South Seceded over White Supremacy and Slavery

[hopner33]

The South did not invent slavery, nor did invent slavery trade. In fact, the Southern United States had a minimal amount of slaves in comparison to other nations that owned slaves.

What do you suggest the Southern slave-owners pay their "workers" with? I hate to tell you, but the money trail led northward, not the otherway around. Let's not also forget that slavery was not illegal--even in the North. Northern people hated blacks just as much as Southern people did. They may not have wanted them to be slaves, but they surely intended on keeping them separate.

Once again, The Civil War was fought over states-rights, not slavery. Slavery was an underlying issue. It's funny that neither country went to war until the North failed to leave southern lands after the South seceded.

The money trail leading northward was more of a product of the Civil War. Wade Hampton of South Carolina was the country's richest men in ante-bellum America. In fact, plantation owners were most of the richest men in the nation. The poorer Southerners did not own slaves, so the actual slave owners did, in general, have the money to pay the slaves.

Secondly, slavery was illegal in the North by the time of thew Civil War. The constitution does not make slavery a legal institution in the national sense as you semm to think. Rather it does not comment on the legality of slavery thus leaving it to the states per the 10th amendment. In the North, slavery was either completely gone by the Civil War, or gradual emancipation had left but a few.

It is also a gross generalization to say that Northerners hated blacks as much as Southerners did. How do you account for the abolitionists, or the men in the burnt over district of New York who actually raided jails to free runaway slaves?
The North was too heterogeneous about blacks and slavery to say anything. The South in contrast was almost entirely homogeneous in supporting slavery, and those who didn't often moved North.

 

[hopner33]

I shouldn't have to answer this, becasue you've already answered it yourself.

Lincoln was part of the "ABOLITIONIST" party. They made it clear they wanted slavery to ened. If the president was elected, and ended slavery---it would apparently be overriding the majority vote in each southern state. Basically, the South threatened to secede if there was a president elected that would crap all over their popular sovereignty. Northern states were allowed to outlaw slavery on their own, at their own pace...due to popular sovereignty. They were able to do this because it wasn't their economic system.


Furthermore, the South did not secede because a specific state right had been violated. The North Violated the Constitution numerous times by not returning slaves that had escaped, and also creating slavery uprisings in the South (I.E. Harpers Ferry).

If you'll take a stroll down history lane, you'll notice that both sides did not go to war until the North refused to give up Fort Sumter (which was on South Carolina property-land. The South used their state right to secede from the Union. (<---review the 10th Amendment) The North apparently figured that the states did not have the RIGHT to secede from the Union. When South Carolina seceded, all lands of South Carolina were considered South Carolina--and no longer apart of the United States. The North refused to leave South Carolina after numerous requests and warnings. <----that's what kicked off the Civil War.

So to answer your questions--the North violated the South's right (according to the Constitution) to secede from the Union. It was a states' rights issue...and slavery happened to be a factor. Had a president been elected that abolished firearms, there would have been the same result.

Lincoln and the North in general made it clear that they would not "crap" all over the popular sovereignity of the Southern states. The Corwin amendment promised that the federal government would leave slavery alone where it already existed. Lincoln would not end slavery where it already existed. As a neo-confederate I thought you would know that! But it kills your notion that the North was trying to squash the popular sovereingity of the South.

John Brown's raid was a private affair, and the federral governm,ent hanged its perpetrator. I fail to see how the North violated the constiution here.

I have already addressed Fort Sumter.

Your tenth amendment argument is flawed for two reasons. First, no Southerner used the 10th amendment to justify secession. Rather they talked about sovereignity. So while the 10th amendment might have allowed secession, the Confederrate states did not go that route.

Decondly, read the whole 10th amendment. It gives powers to either the states or to the people. We can infer that the people means the nation as a whole because the word people is only used two other times in the Constitution. One is when they are discussing elections in the House, and second in the Preamble which defines the people as "we the people of the United States of America." So under the 10th amendment, how do we determine whether secession was given to the states or to the people as a whole? We cannot.

 

[Orange_Juice]

I shouldn't have to answer this, becasue you've already answered it yourself.

Lincoln was part of the "ABOLITIONIST" party. They made it clear they wanted slavery to ened. If the president was elected, and ended slavery---it would apparently be overriding the majority vote in each southern state. Basically, the South threatened to secede if there was a president elected that would crap all over their popular sovereignty. Northern states were allowed to outlaw slavery on their own, at their own pace...due to popular sovereignty. They were able to do this because it wasn't their economic system.


Furthermore, the South did not secede because a specific state right had been violated. The North Violated the Constitution numerous times by not returning slaves that had escaped, and also creating slavery uprisings in the South (I.E. Harpers Ferry).

If you'll take a stroll down history lane, you'll notice that both sides did not go to war until the North refused to give up Fort Sumter (which was on South Carolina property-land. The South used their state right to secede from the Union. (<---review the 10th Amendment) The North apparently figured that the states did not have the RIGHT to secede from the Union. When South Carolina seceded, all lands of South Carolina were considered South Carolina--and no longer apart of the United States. The North refused to leave South Carolina after numerous requests and warnings. <----that's what kicked off the Civil War.

So to answer your questions--the North violated the South's right (according to the Constitution) to secede from the Union. It was a states' rights issue...and slavery happened to be a factor. Had a president been elected that abolished firearms, there would have been the same result.

You need a history lesson boy. You seemed have have been told some lies or just made shit up as you went along. The Republican party was "abolitionist" in 1860? That's just stupid. Hell, Lincoln even said he wouldn't stand in the way of an amendment to protect slavery in the south in 1860. Show me anywhere where Lincoln was an abolitionist in 1860 or before


And you bring up popular sovereignty??? The south was shitting all over that concept in Kansas at the time. No wonder you avoided my question about Bleeding Kanasa, it gets in the way of your propagnda history. Do you even know anything about Bleeding Kansas? At all? The southern minority forced a pro-slavery constituion on the state and the southern members of the senate fought to have that corrupt constitution oppressivly imposed on a free people. Shameful!


Then you go on to say the North didn't violate any states rights, yet the South did seceed for states rights? Huh? How's that work? You are like a little kitten all tied up in a ball of yarn


I'll agree that the south thought they had a right to seceed and the orth thought they didn't. I'd say that the majority of southern people were against secession

Also, the South had no real reason to simply open fire on United States troops in Fort Sumter, they were doing no harm, blocking no commerce and not a menace at all. It was a provocative act, and totally unnecessary except to serve the southern leaders in starting a war they needed to unite the south

 

[solarefficiency]

MLK jr. speech did not change anything 40 years later. Negroes still treated poorly in the South.

 

[catzmeow]

So are poor whites.

p.s. The term negro went out of style in the 1970s.

 

[solarefficiency]

The South did not invent slavery, nor did invent slavery trade. In fact, the Southern United States had a minimal amount of slaves in comparison to other nations that owned slaves.

What do you suggest the Southern slave-owners pay their "workers" with? I hate to tell you, but the money trail led northward, not the otherway around. Let's not also forget that slavery was not illegal--even in the North. Northern people hated blacks just as much as Southern people did. They may not have wanted them to be slaves, but they surely intended on keeping them separate.

Once again, The Civil War was fought over states-rights, not slavery. Slavery was an underlying issue. It's funny that neither country went to war until the North failed to leave southern lands after the South seceded.

History states that the Civil war was fought over slavery. And the South lost, but still 150 years afterwards Southern attitudes still remain the same towards Black America.

 

[catzmeow]

Oh really? Than why are more blacks elected, per capita, in the South than in any other region of the U.S.?

Damn those racist white Southerners.

I would really like to see EVIDENCE that racism is more virulent, endemic, and serious in the south than in the North. I mean, black folks in the north seem to suffer some pretty serious discrimination, from what I've seen. And there are many cities, like Atlanta, where there are large populations of affluent blacks. How exactly is "the white man" keeping these people down, when they're out-earning me?

I wonder how one would go about proving this claim, that Southern attitudes remain the same as 150 years ago. What about the the black migration that began in the mid 1970s, from North BACK to the South? Why have so many blacks moved south in the last 50 years if they are exposed to the same treatment they received in 1850?

It is my contention, as someone who has lived in the south for the last 9 years, that poor whites AND poor blacks receive about equally shabby treatment. I would issue that the big divider in the South these days is CLASS, not race. After all, it appears to me as if plenty of blacks are serving in positions of leadership (mayor, city council, school district leadership, police chief) around the south, and often in predominantly white communities. I know that my community, which is about 70% white, has a black mayor, black police chief, and two black city council members.

 

[BrianH]

A few FYIs:

Harper's Ferry was John Brown's uprising and while he was an abolitionist, he wasn't a slave.

Never said he was a slave. Said he was from the North, and violated the Federal Law

Second, you won't get far citing the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court ended a potentially interesting line of cases adding gloss and strength to the tenth amendment in the late 1800s or early 1900s. The last word from the Supreme Court on the 10th Amendment was that it is an unenforceable truism.

I'm well aware of the SCOTUS and it's decision regarding the 10th Amendment. And as I said before, SCOTUS may rule on the Law of the land...but it doesn't necessarily make it lawful or constitutional. After all, Separate by Equal seemed to be quite constitutional eh?

Third, in Texas v. White, 1868, the Supreme Court found no right for a state to unilaterally secede from the Union. Further, it found no right for the National government to expel a state. The court said, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."

Refer to above for my thoughts about SCOTUS. Also, is it really so suprising that SCOTUS ruled in that manner? If what the South did was illegal, why were no southern Generals (Traitors in the minds of many) ever taken to trial? I'll tell you why, because that would imply that an illegal act was committed. And I'm sorry, the 10th Amendment is in the Bill of Rights....something that cannot be infringed upon by any other part of the Constitution. It's funny how many of you will scream about the freedom of speech (because it's in the Bill of Rights). You'll all argue that no law can be passed restricting the freedom of speech, however, you'll cast out the 10th Amendment as something that apparently can be ruled against.

So, while on its face the Constitution appears to have provisions which will permit secession, the Supreme Court says the right does not exist.

Once again, we've all already discussed the supreme court decision. While I'll admit that it is NOW constitutional law, it is not necessarily right. If SCOTUS ruled tomorrow that we were going to segregate again and that it was constitutional, would you agree with it?

This is of little moment though because if states want to secede, the legal niceties will little matter. The union will be enforced as it was attempted to be in Georgia, by force of arms. Likewise, secession if it is to succeed, will succeed by force of arms. The legality of such a move justified by its success.

Secession was a legal event that took place. IT was not forbidden in the Constitution, and the power of secession was not delegated to the Federal Government...simple as that. The North won the war and as always, the winners decide what History books get distributed to the school system. This nation was founded on the principles of abolishing a government (by popular sovereignty) if the people(s) of the union were feeling opressed or that the Government was not holding up to it's end of the bargain. 11 states seceding from the Union early on in our nations history....why don't you google that and tell me that secession was illegal.

 

[BrianH]

The money trail leading northward was more of a product of the Civil War. Wade Hampton of South Carolina was the country's richest men in ante-bellum America. In fact, plantation owners were most of the richest men in the nation. The poorer Southerners did not own slaves, so the actual slave owners did, in general, have the money to pay the slaves.

Secondly, slavery was illegal in the North by the time of thew Civil War. The constitution does not make slavery a legal institution in the national sense as you semm to think. Rather it does not comment on the legality of slavery thus leaving it to the states per the 10th amendment. In the North, slavery was either completely gone by the Civil War, or gradual emancipation had left but a few.

It is also a gross generalization to say that Northerners hated blacks as much as Southerners did. How do you account for the abolitionists, or the men in the burnt over district of New York who actually raided jails to free runaway slaves?
The North was too heterogeneous about blacks and slavery to say anything. The South in contrast was almost entirely homogeneous in supporting slavery, and those who didn't often moved North.

First off, the money trail had always run northward via the simple aspect of two completely different economic systems. You had a more industrialized North and a more Rural South.--enough said. Also, a VERY small percentage of southerners were plantation owners to begin with. That leaves a vast majority of southern people who were poor. Many POOR southerners were sharecroppers and/or owned slaves themselves and treated them fairly. It is not strange to read stories of slave owners treating their slaves like family.

As far as slavery in the North, it was not ILLEGAL according to the Constitution....which is really what matters in this whole debacle. So, in your mind, because slavery was illegal in the North, all Southern states should forfeit their sovereignty to oblige? I don't agree with slavery, but we're talking federal law here...

I'm well aware of what did make slavery essentiall legal. It was a lack of address in the Constution. IT was not forbidden, and not a power granted to the federal gov. SO to make my point, secession was legal as well. It was not a power prohibited, nor a power granted to the fed. Case Made.


As far as my GROSS generalization....

"Despite the actions of abolitionists, life for free blacks was far from idyllic, due to northern racism. Most free blacks lived in racial enclaves in the major cities of the North: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. There, poor living conditions led to disease and death. In a Philadelphia study in 1846, practically all poor black infants died shortly after birth. Even wealthy blacks were prohibited from living in white neighborhoods due to whites' fear of declining property values.
African Americans were either refused admission to, or segregated in, hotels, restaurants, and theaters. Blacks had limited work and educational opportunities. They were often denied access to public transportation in cities, and allowed on trains only in "Jim Crow" segregated cars. They were also denied civil rights, such as the right to vote and the right to testify in court in many states, thus leaving them open to attack by thieves and mobs, and to being captured and sold by slave catchers. Black men and women were routinely attacked in the streets, and from 1820 to 1850, black churches, schools and homes were looted and burned in riots in major cities throughout the North, forcing many blacks to flee to Canada. "

Africans in America/Part 4/Narrative: Fugitive Slaves and Northern Racism

 

[editec]

It is my contention, as someone who has lived in the south for the last 9 years, that poor whites AND poor blacks receive about equally shabby treatment. I would issue that the big divider in the South these days is CLASS, not race.

Shhhhh!

That's the dirty little ism plaguing America that dare not speak its name, catz.

Say things about class too often, and you name will end up a sub rosa list with the likes of me.

It's not a good career move to point out that the king has no clothes.

 

[BrianH]

You need a history lesson boy. You seemed have have been told some lies or just made shit up as you went along. The Republican party was "abolitionist" in 1860? That's just stupid. Hell, Lincoln even said he wouldn't stand in the way of an amendment to protect slavery in the south in 1860. Show me anywhere where Lincoln was an abolitionist in 1860 or before

Oh imbisil....(sigh) Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ok....What party was Abraham Lincoln nominated for--Republican Party?
What did Abraham do??? --ABOLISH SLAVERY

Abraham Lincoln Quotes:

"...the institution of slavery is founded upon both injustice and bad policy..." March 3, 1837

"I have always hated slavery..." July 10, 1858 |

"...our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free..." October 13, 1858

"I think Slavery is wrong, morally, and politically..." September 17, 1859 |

Lincoln on Slavery


And you bring up popular sovereignty??? The south was shitting all over that concept in Kansas at the time. No wonder you avoided my question about Bleeding Kanasa, it gets in the way of your propagnda history. Do you even know anything about Bleeding Kansas? At all? The southern minority forced a pro-slavery constituion on the state and the southern members of the senate fought to have that corrupt constitution oppressivly imposed on a free people. Shameful!


Oh ass-whipe. I know more about Bleeding Kansas than you do. Let me give you a brief history. The first settlers of Kansas terriroty were from pro-slavery southerners---mostly from Missouri. At the same time, numerous anti-slave ORGANIZATIONS decended on Kansas in hopes to increase votes to make Kansas an anti-slave territory. Including NEEAC, or the New England Emigrant Aid Company. A Northern abolitionist preacher began funding Northern abolitionists with arms and rifles. (Hint: Google Beecher's Bibles). Northerners were coming down into the territory ARMED and ready to fight for Kansas. The Southern "Border Ruffians" got exaggerated word that the North was coming down with about 30,000 to wage warfare in Kansas. Now, as far as shitting on popular sovereignty. Why don't you look up which side WON the elections. I'll give you another hint...it WASN'T the anti-slavery peeps.

Then you go on to say the North didn't violate any states rights, yet the South did seceed for states rights? Huh? How's that work? You are like a little kitten all tied up in a ball of yarn

Oh butt dart....The South used their POWER delegated by the 10th Amendment to secede. 10th Amendment says that powers not prohibited by the Constitution, or delgated to the Federal Government, are hereby reserved for the states. Since secession was not prohibited in 1861, and was not delegated as a power of the federal government, it was reserved for the states, just like any other power. That ball of yarn just got shoved down your throat.


I'll agree that the south thought they had a right to seceed and the orth thought they didn't. I'd say that the majority of southern people were against secession

Proof Please--is this why the majority of southerners continued to pump what money and manpower they had for "the cause"? Who needs the history lesson??? I'll assure you I know more of the history of this nation than you.

Also, the South had no real reason to simply open fire on United States troops in Fort Sumter, they were doing no harm, blocking no commerce and not a menace at all. It was a provocative act, and totally unnecessary except to serve the southern leaders in starting a war they needed to unite the south

Tell me OJ, where is Fort Sumter??? SOUTH CAROLINA....THE SOUTH. Fort Sumter was in South Carolina. South Carolina wanted them out. They granted federal troops this land as long as South Carolina remained in the UNion. As soon as they wanted the fed troops out, the federal government should have repsected this request. The federal troops refused to leave SOuth Carolina's land after numerous requests and warnings. According to your logic, the U.S., under no circumstances, should leave any embassy in the world, if the other country doesn't want us there.

 

[BrianH]

History states that the Civil war was fought over slavery. And the South lost, but still 150 years afterwards Southern attitudes still remain the same towards Black America.

You are obviously the racist my friend. I said no such thing about blacks.

I have not once in this thread exclaimed that slavery is morally right. I stated specific facts that slavery was LEGAL...which is part of history. History also stated, at one point in time, that separate was equal, was it not? History written in textbooks is not always the correct history. History, at one point in time, listed the oldest human remains...that is, until they found older human remains. Granted, the South did lose, slavery was bad, and things are great now. But that does not mean you should believe a false and propagandic history that "North Good, South Bad." And that the North were these non-racist individuals that wanted to hold hands and marry blacks. I haven't a racist bone in my body...but I'm not going to ignore certain aspects of history.

It's racists like you who automatically assume that the South is racist.

 

[BrianH]

MLK jr. speech did not change anything 40 years later. Negroes still treated poorly in the South.

Proof please....

 

[ronpaul2008]

These arguments that the 'South Seceded over White Supremacy and Slavery' is sickening revisionism and goes to show why we need to end the public education(i.e. centralized mandatory brainwashing) system which teaches this garbage to naive youngsters. Here is the actual truth.

The Civil War was a war about the philosophies of Karl Marx vs. the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson

The United States was founded as group of sovereign nations loosely bound by a limited federal government. The federal government was given the powers listed in the constitution and no more, the rest of the powers were left to the states to decide on. This is the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers, and the ones which the southern soldiers laid down their lives for.

Lincoln's legacy was to consolidate central power and destroy the autonomy of the states. Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson Jr. assert in 'Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists' that Abraham Lincoln was influenced by communism when the Union condemned the rights of Southern states to express their independence. And it is well documented that Karl Marx was sending letters of praise to Lincoln and instructing German and other European communist refugees in America to support Lincoln’s invasion of the South. After the 1848-49 revolution great number of members of the League of Communists were forced to emigrate from Germany and later from France and Switzerland as well and most ended up in the United States. This is where they brought the ideas and influence that eventually held sway with Lincoln.

Lincolnian Totalitarians by Thomas DiLorenzo
The Ten Causes Of The War Between The States

I have read that there were more slaves in the northern states then the south. But our schools won't teach you anything about Northern slave-running. No they want to demonize the south. The vast majority of southern soldiers were ordinary dirt farmers, white men who owned small farms and worked the land themselves with their families, and the idea they were fighting to uphold slavery is absurd. They were defending themselves against tyranny. A tiny percentage of Southern men owned big plantations and slaves; they were very rich, paid high dollar for their slaves who usually lived a much easier life then the poor whites. Even Lincoln said the war had nothing to do with slavery. The emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in rebel states and the northern soldiers rioted when they found out they were fighting to free slaves.

After witnessing the Iraq War some Americans are becoming wise enough to learn that wars are often not about what the powers that be tell you they are about. In general, wars are instituted by powerful bankers and the purpose is to indebt an entire nation to them. If you want to really dig down into the rabbit hole, read up about how the Rothschild family funded both sides of the Civil War, including Karl Marx’s propaganda, and many of the agents that were sent to the United States during that time period. Although Lincoln accomplished their goals, he was not a pure puppet and it is said that they arranged his assassination due to the greenbacks he printed at their defiance. The ultimate goal of the civil war of course was the creation of the Federal Reserve which delivered the country into the hands of a tiny banking elite.

Many argue that the Civil War never ended it turned into an economic war that continues to this day. Average Americans are taught to vilify the south which in effect helps them to rationalize offenses, and it’s not likely a coincidence that this is very similar to Hitler’s tactics to vilify the Polish, the Jews etc to help the Germans rationalize their offenses. Liberals held themselves up as superior to southerners in the same way Nazis held themselves superior. There is no difference. The southern hick jokes are the same as the Nazi’s Polish jokes. It is an effective technique because most lefties do not even realize the ugliness or end goals that they are perpetrating, just as most Germans did not realize the ugliness or end goals they were perpetrating.

I will take issue with the comment about the south being more racist. It is a proven fact that the more liberal an area, the more segregated it is. In any liberal city there is clearly a white part of town and a black and Mexican part of town. The white part of town costs 2-3 times as much to live in. So for instance the black part of town the houses may go for 200-300k on average and the white part of town it is 600-900k. Think about this. These city dwelling liberals are paying 500k over 30 years to live in the white part of town. With interest this is a million dollars over 30 years! Then they may pay extra to send their kids to white private schools, or live in gated communities to further segregate themselves. This amounts to city liberals paying 30-50k a year, much of what they work for is simply to segregate themselves. Obviously this makes many of them feel very guilty inside so they want to lash out at people they believe are more racist then themselves so they can feel morally superior to others. That’s my theory.

 

[editec]

What a load of crap.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Secession was a legal event that took place. IT was not forbidden in the Constitution, and the power of secession was not delegated to the Federal Government...simple as that. The North won the war and as always, the winners decide what History books get distributed to the school system. This nation was founded on the principles of abolishing a government (by popular sovereignty) if the people(s) of the union were feeling opressed or that the Government was not holding up to it's end of the bargain. 11 states seceding from the Union early on in our nations history....why don't you google that and tell me that secession was illegal.

It appears that you wish to hang your hat upon the 10th Amendment and that despite more recent interpretations of that amendment that the state of the law circa 1860-61 was that secession was not an illegal act forbidden by the Constitution. I understand that I have restated your opinion there and please correct me if I have mis-stated it.

The Tenth Amendment provides:

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.

The contention being that one of the powers reserved to the states was the power to secede. Although, the states, when they seceded took it one step further, they went through the same process as went they adopted the Constitution, that is by convention rather than act of the legislature. This shows an understanding by the secessionist leaders that there was a fundemental difference between the foundations of the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution. The latter bypassed the state legislatures to go directly to the people of the states. The secessionist leaders by calling a convention to vote for or against secession were basically holding a Constitutional convention in reverse. The reasoning being that if a state can opt in, it can opt out as well.

For this to be the case one of two cases must be the truth: that there is an enumerated power within the Constitution that provides for states which having been admitted to the Union, now wish to leave. Or, that it is an innate right of a state to secede and that right survives ratification of the Constitution by it. The former clearly does not exist, so it is the latter which needs analysis.

It is upon this point that the SCOTUS says in White that because of the way in which the states were brought into the Union by Constitutional convention by-passing the legislative processes of the sovereign states, they were essentially transformed and no longer sovereign. That this is proven by the very preamble of the Constitution when looked upon in the genesis of the Constitution. That the Constitution was created out of dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation and the very words of the preamble, ".... in order to form a more perfect union...." point directly to the fact that the Constitution was intended to weaken state power which had been so destructive to the union under the Articles. Further, that the while the Constitution provides for a way to get in to the union, it provides no way to get out of the union. Neither is there a method to have a state ejected from the union. In fact then, the union is a one-way door. Once in, a state may never leave.

However, this analysis does not address whether the state may have had a right to secession prior to adoption of the Constitution. SCOTUS's opinion in White side-steps this by saying the fundemental nature of the "states" changed when they ratified the Constitution and became mere sub-units of the the new sovereign nation-state (The United States of America). That opinion may bear more looking at. I think it is clear that the states had the right to come and go within the Articles, in fact this was an oft threatened act. It would seem to me however that whether a state could come and go would depend on the nature of the agreement entered into by the state.

It is clear from the genesis of the Constitution (to correct the defects of the Articles), from the method used to ratify the Constitution (direct convention of the people) and adoption (9 of 13 states) that the intention of the framers and adopters of the Constitution was exactly the opposite of increasing power of the states to leave the union. In fact, as shown above it was to weaken the states ability to do just that. This was not an oversight by the framers, this was directly in there mind, because this was a fundemental problem with the Articles. Silence within the Constitution therefore cannot be considered acquiescence but instead it should be construed as prohibition. Thus, the agreement or compact the states, or more correctly, the people thereof, entered into was not one from which they could withdraw. In fact, they knew or should have known that when the agreement was entered into as this was one of the direct issues meant to be addressed by the Constitution.

Returning to the question of states as mere political sub-units of The United States after ratification of the Constitution. I don't think it was the intent of the framers to so radically change the nature of the sovereign states so as to reduce them so far in their status. While it was clearly their intent to reduce their individual power as shown above so as to make the object of union possible. Some have argued that the Constitution was nothing more than a "treaty" between sovereigns. I believe nothing could be further from the truth, since when is a mere treaty accomplished by 13 plebiscites? There is no doubt that the fundemental nature of the several states were changed by the effect of the adoption of the Constitution. I would argue, specifically, that the right to withdraw was forfeited by the nature of the adoption and the bare words (or omission of words) providing method for adoption but not of withdrawal. If the framers wished to provide a way to withdraw, they would have written it. As I've stated before, this was not something that was far from the framers minds and had been threatened on numerous occasions under the Articles. Thus, by omitting the language allowing for withdrawal, the Constitution refuses to admit of the power to do it. And, as a pragmatic point, this like so many other issues in the Constitution was too hot to handle and was left to later generations to decide.

Calhoun argued for years for state nullification of national law. In the end, all of these issues got bound up with the wagonload of issues settled by the War of Northern Aggression.

 

[strollingbones]

sillie me ...that war has been long over....why not concern ourselves with the two we are currently engaged in.

 

[hopner33]

First off, the money trail had always run northward via the simple aspect of two completely different economic systems. You had a more industrialized North and a more Rural South.--enough said. Also, a VERY small percentage of southerners were plantation owners to begin with. That leaves a vast majority of southern people who were poor. Many POOR southerners were sharecroppers and/or owned slaves themselves and treated them fairly. It is not strange to read stories of slave owners treating their slaves like family.

By "money trail" I thought that you meant capital. The movement of capital to the North was a result of the Civil War for two main reasons. First, the South lost one of its main assetts of capital- slaves. Secondly the craetion of national banknotes caused 300 million dollars to be deposited in Northern banks rather than Southern ones.

Look at it this way. In 1860 the South had 26% of the personal income of the United States. In 1900, the South only had 15% of the total national personal income. (Source The Civil War and Reconstruction by Holt, Donald, and BAker). The South in 1860 also had right around 30% of the total US population.

Thus the South in 1860 almost had the percentage of income that its population warranted. But by 1900, it the percentage of income had dropped substancially.

Also sharecropping was a product of the Civil War in most cases rather han something that existed before it. So there were not many SOuthern sharecroppers before the war because land was readily available.

And did some Southerners treat slaves like family? Yes. Just look at Jefferson Davis. But when they were treating the slaves as family, a paternilistic hierarchy towards a whole race developed. Those paternilistic ideals might have been the worst form of racism as it assumed that Blacks were entirely dependent creatures, who could not function without a white master.

As far as slavery in the North, it was not ILLEGAL according to the Constitution....which is really what matters in this whole debacle. So, in your mind, because slavery was illegal in the North, all Southern states should forfeit their sovereignty to oblige? I don't agree with slavery, but we're talking federal law here...

No. Because slavery is morally represhensible all Southern states should forfeit their "sovereignity"to oblige. And what about the sovereignity of the slaves that the institution of slavery had taken away?


I'm well aware of what did make slavery essentiall legal. It was a lack of address in the Constution. IT was not forbidden, and not a power granted to the federal gov. SO to make my point, secession was legal as well. It was not a power prohibited, nor a power granted to the fed. Case Made.

Read the 10th amendment again. How do you know that secession was given to the States and not the people (as a whole)? Both interpretations seem equally valid.

As far as my GROSS generalization....

"Despite the actions of abolitionists, life for free blacks was far from idyllic, due to northern racism. Most free blacks lived in racial enclaves in the major cities of the North: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. There, poor living conditions led to disease and death. In a Philadelphia study in 1846, practically all poor black infants died shortly after birth. Even wealthy blacks were prohibited from living in white neighborhoods due to whites' fear of declining property values.
African Americans were either refused admission to, or segregated in, hotels, restaurants, and theaters. Blacks had limited work and educational opportunities. They were often denied access to public transportation in cities, and allowed on trains only in "Jim Crow" segregated cars. They were also denied civil rights, such as the right to vote and the right to testify in court in many states, thus leaving them open to attack by thieves and mobs, and to being captured and sold by slave catchers. Black men and women were routinely attacked in the streets, and from 1820 to 1850, black churches, schools and homes were looted and burned in riots in major cities throughout the North, forcing many blacks to flee to Canada. "

How can you explain Oberlin college, or all the abolitionist congressmen repeatedly reelected?

Your generalization had some truth to it, I never denied that. But there are too many examples that make your generalization gross and false.

 

[hopner33]

Tell me OJ, where is Fort Sumter??? SOUTH CAROLINA....THE SOUTH. Fort Sumter was in South Carolina. South Carolina wanted them out. They granted federal troops this land as long as South Carolina remained in the UNion. As soon as they wanted the fed troops out, the federal government should have repsected this request. The federal troops refused to leave SOuth Carolina's land after numerous requests and warnings. According to your logic, the U.S., under no circumstances, should leave any embassy in the world, if the other country doesn't want us there.

Embassy's are not officially ceded to the US government. The land of Fort Sumter was. South Carolina had given up all rights to it.

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

 

[hopner33]

These arguments that the 'South Seceded over White Supremacy and Slavery' is sickening revisionism and goes to show why we need to end the public education(i.e. centralized mandatory brainwashing) system which teaches this garbage to naive youngsters. Here is the actual truth.

This just shows that any Lew Rockwell website needs to come with a surgeon general's warning that it might reduce mental acumen.

The Civil War was a war about the philosophies of Karl Marx vs. the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson

The most famous and lasting of Thomas Jefferson's philosophies was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How could the South represent the principals of Thomas Jefferson when it was the side refusing liberty to 1/3 of its population?

The United States was founded as group of sovereign nations loosely bound by a limited federal government. The federal government was given the powers listed in the constitution and no more, the rest of the powers were left to the states to decide on. This is the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers, and the ones which the southern soldiers laid down their lives for.

Your first assumption here is wrong. You are correct that the United States did create a limited federal government. But your assumption about sovereignity is dead wrong. Most people who claim this point to the Treaty of Paris saying that Britian recognized the states as individual sovereign nations by saying that " His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states." But look at this more carefully. Viz means "namely". Thus the treaty acknowledging the sovereingity of the United STates namely Virginia etc. Secondly, the text refers to the "two parties."

The other common theme is saying that the Articles of Confederation say the states are sovereign. This is true, but it also says that the Union is perpetual. More importantly, members of the Constitutional Convention such as Rufus King stated that "The states were not “sovereigns” in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty,—they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war.... If the states, therefore, retained some portion of their sovereignty [after declaring independence], they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it," and Charles Pinkney of South Carolina said that "t]he separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,—as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.”

Lincoln's legacy was to consolidate central power and destroy the autonomy of the states. Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson Jr. assert in 'Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists' that Abraham Lincoln was influenced by communism when the Union condemned the rights of Southern states to express their independence. And it is well documented that Karl Marx was sending letters of praise to Lincoln and instructing German and other European communist refugees in America to support Lincoln’s invasion of the South. After the 1848-49 revolution great number of members of the League of Communists were forced to emigrate from Germany and later from France and Switzerland as well and most ended up in the United States. This is where they brought the ideas and influence that eventually held sway with Lincoln.

You are going to have to provide some evidence that Lincoln was influenced by Marx, and howe this affected his actions.

I find your claim about the immigrants somehwta doubtful. The Know Nothing PArty, which would form a major part of Republ;ican Arty was harshly anti-immigrant. The Democrats was the pro-immigrant group. Granted the Republicans moderated this somewhat in 1860, but the Democrats were the party of immigrants, not the other way around.

I have read that there were more slaves in the northern states then the south. But our schools won't teach you anything about Northern slave-running. No they want to demonize the south. The vast majority of southern soldiers were ordinary dirt farmers, white men who owned small farms and worked the land themselves with their families, and the idea they were fighting to uphold slavery is absurd. They were defending themselves against tyranny. A tiny percentage of Southern men owned big plantations and slaves; they were very rich, paid high dollar for their slaves who usually lived a much easier life then the poor whites. Even Lincoln said the war had nothing to do with slavery. The emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in rebel states and the northern soldiers rioted when they found out they were fighting to free slaves.

There were not more Northern slaves than Southern ones. Whoever told you that is clueless. Moreover, the Northern soldiers did not riot when they found out about the Emancipation Proclamation.

Most Southerners did not own slaves, that is correct. But their was an esential racial componet to their thoughts. Even though they were poor they were still racially superior to a whole race. This thought gave themselves value. Slavery was the entire Southern socity. You could not escape it.

The ultimate goal of the civil war of course was the creation of the Federal Reserve which delivered the country into the hands of a tiny banking elite.


I would love to see the causation on this one.