States Rights?

[Orange_Juice]

I understand and accept the truth. Just not YOUR revisionist version of events.

The fact is, YOU can't accept the fact there was a bigger picture than your revisionism is willing to accept. You prefer the simple little morally and politically correct version because you don't have to look too deeply at the real issues. Why do you think I would expect you to treat history any differently than current politics?

No, I just understand the North did not want to let slavery expand and the South started our most bloody war to save it, and lost. That's all. The State's rights argument is bogus

 

[PeterS]

I disagree. Lincoln was elected without a single vote from a southern state, was the last last straw in a long line of judgements against the south and lack of representation for the south. Do you actually believe that the average southerner was fighting just so the richest 5% of them could continue to have slaves?

In a heart beat. We are talking about a culture, a way of life, and an economy all that would come to an end without slavery. Slavery was both an economic and a cultural issue becoming a combination that most certainly would motivate the 95%. Take away slavery and the motivation for war disappears. The "states rights" issue fully centers around a right counter to the founding principles of the US Constitution. By definition this makes it a fallacy since no such individual or state right exists. The south was fighting for an immoral and unconstitutional way of life. They lost--both the argument and the war...

 

[Luissa]

The fed has wiped its butt with the Constitution ever since.

I blame Texas completly! just kidding
The constitution did not have the power it does now until the civil war and most politicians even Lincoln did not want a strong central government. We can thank Johnson and the OLD Repulican party for the power the fed has today!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, I just understand the North did not want to let slavery expand and the South started our most bloody war to save it, and lost. That's all. The State's rights argument is bogus

The north did not want slavery to expand because it would give the south more power in Congress due to the three-fifths clause in the Constitution. Other than that, the majority of them had no problem with slavery. Slavery kept a majority of African-Americans in the south, and that's where most northerners wanted them to stay. Let's also not forget that Lincoln supported an amendment to the Constitution to make slavery permanent, and stated many times that he did not support nor did he want equality between white and black people.

The south starting the war is also a lot of nonsense. Jefferson Davis sent delegates to Lincoln to offer to pay for all the federal property in the south, and their portion of the national debt. Lincoln refused to meet with the delegates. He then attempted to re-supply Fort Sumter knowing that the south would not allow that to happen because they wouldn't want any Union bases in their country. They were willing to let the Union troops run out of supplies and simply abandon the base in due time, but if Lincoln was going to try and keep a Union presence in the Confederacy they were going to stop him. Also, nobody was killed in the attack on Fort Sumter, and all the Union soldiers were allowed to return to the north unharmed.

It was also not one of our most bloody wars because of the south. It was Lincoln who allowed his troops to wage war on civilians, not Jefferson Davis.

Let's also not forget the words of the founding fathers:

"...Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." - The Declaration of Independence

 

[Steerpike]

You are oversimplifying.

There were numerous factors are work in the civil war. The slavery issue; growing economic and social differences between the north and south; cotton and other econimics; state's rights (secession and whether a state had the right to leave the union); the disappearance of the Whigs and rise of the Republican party, etc.

The "slavery" only answer is much to simple. Early in the war, only a minority of soldiers on either side would have said they were fighting over the slavery issue; at the same time, the war very likely wouldn't have happened without that issue.

 

[Luissa]

You are oversimplifying.

There were numerous factors are work in the civil war. The slavery issue; growing economic and social differences between the north and south; cotton and other econimics; state's rights (secession and whether a state had the right to leave the union); the disappearance of the Whigs and rise of the Republican party, etc.

The "slavery" only answer is much to simple. Early in the war, only a minority of soldiers on either side would have said they were fighting over the slavery issue; at the same time, the war very likely wouldn't have happened without that issue.

and in refernse to soldiers just like today during the civil war the poor man was fighting the rich man's war.

 

[pegwinn]

They might have left the Union if Lincoln tried to free them and he actually did try and buy all the slaves there and free them. Those slaveholders there said no

1) Wrong. South seceeded and started the war because they were afraid slavery wasn't safe in the union. That some border states had slavery proves nothing

2) Maybe, maybe not. That's counter factual history, which seems to be right up your make believe way.

3) What?

Too many oversimplified assertions without sources.

Then why was the South so intent on moving it to Kansas? Also, there was Central America and Cuba, and yes the south wanted them. Ever hear of the Ostend Manifesto?

The Ostend Manifesto was initiated by the USA, not the CSA. Because one of the three diplomats supported slavery doesn't even cover your assertion.

Slavery was the reason. "Industrialisation" in the North wasn't that all far along. Hell, the North west was mostly agricultural iteslf and they joined the free states

Compared to the south, the northern industrial base was light years ahead. Context young man.

In a heart beat. We are talking about a culture, a way of life, and an economy all that would come to an end without slavery. Slavery was both an economic and a cultural issue becoming a combination that most certainly would motivate the 95%. Take away slavery and the motivation for war disappears. The "states rights" issue fully centers around a right counter to the founding principles of the US Constitution. By definition this makes it a fallacy since no such individual or state right exists. The south was fighting for an immoral and unconstitutional way of life. They lost--both the argument and the war...

The bolded part is wrong.

I blame Texas completly! just kidding
The constitution did not have the power it does now until the civil war and most politicians even Lincoln did not want a strong central government. We can thank Johnson and the OLD Repulican party for the power the fed has today!

Blaming Texas? Not smart LOL.

Lincoln was a nationalist. He twisted up the Constitution and tossed it when it suited him. His over riding goal was preservation of the Union.

 

[Gunny]

No, I just understand the North did not want to let slavery expand and the South started our most bloody war to save it, and lost. That's all. The State's rights argument is bogus

An overly-simplistic view proving you are quite lacking in your education where the US Civil War is concerned.

I overestimated you. I actually thought you were more intelligent than you act on the board.

 

[Gunny]

I blame Texas completly! just kidding
The constitution did not have the power it does now until the civil war and most politicians even Lincoln did not want a strong central government. We can thank Johnson and the OLD Repulican party for the power the fed has today!

You can't blame Johnson. He tried to implement Lincoln's policies. Congress came within one vote of impeaching him and basically legislated all his power to themselves. Lincoln's policy was concillatory. Congress however wanted vengeance and they got it.

 

[Luissa]

You can't blame Johnson. He tried to implement Lincoln's policies. Congress came within one vote of impeaching him and basically legislated all his power to themselves. Lincoln's policy was concillatory. Congress however wanted vengeance and they got it.

but Johnson said he wouldn't go along with the same policies. YOu do have a point though and it was Congress that pushed through the amendments and I am not saying I disagree completly with want they did but it did take away quite a bit of state rights.
Didn't Texas even after the civil war having something in their constitution where they could pretty much succeed if they wanted to? I read alittle about it but I forgot most of what actually went on.

 

[Luissa]

Blaming Texas? Not smart LOL.

Lincoln was a nationalist. He twisted up the Constitution and tossed it when it suited him. His over riding goal was preservation of the Union.

I just like to blame Texas for all my problems!!! I think Washington is the polar opposite of Texas.
One of the reasons Washington is probably so liberal is we had nothing to do with the civil war entering the union later, among many other things.

 

[pegwinn]

I just like to blame Texas for all my problems!!! I think Washington is the polar opposite of Texas.
One of the reasons Washington is probably so liberal is we had nothing to do with the civil war entering the union later, among many other things.

If Washington is the polar opposite of Texas, then it must truly suck to live there

Come to Texas. We have plenty of room. Acclimation is quick, painless, and fun. Why in only 20 or so years you will graduate from out-of-towner to "local".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

but Johnson said he wouldn't go along with the same policies. YOu do have a point though and it was Congress that pushed through the amendments and I am not saying I disagree completly with want they did but it did take away quite a bit of state rights.
Didn't Texas even after the civil war having something in their constitution where they could pretty much succeed if they wanted to? I read alittle about it but I forgot most of what actually went on.

I don't know about Texas, but when they ratified the Constitution New York, Virginia, and I think (It's late and I'm going off the top of my head) Rhode Island reserved the right to back out if and when the government became a problem. You see how well that worked out for Virginia, of course. Lincoln decided that the Constitution stopped the states from seceding, despite the fact that the Constitution was designed to constrain the federal government, not the states or individuals.

 

[editec]

Let's also not forget the words of the founding fathers:

"...Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." - The Declaration of Independence

So, Kevin, does that mean that you do NOT support the right of the Republic to stop the States from seceding, but you DO support the rights of the SLAVES to KILL their masters, and overthrow the STATE governments?

After all, the slaves were MEN, too.

So they must have had the right, according to the Floundering Fathers, to rise and and overthrow their oppressors, right?

 

[jillian]

The north did not want slavery to expand because it would give the south more power in Congress due to the three-fifths clause in the Constitution. Other than that, the majority of them had no problem with slavery. Slavery kept a majority of African-Americans in the south, and that's where most northerners wanted them to stay. Let's also not forget that Lincoln supported an amendment to the Constitution to make slavery permanent, and stated many times that he did not support nor did he want equality between white and black people.

The south starting the war is also a lot of nonsense. Jefferson Davis sent delegates to Lincoln to offer to pay for all the federal property in the south, and their portion of the national debt. Lincoln refused to meet with the delegates. He then attempted to re-supply Fort Sumter knowing that the south would not allow that to happen because they wouldn't want any Union bases in their country. They were willing to let the Union troops run out of supplies and simply abandon the base in due time, but if Lincoln was going to try and keep a Union presence in the Confederacy they were going to stop him. Also, nobody was killed in the attack on Fort Sumter, and all the Union soldiers were allowed to return to the north unharmed.

It was also not one of our most bloody wars because of the south. It was Lincoln who allowed his troops to wage war on civilians, not Jefferson Davis.

Let's also not forget the words of the founding fathers:

"...Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." - The Declaration of Independence

I love revisionist history... it makes me giggle....

By the by, the Declaration of Independence isn't law. You do know that, right?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So, Kevin, does that mean that you do NOT support the right of the Republic to stop the States from seceding, but you DO support the rights of the SLAVES to KILL their masters, and overthrow the STATE governments?

After all, the slaves were MEN, too.

So they must have had the right, according to the Floundering Fathers, to rise and and overthrow their oppressors, right?

I personally would not feel bad about them having done so. And small numbers of them did try, but were unsuccessful.

That being said, the message of liberty was perfect, but had the misfortune of being delivered by vastly imperfect messengers. The rights of slaves were not protected under the Constitution at the time, so they did not have the right to rise up and overthrow their oppressors. Not by the Constitution, and not by the design of the founding fathers.

Though I repeat, so nobody confuses what I'm saying, that I would and do have the greatest sympathy with those that attempted to rise up for their liberty.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I love revisionist history... it makes me giggle....

By the by, the Declaration of Independence isn't law. You do know that, right?

I gave nothing but facts, so do tell what portion of my post was revisionist?

I am well aware that the Declaration of Independence is not law, and have never claimed otherwise. It is, however, an accurate judge of the beliefs of the founders. If they believed that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, would it be such a stretch to assume that they would have supported the Confederate's right to form their own government when the existing government no longer had their consent?

I'd also like to point out that the Constitution is law, and no where in the Constitution did it say that the federal government had the authority to stop the sovereign and independent states from leaving the Union if it became destructive of their rights and liberties, or for any reason for that matter.

 

[Luissa]

If Washington is the polar opposite of Texas, then it must truly suck to live there

Come to Texas. We have plenty of room. Acclimation is quick, painless, and fun. Why in only 20 or so years you will graduate from out-of-towner to "local".

I would never fit in in Texas! And as for Washington, it really sucks to be able drive only an hour at most usually and be able to go skiing at three top resorts and two hours to three more then that. PLus there is the whole fact we don't have hurricanes or tornados just snow storms and forest fires but I would rather deal with them then a hurricane.
But to each is their own! ANd I am sure Texas is great!

 

[pegwinn]

So, Kevin, does that mean that you do NOT support the right of the Republic to stop the States from seceding, but you DO support the rights of the SLAVES to KILL their masters, and overthrow the STATE governments?

After all, the slaves were MEN, too.

So they must have had the right, according to the Floundering Fathers, to rise and and overthrow their oppressors, right?

Yes.

 

[Steerpike]

I gave nothing but facts, so do tell what portion of my post was revisionist?

I don't think you will receive a reply. Typically when someone makes the kind of offhand dismissal you are quoting, they do not have anything to back it up.