK, back to the Confederacy -- give me one contemporary that said slavery was not the prime cause of the Civil War. Until any of you can do that, you have conceded the argument.

 

[JBeukema]

you, JB, misstated my position on faith. Of course believing in deity requires faith. However, atheism is a faith-belief system desperately in search of proof that does not exist -- empirical data and critical thinking skills fail your premise.

Your ignorance shows once again. Atheism is not a faith system at all. It is a word that simply means 'without [a-] deity/god[theos]'. He who makes the positive assertion that any thing exists bears the burden of proof. In the absence of evidence, the only logical and intellectually honest and sound conclusion is that such a thing does not exist, and said thing is not to be included in a sound model of the nature of things. Hence, the model is devoid of deity, fairies, invisible elephants, or a second sun orbiting Earth.

Now this is the last I hall bother to address your ignorance and dishonesty. If you wish to parade your ignorance on this matter further, make a thread in the appropriate area of the forum.

OK, back to the Confederacy -- give me one contemporary that said slavery was not the prime cause of the Civil War. Until any of you can do that, you have conceded the argument.

Stlll you continue to evade the question at hand: the question of the positive (legal) right to cessation as well as the validity of cessation as a peacable alternative to the recognized 'natural right' to revolution, rebellion, and self-determination. Why do you refuse to address the matter this thread addresses? The only conclusion is that you do not address it because you realize you have no case, so you seek to distract with an irrelevant argument of motivation and the ethics of slavery.

Of course, you already conceded this point some time ago, so your drivel does nothing to further the discussion at hand. If you wish to address the ethics of slavery, you are free to go to the religion and ethics section and initiate such a discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Positive legal right is a fool's chase, JB. You have lost that argument. And you have no critical evidence that God does not exist. JB, you are OK in your way, but you are wrong on these points.

 

[editec]

Kevin, none of the contemporaries of the Civil War agree with you in their writings. Not one said it was not slavery. They all recognized that slavery and race drove the argument of secession, states' rights, the economies, immigration, the tariff, the territories, etc.

You have conceded in fact because you have posted no evidence demonstrating the contemporaries agreed with you.

Another reason you are incorrect about slavery being the cause of the war of northeren aggression is the simple fact that slavery was never in danger because Lincoln pledged to enforce the fugitive slave law, declared he had no right or intention to interfere with slavery, and supported a new irrevocable constitutional amendment to protect slavery forever.

True facts, but faulty logic.

Your logic might have had legs if the Republic had fired the first shot, of course, but the southern traitors fired on the Republic, remember?

The real causes of the war of northern aggression was the unjust taxation and expenditure of taxes by the Government of the United States, and the change of the government from a confederated republic to a national sectional despotism.

Nonsense. Tariffs were actually going DOWN right before the war started.

The South did not need the North because it could buy the goods it needed from Europe, but the North needed the South as a market for Northern goods.

Yeah there's some truth in that, to be sure. But what the Republic really needed was revenues from those tariffs that consumers (both in the North and the South) paid for imported goods.

In order to perpetuate his war of Northern aggression

(AKA the putting down of the traitorous slavers),

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus,

(illegally, I note. Congress didn't grant him that right for over a year after he did it)

ordered the arrested Chief Justice Taney after the Justice' opinion holding the suspension of habeas corpus to be unconditional,

I didn't know that. Well Taney was right it WAS unconstiutional.

the civilian courts with military ones,

in those states which were in rebellion you mean? Perfectly consitutional that. When the civilian government is in rebellion from Republic it no longer is a legally convened court.

Martial law was in place at that point.

imprisoned about 14,000 dissidents for varied opposition to the warand closed about 300 newspapers.

, Interesting. I knew that some southern Pols were imprisoned (Mayor of Baltimore was, I think, for example).

Can you link us to someplace where we can learn more about those 14,000, please?

No, I'm serious, I'd like to learn more about those charges.

The war between the North and South was a tariff war.

No it wasn't, lad.

Those tarrifs you think were the primary cause of the southern treason had been in place for fourscore and a few years already.

The war was further, not for principle, did not touch the question of slavery, but in fact was fueled by the Northern lust for sovereignty.

the principle upon which that war was fought was the principle of the 'INDIVISIBLE UNION OF STATES" which one can read about over and over again in the FEDERALIST PAPERS.

I know you truly want to find some more noble justification for the Souther slavers treason, but sadly, the very people you seek to defend made it perfectly clear that their treason was in defence of their right to own slaves and additionally their right to expand slavery into the territories.

Now one can certainly understand why those people whose capital was almost completely invested in slavery would defend what they thought of as their property rights.


I mean I can completely understand why the feared losing the right to own human beings, too.

OTOH, had I been CnC at the time, I'd have ordered hung every fucking slave owning officer in the CSA that the Union armies captured during the war.

Incidently, that would have been constiutional.

So thank you fucking lucky stars (and bars), that Lincoln, and not editec was POTUS during that period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Editec concedes the facts above but not the logic. The Vice-President of the CSA said clearly and noted that he was following Thomas Jefferson's thinking the slavery was the 'prime cause' of the Civil War.

Has anyone been able to refute that premise? Nope.

Do folks want to argue about the role of limited federal government? Sure. But Lincoln kicking ass on the South has nothing to do with the cause of the Civil War. Lincoln told the South, "Don't do that, or I will murder you." The South did that, and the Old South died.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Editec concedes the facts above but not the logic. The Vice-President of the CSA said clearly and noted that he was following Thomas Jefferson's thinking the slavery was the 'prime cause' of the Civil War.

Has anyone been able to refute that premise? Nope.

The premise that slavery was the prime cause of the war? Yes. The PRIME cause of the war, as I've said, was the Union trying to preserve its access to cheap cotton. Even at the time, the conflict was described as "a rich man's war and a poor man's fight."

Slavery was a useful argument to galvanize both sides, but not much more.

 

[Citizen]

JB, I have proved that slavery was the main cause with the simple statement of the Vice-President of the CSA's 'cornerstone speech.' Not one has posted any other cause excluding slavery, not one.

They argue as poorly as do you on atheism, which requires more faith than believing in deity.

You really are too easy to defeat in this threads, JB.

Maybe, just maybe, your reading skills are lacking because I have posted the real reason for the war of northern aggression, which was unfair tariffs that took sixty or seventy million dollars per year in the shape of duties, from the South, to be expended in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests.

The main cause, of the war, was that the North wanted high tariffs on imported goods to protect its own manufactured products, while the South wanted low tariffs on imports and exports since it exported cotton and tobacco to Europe and imported manufactured goods in exchange. High tariffs depressed the price for Southern exports and caused them to have to pay high prices for what they bought and got low prices for what they sold because of federal tariff policy which they were powerless to change. The South felt that they were being dominated by the mercantile interests of the North who profited from these high tariffs.

The Morill tariff of March 1861 imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%.

The Northern newspapers had called for peace through conciliation until the seceding states opted for low tariffs, essentially creating a free trade zone, which the North claimed would reduce the North's foreign commerce to less than one-half and their coast wise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of their shipping would lie idle at their wharves, and their factories would be in ruin if the South was allowed to adopt free trade systems.

In March of 1861, the New York Times ran an editorial that claimed, it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are seceding for commercial independence. They dream that the centers of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports by a revenue system verging on free trade.

Granted, without slavery the agricultural economy of the South would not have grown to the point that they could be fiscally independent from the North by being able to export their agricultural products to Europe and import finished goods from Europe without the need to deal with the North, but since slavery was not in danger, at that time, the real reason for the war was unjust tariffs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cotton production rested on the back of slaves ~ thus, your cause goes back to slavery.

Try again.

 

[Citizen]

was caused by the South demanding that slavery be permitted in the territories (although it already had Dred Scott) and a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the national boundaries of slavery forever.

All warlike actions were done by the South, not the North.

The seizing of federal properties and exiling of federal official was done by the South, not the North.

Every action positive to fomenting war was taken by the South, not the North.

The South fired on Old Glory at Ft Sumter, not the North.

God turned His face from the South, and guided His hammer, even Abraham Lincoln, in defeating and despoiling an enemy of the nation, even as God upheld Joshua in the despoling of the Canaanites and taking the enemy's lands as their own. Selah. (It's fun to write like that!)

Anyway, every contemporary of the Civil War thought the main cause was slavery.

For your information, the reason the South was opposed to new states being formed as free states was that just gave the Northern interest more power to impost their will on the Southern states which were already out voted in Congress, thus the unjust tariff policy.

Lincoln was going to evacuate Fort Sumter before the Northern commercial interests claimed that they would not pay duties on any imported goods that were not collected at Southern ports, and New York even threatened to secede from the Union and establish a free trade zone if the South was allowed to operate a free trade zone, and after realizing he faced a losing trade war Lincoln reinforced the fort and the war was upon us.

You sound like the zealots on each side of every war, in that you claim that God is on your side, and not the other, although we are not privy to God's thoughts on the issue, just some posturing on the part of those making that claim.

Also since it was not in violation of the Constitution to withdraw from the Union they had voluntary joined they had every right to do so.

 

[Citizen]

Cotton production rested on the back of slaves ~ thus, your cause goes back to slavery.

Try again.

Since slavery was not in danger at the time of the War, what has that got to do with anything?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is arguing really whether the South had the right to secede. The argument is whether slavery was the prime cause. Almost every last one of the contemporaries said it was slavery. The "cornerstone speech" by the CSA vice-president said it best.

If you don't like that, OK, but your opinion does not count -- only the evidence does. Counter the above.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No one is arguing really whether the South had the right to secede. The argument is whether slavery was the prime cause. Almost every last one of the contemporaries said it was slavery. The "cornerstone speech" by the CSA vice-president said it best.

If you don't like that, OK, but your opinion does not count -- only the evidence does. Counter the above.

Why would anyone continue to counter what you say when you're going to continue to ignore it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, KK, you are not countering me, you are supposed to countering the evidence. Stephens' speech evidences that your contention about the primacy of slavery is wrong. Counter that.

Quite a number of you don't understand that your opinion is worth nothing here, only the evidence. We all have to argue from first premise. You stated that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, did not you not? I gave you evidence that refuted your premise.

So it's not about you or me of Mother Theresa. It's about the evidence.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, KK, you are not countering me, you are supposed to countering the evidence. Stephens' speech evidences that your contention about the primacy of slavery is wrong. Counter that.

Quite a number of you don't understand that your opinion is worth nothing here, only the evidence. We all have to argue from first premise. You stated that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, did not you not? I gave you evidence that refuted your premise.

So it's not about you or me of Mother Theresa. It's about the evidence.

I have said all along that slavery was a reason they seceded, it certainly wasn't the cause of the Civil War. You've simply been ignoring that and all the evidence provided to support it.

 

[Citizen]

No one is arguing really whether the South had the right to secede. The argument is whether slavery was the prime cause. Almost every last one of the contemporaries said it was slavery. The "cornerstone speech" by the CSA vice-president said it best.

If you don't like that, OK, but your opinion does not count -- only the evidence does. Counter the above.

Contrary to your beliefs, the evidence does support the fact that the South seceded over unjust tariffs, and that slavery was not in danger since Lincoln has already pledged to enforce the fugitive salve law, declared he had no right or intention to interfere with slavery, and supported a new irrevocable constitutional amendment to protect slavery forever.

Given that the South had Lincoln's guarantee that the institution of slavery was not in danger, why should they secede over slavery when it was unjust tariffs that was breaking their backs.

The very fact that Congress had imposed unjust tariffs, against the interest of the South, that averaged 47% causing the South to pay an undue portion of federal revenues which were expended mostly in the North, combined with the fact that Fort Sumner, the fort blocking the Charleston harbor, which was going to be evacuated was instead reinforced, was the actual reason for the war.

Lest we forget, the South paid 87% of the tariffs in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13,000,000 federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35,000,000 to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South was in fact paying tribute to the North, and secession was the only way to stop this practice.

Also if the abolition of slavery was the cause the Union fought for, why were the 250,000 slaves held in the Northern states not freed until the 13th amendment was passed, in lieu of freeing them at the start of the war?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Vice-president of the CSA disagrees with your argument. He said slavery was the "prime" cause, and that Jefferson agreed with him.

So go argue with Stephens and Jefferson.

Sheesh, guys, the contemporaries believed the main problem was slavery.

That part of the debate is over.

What else do you wish to discuss?