Confederacy not as bad?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why this attempt to deny the obvious. The issue of States Rights was about a State's right to allow slavery.

Again, no State has the right to violate an indiviuals rights.

Slavery was not on the way out, it was being expanded with the growth of the United States.

Slavery was safer in the Union where the Constitution protected the "rights" of slave-owners, as opposed to out of the Union where northern states would have been able to ignore any Confederate claims to the Fugitive Slave Act. Of course, the five slave states that remained in the Union would have been permitted to continue it's practice of slavery.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is a strange virus in America which seeks to denigrate the accomplishments of one of our greatest Presidents and all that followed his lead.

The Civil War was about and fought over slavery.

Those that argue against this truth are the ones re-writing history.

Absolute and complete nonsense. Lincoln had no problem with slavery and had no intention to end it whatsoever. His only goal was to restore the Confederate states to the Union, the issue of slavery was simply a means to an end. Lincoln was actually a racist, not the "Great Emancipator" he's been portrayed as.

"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."

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

"I will say then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people…there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man."

- Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln's support of the Corwin Amendment which would have made slavery a permanent institution where it already existed, and his support deporting freed African-Americans to Africa, Haiti, and other such places show that he was no friend to any African-Americans.

 

[Jon]

There is a strange virus in America which seeks to denigrate the accomplishments of one of our greatest Presidents and all that followed his lead.

The Civil War was about and fought over slavery.

Those that argue against this truth are the ones re-writing history.

That you wish to remain ignorant is your own problem, not ours.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

Are you an American or a Marylander first?

But it is a good question. We have as a nation supported secession movements when it was in our best interest. Panama is a classic example. Yet not when it was a part of our nation that wanted to succeed.

American has unfortunately had a lot of double standards when it comes to rules that we think should apply to other nations as opposed to what we think should apply to us.

The waterboarding torture thing is just the most recent example.

You've turned a discussion about states right in to one about torture.

Why?

There are a lot of states' righters here. The ulimtate state's right is to secede from the union.

How many people here support state's rights in general, and if so does that include the right for a state or group of states to secede. Why or why not?

I support states rights and the right of secession. I support the right of secession because our federal government was created by the states to act as their agent, not their overlord. The United States is a confederated government of free and independent states, not a national government.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.

Tell me your opinion.

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

Are you an American or a Marylander first?

But it is a good question. We have as a nation supported secession movements when it was in our best interest. Panama is a classic example. Yet not when it was a part of our nation that wanted to succeed.

American has unfortunately had a lot of double standards when it comes to rules that we think should apply to other nations as opposed to what we think should apply to us.

The waterboarding torture thing is just the most recent example.

Thanks for being honest about not understanding the benefit of federalism. The greatest fear of the founders was the centralization of power and the consequent tyranny coming from that concentration.

That was why their first stab at forming a national government was the Articles of Confederation. If there was no strength in the central government, it could never be tyrannical. However, they found that system was too weak to govern effectively. They opted for the current Constitution. They purposefully set power against power in a system of check and balances more complicated than most appreciate.

The internal workings of the federal government are set against each other by dint of who elects them, to whom are they beholden and how often. Authority between the legislative and executive is split and within the legislative is split. They feared both executive tyranny and legislative tyranny. They even feared a judicial tyranny and so only allow cases to come before them (except for special cases) by appeal.

Another important check was the check between the states and the national government. They provided for a "LIMITED" national government. The government had only certain enumerated powers. But the anti-federalists were not impressed. They required a bill of rights or positive rights given the states and the individual.

This was supposed to prevent the concentration of power in the central government and the tyranny that must surely follow. Because all the concentration of power lacks is the person who will misuse the power to become a tyranny.

You can see now how correct the founder's fears were. Despite all of these controls, by two decisions of the United States Supreme Court, United States v. Darby Lumber Co. and Wicker v. Fliburn, destroyed the firewall that existed preventing the concentration of power by the federal government. Since 1941, we have seen an erosion of balance and a concentration of power that wants only for a tyrannical master to abuse the power.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You've turned a discussion about states right in to one about torture.

Why?

There are a lot of states' righters here. The ulimtate state's right is to secede from the union.

How many people here support state's rights in general, and if so does that include the right for a state or group of states to secede. Why or why not?

I support states rights and the right of secession. I support the right of secession because our federal government was created by the states to act as their agent, not their overlord. The United States is a confederated government of free and independent states, not a national government.

This is an incorrect statement borne of a misunderstanding of the origins of the Constitution. In order to be as you describe, the Constitution would have had to have been adopted by state governmental entities and state processes. In the same way a treaty was ratified by the several sovereign states. This is a description of the adoption of the Articles of Confederation but not the adoption of the Constitution.

The founders understood the Rouseauian social contract theory that in order to derive the power necessary to govern, it must derive it from the people directly not through their representatives (the states). Therefore, constitutional conventions were held in each states. The representative thereto were not the political leaders of the state, but special electors elected for the special purpose of ratifying the new Constitution.

It is this special characteristic that legitimizes the Constitution and casts doubt on the ability of states to separate themselves from the union.

 

[Newby]

There is a strange virus in America which seeks to denigrate the accomplishments of one of our greatest Presidents and all that followed his lead.

The Civil War was about and fought over slavery.

Those that argue against this truth are the ones re-writing history.

Absolute and complete nonsense. Lincoln had no problem with slavery and had no intention to end it whatsoever. His only goal was to restore the Confederate states to the Union, the issue of slavery was simply a means to an end. Lincoln was actually a racist, not the "Great Emancipator" he's been portrayed as.

"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."

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

"I will say then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people…there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man."

- Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln's support of the Corwin Amendment which would have made slavery a permanent institution where it already existed, and his support deporting freed African-Americans to Africa, Haiti, and other such places show that he was no friend to any African-Americans.

I've never actually read those words by Lincoln before, thanks.

 

[MaggieMae]

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

States are a more localized form of government and, in most cases, well catered to the citizens who live within the state. Those citizens are able to build the laws to suit their way of life, and such ways of life may not apply to even their neighboring states. In a country with as many differing opinions as the USA, it's impossible to come up with a set of laws that satisfy everyone. That's why the states were given the right to govern their people to begin with, but the federal laws are beginning to overshadow states' rights.

So what happens when the laws of one state make it more favorable to live there and that state gets an influx of out-of-staters which ultimately ruin it for the natives simply because of overcrowding? Do you have residency requirements for, say, welfare benefits applicable only to your state? Do you start redistricting to include/exclude certain "elements" from school systems?

At the other end of that scenario would be those who move to a state to get away from the hubbub of city life and into a region where the air is always clean and the water always safe to drink directly from a well and the views are of mountains, not highrises. Usually those people are the ones who can afford to escape the cities (and suburbs thereof), but once they get resettled, they also find that they miss the cultural activities, the fine 4-lane highways, public sewer systems instead of septic tanks, designer shopping enclaves, and everything else that require a higher tax base to support. Soon, as the flatlanders begin demanding of their new state of residence the same services they had become accustomed to, and taxes need to be increased to the point where the natives can't afford to live there anymore.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There are a lot of states' righters here. The ulimtate state's right is to secede from the union.

How many people here support state's rights in general, and if so does that include the right for a state or group of states to secede. Why or why not?

I support states rights and the right of secession. I support the right of secession because our federal government was created by the states to act as their agent, not their overlord. The United States is a confederated government of free and independent states, not a national government.

This is an incorrect statement borne of a misunderstanding of the origins of the Constitution. In order to be as you describe, the Constitution would have had to have been adopted by state governmental entities and state processes. In the same way a treaty was ratified by the several sovereign states. This is a description of the adoption of the Articles of Confederation but not the adoption of the Constitution.

The founders understood the Rouseauian social contract theory that in order to derive the power necessary to govern, it must derive it from the people directly not through their representatives (the states). Therefore, constitutional conventions were held in each states. The representative thereto were not the political leaders of the state, but special electors elected for the special purpose of ratifying the new Constitution.

It is this special characteristic that legitimizes the Constitution and casts doubt on the ability of states to separate themselves from the union.

What exactly constitutes a misunderstanding? I don't see our two descriptions as being opposed to one another. You're correct that special electors were elected to ratify the Constitution, but they did so on behalf of the individual states. The individual states ratified the Constitution, not the American people as a whole. The Constitution required 9 states to ratify it before it went into effect, when the 9th state ratified the Constitution the 4 remaining states were not automatically incorporated into the newly formed Union. North Carolina and Rhode Island in particular remained outside the new Union for well over a year.

Let's also not forget that the Constitution does not forbid the states to secede, which under the 10th amendment would mean that they are permitted to do so.

 

[Iriemon]

I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.

Tell me your opinion.

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

Are you an American or a Marylander first?

But it is a good question. We have as a nation supported secession movements when it was in our best interest. Panama is a classic example. Yet not when it was a part of our nation that wanted to succeed.

American has unfortunately had a lot of double standards when it comes to rules that we think should apply to other nations as opposed to what we think should apply to us.

The waterboarding torture thing is just the most recent example.

Thanks for being honest about not understanding the benefit of federalism. The greatest fear of the founders was the centralization of power and the consequent tyranny coming from that concentration.

Or was it that states were jealous of losing their power? If state's rights are supreme, what prevents a state from imposing a tyranny?

That was why their first stab at forming a national government was the Articles of Confederation. If there was no strength in the central government, it could never be tyrannical. However, they found that system was too weak to govern effectively. They opted for the current Constitution. They purposefully set power against power in a system of check and balances more complicated than most appreciate.

The internal workings of the federal government are set against each other by dint of who elects them, to whom are they beholden and how often. Authority between the legislative and executive is split and within the legislative is split. They feared both executive tyranny and legislative tyranny. They even feared a judicial tyranny and so only allow cases to come before them (except for special cases) by appeal.

Another important check was the check between the states and the national government. They provided for a "LIMITED" national government. The government had only certain enumerated powers. But the anti-federalists were not impressed. They required a bill of rights or positive rights given the states and the individual.

This was supposed to prevent the concentration of power in the central government and the tyranny that must surely follow. Because all the concentration of power lacks is the person who will misuse the power to become a tyranny.

You can see now how correct the founder's fears were. Despite all of these controls, by two decisions of the United States Supreme Court, United States v. Darby Lumber Co. and Wicker v. Fliburn, destroyed the firewall that existed preventing the concentration of power by the federal government. Since 1941, we have seen an erosion of balance and a concentration of power that wants only for a tyrannical master to abuse the power.

I'd think the decision to eliminate State armed forces or militias in favor of a national armed force was much or a retardation of the check of state power than expanding the commerce clause for national programs.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I support states rights and the right of secession. I support the right of secession because our federal government was created by the states to act as their agent, not their overlord. The United States is a confederated government of free and independent states, not a national government.

This is an incorrect statement borne of a misunderstanding of the origins of the Constitution. In order to be as you describe, the Constitution would have had to have been adopted by state governmental entities and state processes. In the same way a treaty was ratified by the several sovereign states. This is a description of the adoption of the Articles of Confederation but not the adoption of the Constitution.

The founders understood the Rouseauian social contract theory that in order to derive the power necessary to govern, it must derive it from the people directly not through their representatives (the states). Therefore, constitutional conventions were held in each states. The representative thereto were not the political leaders of the state, but special electors elected for the special purpose of ratifying the new Constitution.

It is this special characteristic that legitimizes the Constitution and casts doubt on the ability of states to separate themselves from the union.

What exactly constitutes a misunderstanding? I don't see our two descriptions as being opposed to one another. You're correct that special electors were elected to ratify the Constitution, but they did so on behalf of the individual states. The individual states ratified the Constitution, not the American people as a whole. The Constitution required 9 states to ratify it before it went into effect, when the 9th state ratified the Constitution the 4 remaining states were not automatically incorporated into the newly formed Union. North Carolina and Rhode Island in particular remained outside the new Union for well over a year.

Let's also not forget that the Constitution does not forbid the states to secede, which under the 10th amendment would mean that they are permitted to do so.

The special electors create a direct connection with the people of the state rather than with the state as a political entity.

You are correct that the states individually joined the union, but there was not practical way for the people to vote any other way. Each state was a sovereign entity. The character of the people was not as homogeneous as it is today. You couldn't have a general election in all of the states at one time. Even if the states would have gotten together and voted the same day, what effect would that have had? The people of each sovereign state had to vote to change the character of the relationship to the national government.

Take a case in point, one state, say Virginia. Let's look at it's social contract as an individual state. After the revolution and state evolved from a colony to a state, Virginia rather by default, stands on it own. The elected government of the people act for it in foreign matters. They make external treaties with other states. One of the treaties is the Articles of Confederation. The polity of the state makes the treaty. The people elected their government, but otherwise have no special say in this treaty. In social contract theory language the power of the Articles of Confederation are derived from the powers given it by the states forming the confederation.

By contrast, when the Constitution was ratified, special elections we held by the people and representatives to the Constitutional convention were elected, thereby avoiding the apparatus of state government and the political entity known as Virginia (in this example). Therefore, the state as a political entity, the nation-state of Virginia, did not ratify the Constitution. The people who lived in the nation-state of Virginia, through their specially elected representatives, ratified the Constitution. Ratification by the people then extent in the several states of North America could have been had in no other way. The people living in Virginia did not and could not, in the body there assembled, speak for the political entity of the Nation-State of Virginia nor bind it except as a citizen of Virginia and now of the United States (after ratification). The understanding was, if the citizens of Virginia voted to ratify, that ipso facto, the polity that was the sovereign state of Virginia (Commonwealth in its case) becomes a political subdivision with a distinct sphere of authority (everything not ceded to the national government). Its citizens are citizens of both Virginia and the United States by direct ratification of the Constitution.

 

[ItsFairmont]

Republicans have a hart time with this one (the Civil War). Most white Southerners are Republicans, of course, but many support the Confederate Flag. The Republicans burned the South. The Republicans were the ones who started the destruction in Congress by taking away states' rights with unfair tariffs and other laws that made it so that Southerners were dependent on the North.

The Constitution wasn't supposed to do anything but enable a common currency and army to protect the states, and to guarantee free trade AMONG THE STATES, not among nations.

This made it so that the states could do business how they saw fit with other nations. The Southern states were very successful with cotton, and sold it to Europe. The Southerners also purchased European goods, like tea sets, doors, windows, dresses, silverware, etc.

But the North wanted in on the action. Mississippi was the richest state in the Union (now is the poorest), and The North wanted in on the action.

The South sent their raw cotton to Europe for processing, and the North wanted in on the action.


The industrialists of the north formed a new political party, the Republicans, and continued to force the South to send their cotton north, and imposed tariffs that made it impossibly expensive to buy European goods, so the South had to buy from the North.

Since the Southerners were so outnumbered in Congress they got their butts kicked through the legislative process.

They finally had enough when Lincoln was elected, and withdrew from the Union (although in a very rash manner--they should have been better prepared).

The Republican Party only went after slavery because they figured it would devestate the Southern economy and force Southerners to comply with their demands. The Republicans didn't care any more about slavery than Bush did about Iraqis. It was completely economical.

The Republican Party was and is the party that represents industrialists and nobody else, but they fool millions of people by claiming to care about issues like states' rights, smaller government, pro-life, and fiscal conservation. They have fulfilled none of those so-called ideals. Why?

They don't want to. They need those issues to keep the suckers in line who vote for them.


Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, was the founding father of what is now called the Democratic Party.

Alexander Hamilton, the man who favored a stronger federal government and less power for the states, was the founding father of what is now the Republican Party.


The Democratic Party has always represented the people who work for a living.

The Republican Party represents the rich bankers and industrialists, and nobody else.

It really is that simple. I'm glad this is settled.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is an incorrect statement borne of a misunderstanding of the origins of the Constitution. In order to be as you describe, the Constitution would have had to have been adopted by state governmental entities and state processes. In the same way a treaty was ratified by the several sovereign states. This is a description of the adoption of the Articles of Confederation but not the adoption of the Constitution.

The founders understood the Rouseauian social contract theory that in order to derive the power necessary to govern, it must derive it from the people directly not through their representatives (the states). Therefore, constitutional conventions were held in each states. The representative thereto were not the political leaders of the state, but special electors elected for the special purpose of ratifying the new Constitution.

It is this special characteristic that legitimizes the Constitution and casts doubt on the ability of states to separate themselves from the union.

What exactly constitutes a misunderstanding? I don't see our two descriptions as being opposed to one another. You're correct that special electors were elected to ratify the Constitution, but they did so on behalf of the individual states. The individual states ratified the Constitution, not the American people as a whole. The Constitution required 9 states to ratify it before it went into effect, when the 9th state ratified the Constitution the 4 remaining states were not automatically incorporated into the newly formed Union. North Carolina and Rhode Island in particular remained outside the new Union for well over a year.

Let's also not forget that the Constitution does not forbid the states to secede, which under the 10th amendment would mean that they are permitted to do so.

The special electors create a direct connection with the people of the state rather than with the state as a political entity.

You are correct that the states individually joined the union, but there was not practical way for the people to vote any other way. Each state was a sovereign entity. The character of the people was not as homogeneous as it is today. You couldn't have a general election in all of the states at one time. Even if the states would have gotten together and voted the same day, what effect would that have had? The people of each sovereign state had to vote to change the character of the relationship to the national government.

Take a case in point, one state, say Virginia. Let's look at it's social contract as an individual state. After the revolution and state evolved from a colony to a state, Virginia rather by default, stands on it own. The elected government of the people act for it in foreign matters. They make external treaties with other states. One of the treaties is the Articles of Confederation. The polity of the state makes the treaty. The people elected their government, but otherwise have no special say in this treaty. In social contract theory language the power of the Articles of Confederation are derived from the powers given it by the states forming the confederation.

By contrast, when the Constitution was ratified, special elections we held by the people and representatives to the Constitutional convention were elected, thereby avoiding the apparatus of state government and the political entity known as Virginia (in this example). Therefore, the state as a political entity, the nation-state of Virginia, did not ratify the Constitution. The people who lived in the nation-state of Virginia, through their specially elected representatives, ratified the Constitution. Ratification by the people then extent in the several states of North America could have been had in no other way. The people living in Virginia did not and could not, in the body there assembled, speak for the political entity of the Nation-State of Virginia nor bind it except as a citizen of Virginia and now of the United States (after ratification). The understanding was, if the citizens of Virginia voted to ratify, that ipso facto, the polity that was the sovereign state of Virginia (Commonwealth in its case) becomes a political subdivision with a distinct sphere of authority (everything not ceded to the national government). Its citizens are citizens of both Virginia and the United States by direct ratification of the Constitution.

Your account of the ratification of the Constitution is sound, but the only misunderstanding I'm having is how we're saying different things. Whether the electors of the Constitutional Conventions reflect the will of the people of the state or of the state itself is essentially the same thing to my mind. It wasn't simply a majority vote of all the people of the thirteen states required to ratify the Constitution, but required that every state ratify the Constitution or they remained independent of the Union formed by the Constitution. And it was the powers of the independent states that were ceded to the new federal government. Otherwise, the individual states would be able to declare war or create treaties on their own.

Again, I think we're essentially saying the same things.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, was the founding father of what is now called the Democratic Party.

Alexander Hamilton, the man who favored a stronger federal government and less power for the states, was the founding father of what is now the Republican Party.

Thomas Jefferson would not support todays Democratic Party whatsoever. They believe too much in big government that Jefferson would have condemned completely. Hamilton would support both the Republicans and Democrats of today.

 

[ItsFairmont]

I forgot to mention:

The Southern states were not perfect in any of this either. They made a ton of mistakes.

1. Most of the Tories (Loyalists to the Crown) during the American Revolution were Southerners, mostly in Georgia, the Carolinas, and Alaksa (just kidding about Alaska).

2. They were foolish for relying so heavily on slavery.

3. When considering secession, they should have freed all slaves immediately if they volunteered to serve the Confederate army.

4. They should have better prepared for war. They rushed into it.

5. Their 3/5 clause in the U.S. Constitution was a joke. People talk about taxation without representation. The Southerners demanded representation without taxation. The North should have told them to go to blazes if they wanted to count a slave in the census without giving slaves the right to vote. Talk about the dumbest section of the Constitution. Just dumb.

6. The Southerners could have communicated better if they didn't all sound like Jeff Foxworthy after a few drinks.

7. They should have written their own song. Dixie (Battle Hymn) was written by a Yankee.

8. Part of their problem was that a lot of the Southerners were of Scot/Irish/Welsh ancestry, and held contempt for the more England-based Northerners. The English have been outsmarting the rest of the UK for hundreds of years, including that Braveheart dude. He went down.

9. Weren't many Southerners hooking up with their sisters and cousins? That's not a great idea.

10. Finally, the Confederates tried to gain an alliance with France. Only a relaxed, beer-drinking party animal like Ben Franklin had any luck with the French. Getting the French on board is next to impossible, particularly for a Southern. The Southerners would have had better luck with Mexico.

 

[Immanuel]

I'd say that as in many if not most conflicts there is a little bit of "truth" in both sides of the argument. The South was right on state's rights, but very, very wrong on slavery.

Not so, immanuel. You said in the other thread that you were a christian. Read your bible again- a slave is to know his place and be a good slave, for it is god's will. The authority of the slave master, like all authority, comes from god. Slavery is recognized ansd supported in both the torah and the 'new testament' library put together by king (was uit henry or george?) and used as the basis for modern neochristians

I think you take the Bible out of context here.

Yes, slavery is discussed in the Bible. Yes, slaves are to obey their masters.

Slavery as practiced by the Americas is not condoned nor is racism.

The Israelites were taken into slavery by the Egyptians and also later by the Babylonians. But, it was God himself who put them in that position because of their disobedience.

Check out the book of Philemon.

You refer to a passage about a slave knowing his place. I believe 1 Peter 2:17-19 is the passage of which you speak:

17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.

This has nothing to do with promoting slavery but rather the attitudes of those who find themselves in such a position. In fact, it even describes Slavery as "unjust suffering".

As for the Union, well, state's rights is a "grey" (no pun intended)

No, it's not.

You are welcome to your opinion, but please explain why you do not think it is a grey area. The two sides had a difference of opinion as to what rights a state had. The North did not state that states had no rights at all, in fact they were willing to allow slavery to continue, rather they refused the states the right to secede.

Did a state have the right to secede or not and if so under what conditions. The issue was not black and white, written in stone. There was room for give and take on both sides.

Much like abortion, there is some room for pro-life people like myself to realize that there cannot be a hard and fast rule, such as when the life of the mother is endangered or a 12 year old girl gets raped and ends up pregnant.

Immie

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I forgot to mention:

The Southern states were not perfect in any of this either. They made a ton of mistakes.

1. Most of the Tories (Loyalists to the Crown) during the American Revolution were Southerners, mostly in Georgia, the Carolinas, and Alaksa (just kidding about Alaska).

2. They were foolish for relying so heavily on slavery.

3. When considering secession, they should have freed all slaves immediately if they volunteered to serve the Confederate army.

4. They should have better prepared for war. They rushed into it.

5. Their 3/5 clause in the U.S. Constitution was a joke. People talk about taxation without representation. The Southerners demanded representation without taxation. The North should have told them to go to blazes if they wanted to count a slave in the census without giving slaves the right to vote. Talk about the dumbest section of the Constitution. Just dumb.

6. The Southerners could have communicated better if they didn't all sound like Jeff Foxworthy after a few drinks.

7. They should have written their own song. Dixie (Battle Hymn) was written by a Yankee.

8. Part of their problem was that a lot of the Southerners were of Scot/Irish/Welsh ancestry, and held contempt for the more England-based Northerners. The English have been outsmarting the rest of the UK for hundreds of years, including that Braveheart dude. He went down.

9. Weren't many Southerners hooking up with their sisters and cousins? That's not a great idea.

10. Finally, the Confederates tried to gain an alliance with France. Only a relaxed, beer-drinking party animal like Ben Franklin had any luck with the French. Getting the French on board is next to impossible, particularly for a Southern. The Southerners would have had better luck with Mexico.

A few things. Slave-owners were a minority in the south, so they didn't rely "heavily" on it. Rather, a minority relied heavily on it. Some former-slaves, or possibly even slaves, did participate in the Confederate army. The south tried to communicate with Lincoln, but he refused their efforts. Many Europeans were sympathetic to the Confederacy, such as England and France. However, it was the issue of slavery and Lincoln's aggressiveness that kept them from becoming more involved in the situation on the south's behalf.

 

[MaggieMae]

Republicans have a hart time with this one (the Civil War). Most white Southerners are Republicans, of course, but many support the Confederate Flag. The Republicans burned the South. The Republicans were the ones who started the destruction in Congress by taking away states' rights with unfair tariffs and other laws that made it so that Southerners were dependent on the North.

The Constitution wasn't supposed to do anything but enable a common currency and army to protect the states, and to guarantee free trade AMONG THE STATES, not among nations.

This made it so that the states could do business how they saw fit with other nations. The Southern states were very successful with cotton, and sold it to Europe. The Southerners also purchased European goods, like tea sets, doors, windows, dresses, silverware, etc.

But the North wanted in on the action. Mississippi was the richest state in the Union (now is the poorest), and The North wanted in on the action.

The South sent their raw cotton to Europe for processing, and the North wanted in on the action.


The industrialists of the north formed a new political party, the Republicans, and continued to force the South to send their cotton north, and imposed tariffs that made it impossibly expensive to buy European goods, so the South had to buy from the North.

Since the Southerners were so outnumbered in Congress they got their butts kicked through the legislative process.

They finally had enough when Lincoln was elected, and withdrew from the Union (although in a very rash manner--they should have been better prepared).

The Republican Party only went after slavery because they figured it would devestate the Southern economy and force Southerners to comply with their demands. The Republicans didn't care any more about slavery than Bush did about Iraqis. It was completely economical.

The Republican Party was and is the party that represents industrialists and nobody else, but they fool millions of people by claiming to care about issues like states' rights, smaller government, pro-life, and fiscal conservation. They have fulfilled none of those so-called ideals. Why?

They don't want to. They need those issues to keep the suckers in line who vote for them.


Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, was the founding father of what is now called the Democratic Party.

Alexander Hamilton, the man who favored a stronger federal government and less power for the states, was the founding father of what is now the Republican Party.


The Democratic Party has always represented the people who work for a living.

The Republican Party represents the rich bankers and industrialists, and nobody else.

It really is that simple. I'm glad this is settled.

Uh oh... Got your flak jacket on?

 

[JBeukema]

You are welcome to your opinion, but please explain why you do not think it is a grey area....Did a state have the right to secede or not and if so under what conditions.

Two words: Tenth Amendment

 

[Kalam]

I'm always amazed when I hear yankees explaining how they were taught that the Civil War was fought over slavery, that Lincoln was a great leader, and that the South was morally "evil" whereas the Union was "good." What shamelessly propagandistic revisionism!

Giving more power to the states will always yield better results than concentrating the vast majority of it in Washington. The state, by its very nature, is far more responsive to the needs and desires of its constituency than the nation is. If we actually followed the constitution and gave all responsibilities not specified therein to each individual state, we'd be far better off.