Steven Spielberg's movie about Lincoln is pure bullshit !!!!!!!

[JakeStarkey]

Thunderbird and EdwardB must come from the same strange stock.

The southern leadership wanted to keep slavery: that ends the argument right there.

No answer exists to justify slavery. End of discussion.

The "southern leadership" wanted slavery so badly that they declined an offer made to them, by Abe, that would have made slavery perfectly legal and a matter of the states.
Got it.

As disgusting as slavery is, you cannot apply 21st century morals to those of that era.
Slavery was a worldwide commonality.

19th century morals by 1860 in the West were to end slavery, in part, because it was disgusting. Only the reactionaries defended it. You are right, AL offered a good bargain for the southern leadership and they turned it down.

 

[Thunderbird]

No I don't. I have never disputed that Lincoln was a racist

Glad you see this.

quote: Some Southern politicians did indeed defend slavery, but not as strongly as Abraham Lincoln did in his first inaugural address, where he supported the enshrinement of Southern slavery explicitly in the U.S. Constitution (the "Corwin Amendment") for the first time ever. Coming from the president of the United States, this was the strongest defense of slavery ever made by an American politician.
Some Southern politicians did say that their society was based on white supremacy, but so did Abraham Lincoln and most other Northern politicians. "I as much as any man want the superior position to belong to the white race," Lincoln said in a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858.

LINK

This isn't about Lincoln;

Actually it is. That's what this thread is about!

It took violent revolution in Haiti

Here's one of your most important misunderstandings. War is not necessary to end slavery!

quote: During the 19th century, dozens of countries, including the British and Spanish empires, ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. Among such countries were Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela.

LINK

quote: A real statesman, as opposed to a monstrous, egomaniacal patronage politician like Abe Lincoln, would have made use of the decades-long world history of peaceful emancipation if his main purpose was to end slavery. Of course, Lincoln always insisted that that was in no way his purpose. He stated this very clearly in his first inaugural address, in which he even supported the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have prohibited the federal government from EVER interfering with Southern slavery. He – and the U.S. Congress – declared repeatedly that the purpose of the war was to "save the union," but of course the war destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers.

quote: The story of how Great Britain ended slavery peacefully is the highlight of Powell’s book. There were once as many as 15,000 slaves in England herself, along with hundreds of thousands throughout the British empire. The British abolitionists combined religion, politics, publicity campaigns, legislation, and the legal system to end slavery there just two decades prior to the American "Civil War."
Great credit is given to the British statesman and member of the House of Commons, William Wilberforce. After organizing an educational campaign to convince British society that slavery was immoral and barbaric, Wilberforce succeeded in getting a Slavery Abolition Act passed in 1833, and within seven years some 800,000 slaves were freed. Tax dollars were used to purchase the freedom of the slaves, which eliminated the only source of opposition to emancipation, wealthy slave owners. It was expensive, but as Powell notes, nothing in the world is more expensive than war.

LINK

Nope. I believe it exists; I don't believe it's a good idea.

Now you don't believe in democracy? Could you make up your mind? lol

So you now want to discard the will of the people and submit to rule by an elite? You must feel comfortable in a kneeling posiiton.

Yes there would have been one;

Of course this is silly. The South had no interest in invading the North back in 1861.

It is good that there was one,

100's of 1000's dead = good?!

I'm well aware of Lincoln's behavior in office.

You acknowledge his contempt for fundamental rights, his atrocities.

How is it that you say Southern local rule was more responsive to the will of the people when it kept four million of those people enslaved?

Of course I think slavery is wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Washington Peace Conference, the Corwin Amendment, etc, were worth that of human excrement.

Lincoln waited for the northern Democracy to come on to his side, and he got that with Ft Sumter.

Any time the South had agreed to accept constitutional, electoral process, and respect for federal property, and agreement that slavery would remain in the South, AL would have wholeheartedly agree.

Instead, the South rose in rebellion and AL shot it in the forehead.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Local rule frequently is better and more free, but it isn't always so, and it is foolish to reflexively assume that it is without critical examination of the facts.

too stupid by 1000% and perfectly liberal. Our founders gave us a federal government with very very limited power rather than a strong national because their reading of history showed that local government was far far safer( though, of course and very very obviously, not always) , and that was before Hitler Stalin and Mao, the great 20th century liberals!!

Conservatives find it hard to believe that liberals lack the IQ to understand the most basic principle of America!

I'm also aware of the fact that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, a much more decentralized form of government that was tried and found not to work.

OMG!! too completely stupid!!! Constitution replaced a tiny tiny tiny government with a tiny tiny government about 1% the size of todays government on a per capita, inflation adjusted basis!!!!! A liberal will be too slow for words and sadly very very much in the retarded zone!! No other explanation is possible. I'm sorry but if we don't speak up as profound liberal ignorance grows soon enough we'll all be supporting Hitler Stalin and Mao or some derivitive thereof all over again.


Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny-Thomas Jefferson

 

[Rogue 9]

No I don't. I have never disputed that Lincoln was a racist

Glad you see this.

quote: Some Southern politicians did indeed defend slavery, but not as strongly as Abraham Lincoln did in his first inaugural address, where he supported the enshrinement of Southern slavery explicitly in the U.S. Constitution (the "Corwin Amendment") for the first time ever. Coming from the president of the United States, this was the strongest defense of slavery ever made by an American politician.
Some Southern politicians did say that their society was based on white supremacy, but so did Abraham Lincoln and most other Northern politicians. "I as much as any man want the superior position to belong to the white race," Lincoln said in a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858.

LINK

Lincoln's first duty as President was the preservation and security of the nation. He was painstakingly clear about the divide between his personal desires and his official duty on several occasions. At the time it was thought that guarantees to slavery might entice the South to give up the charade, but as the fire eaters had been demonstrating for years, they were too pigheaded for even that. Also from the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

"I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."

There is a stark difference between a racist and a slaver, no matter how much you may insist to the contrary.

This isn't about Lincoln;

Actually it is. That's what this thread is about!

Fair enough, but it still concerns the indisputable fact that the Confederacy existed for the sole purpose of keeping millions of men and women in chattel bondage, that this is and was evil to the core, and that it was worth the measures taken to end it. You cannot discuss Lincoln's presidency without that context, since it was framed by it in its entirety.

Here's one of your most important misunderstandings. War is not necessary to end slavery!

quote: During the 19th century, dozens of countries, including the British and Spanish empires, ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. Among such countries were Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela.

LINK

And the United States was not one of them, and it wasn't the only one that couldn't purge the practice without war. Haiti in fact had to fight two; their revolution and a war against Napoleonic France when Napoleon III decided to try and retake the island and re-introduce slavery.

What you don't understand is that peaceful measures to end slavery had been tried, for decades, and failed because of the Slave Power's stranglehold on the federal government for the first eighty years of the nation's existence. In gross defiance of the Constitution, abolitionists were not permitted to petition Congress, their pamphlets were barred from the mail, and outside New England they were frequently unable to publicly gather for fear of government censure. (This is, incidentally, another reason why I laugh at the Slave Power's whining about breach of the fugitive slave provisions as unconstitutional; it was okay when they did it.) When the political environment finally changed so that peaceful measures could be attempted with some reasonable chance of at least being heard, the Slave Power violently broke up the government rather than take the risk that it might happen.

quote: A real statesman, as opposed to a monstrous, egomaniacal patronage politician like Abe Lincoln, would have made use of the decades-long world history of peaceful emancipation if his main purpose was to end slavery. Of course, Lincoln always insisted that that was in no way his purpose. He stated this very clearly in his first inaugural address, in which he even supported the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have prohibited the federal government from EVER interfering with Southern slavery. He – and the U.S. Congress – declared repeatedly that the purpose of the war was to "save the union," but of course the war destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers.

quote: The story of how Great Britain ended slavery peacefully is the highlight of Powell’s book. There were once as many as 15,000 slaves in England herself, along with hundreds of thousands throughout the British empire. The British abolitionists combined religion, politics, publicity campaigns, legislation, and the legal system to end slavery there just two decades prior to the American "Civil War."
Great credit is given to the British statesman and member of the House of Commons, William Wilberforce. After organizing an educational campaign to convince British society that slavery was immoral and barbaric, Wilberforce succeeded in getting a Slavery Abolition Act passed in 1833, and within seven years some 800,000 slaves were freed. Tax dollars were used to purchase the freedom of the slaves, which eliminated the only source of opposition to emancipation, wealthy slave owners. It was expensive, but as Powell notes, nothing in the world is more expensive than war.

LINK

You really should vary your reading a bit; multiple sources do wonders for clearing up perception bias. I refer you to the previous two responses; Lincoln's duty as he saw it was first to preserve the Union, and abolitionist press and government petitioning was de facto illegal in the antebellum United States. Further, Lincoln offered compensated emancipation to the loyalist slave states, and it was refused. The first part of the British solution was tried in the United States, and it failed.

The second part of the British solution, which you conveniently fail to mention, was naval interdiction of the slave trade, boarding ships regardless of nationality and, if they had slaves aboard, seizing them to be released. This was the entire job of the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron. Incidentally, this is also an act of war, so apparently the British Empire thought it was indeed worth war by the mid-19th century (though no one was crazy enough to actually fight one with them over it).

Now you don't believe in democracy? Could you make up your mind? lol

My mind is made up; you are apparently just semi-literate. Democracy is direct rule of the people, as practiced in ancient Athens, where the citizenry was directly polled to decide laws and legal matters rather than having officials appointed, elected, or by inheritance. It has multiple problems, the primary one being that there's no practical way to do it on a scale much larger than a small city-state, but another being that it by nature is simply tyranny of the mob; if the people decide by popular vote to do some incredible atrocity, it is done (as happened on several noted occasions in Athens). The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Furthermore, even if it were, democracy doesn't mean secession by a minority would be legal; remember majority rules without check or balance in it, so secession would turn out no differently.

Being a constitutional republic, the United States has a constitution and laws. I have already spelled out upthread how and why the Constitution bars secession through any means other than the amendment mechanism; you just chose to ignore it. I reject your premise that representative government automatically means that secession must be allowed.

So you now want to discard the will of the people and submit to rule by an elite? You must feel comfortable in a kneeling posiiton.

False dichotomy. Rule by an elite is not the only alternative to direct democracy.

Of course this is silly. The South had no interest in invading the North back in 1861.

Funny how the Army of Northern Virginia ended up at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, then. The Slave Power had lots of interest in attacking the possessions of the United States; it seized forts and armories belonging to the United States, attacked its soldiers, fired on its ships, and carved out hundreds of thousands of square miles of its territory with clear goals of expanding that further.

100's of 1000's dead = good?!

No, the cost is not good. The question is whether or not that cost was worth the end of chattel slavery and the preservation of the United States. I submit that it was.

I'm well aware of Lincoln's behavior in office.

You acknowledge his contempt for fundamental rights, his atrocities.

The war power of the government permits suspension of habeus corpus in time of rebellion. Without one, do you seriously think he'd have done any of that? Besides, the Slave Power did it all and more besides; you may ask the Unionist residents of eastern Tennessee, not to mention all their slaves.

How is it that you say Southern local rule was more responsive to the will of the people when it kept four million of those people enslaved?

Of course I think slavery is wrong.

But not wrong enough to be worth ending, apparently, nor even wrong enough to think ill of those who tore apart their nation and started a massive war for the purpose of preserving and expanding it. But that doesn't answer the question. You claimed that the secessionist government was more responsive to the will of the people. The question wasn't "is slavery wrong," the question was (and continues to be) "how is that possible given slavery and its role in the formation of that government?"

Local rule frequently is better and more free, but it isn't always so, and it is foolish to reflexively assume that it is without critical examination of the facts.

too stupid by 1000% and perfectly liberal. Our founders gave us a federal government with very very limited power rather than a strong national because their reading of history showed that local government was far far safer( though, of course and very very obviously, not always) , and that was before Hitler Stalin and Mao, the great 20th century liberals!!

Conservatives find it hard to believe that liberals lack the IQ to understand the most basic principle of America!

I'm a classical liberal, you nitwit; so were most of the Founders. You apparently lack the IQ to understand that you basically repeated what I said after saying it was stupid.

I'm also aware of the fact that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, a much more decentralized form of government that was tried and found not to work.

OMG!! too completely stupid!!! Constitution replaced a tiny tiny tiny government with a tiny tiny government about 1% the size of todays government on a per capita, inflation adjusted basis!!!!! A liberal will be too slow for words and sadly very very much in the retarded zone!! No other explanation is possible. I'm sorry but if we don't speak up as profound liberal ignorance grows soon enough we'll all be supporting Hitler Stalin and Mao or some derivitive thereof all over again.

No, we actually won't, not without a profound change first in our citizenry and second in our form of government. I don't see a scenario where a Communist or Nazi dictator could seize power in the United States; the conditions simply aren't there. I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject at hand, though.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny-Thomas Jefferson

So you have term limits on the executive. (Seriously, did you think the answer would change?)

 

[Thunderbird]

There is a stark difference between a racist and a slaver, no matter how much you may insist to the contrary.

1) Lincoln defended slavery. 2) Lincoln was a hater: Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies

Fair enough, but it still concerns the indisputable fact that the Confederacy existed for the sole purpose of keeping millions of men and women in chattel bondage,

Laughable hyperbole.

and failed because of the Slave Power's stranglehold on the federal government for the first eighty years of the nation's existence.

Yes we've heard your conspiracy theory over and over again.

In gross defiance of the Constitution, abolitionists were not permitted to petition Congress, their pamphlets were barred from the mail, and outside New England they were frequently unable to publicly gather for fear of government censure.

Frenzied exaggeration.

Further, Lincoln offered compensated emancipation to the loyalist slave states, and it was refused.

Why not try again? Why give up? Venezuelans, the Spanish, etc. gave up slavery without war. Why couldn't the South be persuaded to give up slavery too? Chattel slavery was on the way out and many Southerners knew it. When cotton was no longer king, chattel slavery was doomed.

Democracy is direct rule of the people, as practiced in ancient Athens, where the citizenry was directly polled to decide laws and legal matters rather than having officials appointed, elected, or by inheritance.

That's only one kind of democracy. Democracy = rule by the people, sometimes through representatives. You said you oppose democracy, you "don't believe it's a good idea." So you prefer to be ruled by people in ermine capes or military uniforms. Unless you've changed your mind again!

Rule by the people obviously means that citizens of a sizable region have the right to independence if they so desire.

Funny how the Army of Northern Virginia ended up at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, then.

lol After the Northern invasion. Please provide evidence the South planned to invade the North in 1861. Unless you can't.

I'm a classical liberal,

Really? And yet you love Lincoln who suspended habeas corpus, dismantled freedom of the press, opposed free trade, wanted to deport African Americans, piled on taxes, built up a powerful central government, and waged a bloody war to force a region to stay in the Union. That's just crazy!

 

[Rogue 9]

There is a stark difference between a racist and a slaver, no matter how much you may insist to the contrary.

1) Lincoln defended slavery. 2) Lincoln was a hater: Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies

I would very much like to see the primary sources. Even in the article you provide, it notes that the administration authorized a British agent to recruit freed slaves, that is, to take them if they wished to go. To my knowledge (which is extensive) there was no involuntary deportation program nor plans for one; if nothing else the shipping tonnage simply didn't exist to remove every black person from the United States. I'm aware that Lincoln explored several programs to relocate freedmen who wished to leave the country, but if he wished to forcibly deport them all, I'd love to see the evidence of it.

Fair enough, but it still concerns the indisputable fact that the Confederacy existed for the sole purpose of keeping millions of men and women in chattel bondage,

Laughable hyperbole.

No it isn't. With the removal of slavery as an issue, you don't have the 1860-61 secession. The only reason the Confederacy was formed was to provide a government that was guaranteed to protect slavery in perpetuity, something the Slave Power felt (rightly, as it turned out) that this was not something the United States would do.

Yes we've heard your conspiracy theory over and over again.

It isn't a theory, nor was it particularly a conspiracy. The dominant political force in the South was the plantation aristocracy throughout the antebellum period, and the South had a disproportionate share of the vote due to both the three fifths clause (which consistently granted the slave states roughly a third more representation in the House than their free population justified, a margin by which proslavery measures carried in Congress more than once) and in the very early days the restrictions on the franchise favoring wealthy, male property owners (of which the South had many). Ten of the first fifteen Presidents were slaveholders, and two of the others were in favor of it (the exceptions being John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Millard Fillmore, and the latter gave up fighting over it during his presidency anyway). The slave states had at least guaranteed parity in the Senate until 1850 with the admission of California (which is when, astute observers may note, the buildup to civil war started in earnest) and majorities in the House until the population boom of the Northeast and Midwest triggered by emigration and urbanization started to give free states substantially greater shares of the House than the seats apportioned for the South's free population plus three fifths, also during the 1850s. It is not exaggeration to say that slave politics were a dominant force in the antebellum federal government.

Frenzied exaggeration.

No it isn't.

Why not try again? Why give up? Venezuelans, the Spanish, etc. gave up slavery without war. Why couldn't the South be persuaded to give up slavery too? Chattel slavery was on the way out and many Southerners knew it. When cotton was no longer king, chattel slavery was doomed.

Why wait? Why allow decades more of slavery, even if it would ever have been permitted to die on its own given that it underpinned the entire Southern social system? Evidently not enough Southerners knew it, since they attempted to destroy their nation to preserve slavery, something that doesn't make much sense if it was going to be over in a few years anyway.

I have already brought forth more than sufficient evidence to show that the Confederacy intended to keep slavery as an institution in perpetuity. Texas' declaration of causes says it explicitly and their Constitution forbade laws against negro slavery or impairment of the right of property in slaves. Cotton is not the only thing one could use slaves for. You too easily discount the ideology of the Slave Power as a factor; that machine processing would have become more efficient in no way means that slavery would be automatically dropped for that reason. After all, it was not throughout the decades of the Industrial Revolution that preceded the Civil War, and in fact the South in general showed marked disinterest in industrializing at all.

That's only one kind of democracy. Democracy = rule by the people, sometimes through representatives. You said you oppose democracy, you "don't believe it's a good idea." So you prefer to be ruled by people in ermine capes or military uniforms. Unless you've changed your mind again!

The United States is a constitutional republic and has been since its inception. It is also not ruled by people in ermine capes or military uniforms. I believe you were saying something about frenzied hyperbole earlier?

Rule by the people obviously means that citizens of a sizable region have the right to independence if they so desire.

1.) I reject this assertion. So did the founders of this nation, seeing how they saw fit to provide for suppression of that very thing in the enumerated powers of the government. Under the Constitution, the only method for legitimate secession is the amendment mechanism, i.e. Amendment XXVIII: South Carolina withdraws from the Federal Union effective date X. It is a government of the nation as a whole, and changes of that magnitude must be decided upon by the nation as a whole.

2.) Even were that true, if that's what the Confederates truly believed they would not have attempted to falsify the vote in Kentucky and Missouri, successfully done so in Tennessee, nor put down the people of eastern Tennessee and occupied the region by main military force when they tried to counter-secede in the same manner as West Virginia. Confederate behavior is inconsistent with the motives you ascribe to them.

Funny how the Army of Northern Virginia ended up at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, then.

lol After the Northern invasion. Please provide evidence the South planned to invade the North in 1861. Unless you can't.

General Leonidas Polk ordered the invasion and occupation of Columbus, KY on September 4, 1861. NEXT!

I'm a classical liberal,

Really? And yet you love Lincoln who suspended habeas corpus, dismantled freedom of the press, opposed free trade, wanted to deport African Americans, piled on taxes, built up a powerful central government, and waged a bloody war to force a region to stay in the Union. That's just crazy!

Where have I said I love Lincoln? I hate slavery. Those are two very separate concepts. I'm glad Lincoln had so great a hand in putting an end to it, but I don't worship the man. By the same token, I'm not partial to lies and slander about him (or anyone else, for that matter).

You still haven't actually answered the question. How is it that you say Southern local rule was more responsive to the will of the people when it kept four million of those people enslaved?

 

[Thunderbird]

The dominant political force in the South was the plantation aristocracy throughout the antebellum period,

Nonsense. The North had greater financial power and, increasingly, a larger population which translated into greater power in the House.

until the population boom of the Northeast and Midwest triggered by emigration and urbanization started to give free states substantially greater shares of the House

Yes.

Why wait?

How about saving 100s of 1000s of lives!

Some more reasons to wait: While some Yanks treated contrabands with a degree of equity and benevolence, the more typical response was indifference, contempt, and cruelty. Soon after Union forces captured Port Royal, South Carolina, in November 1861, a private described an incident there that made him “ashamed of America”: “About 8-10 soldiers from the New York 47th chased some Negro women but they escaped, so they took a Negro girl about 7-9 years old, and raped her.” From Virginia a Connecticut soldier wrote that some men of his regiment had taken “two ****** wenches [women] . . . turned them upon their heads, and put tobacco, chips, sticks, lighted cigars and sand into their behinds.” Even when Billy Yank welcomed the contrabands, he often did so from utilitarian rather than humanitarian motives. “Officers and men are having an easy time,” wrote a Maine soldier from occupied Louisiana in 1862. “We have Negroes to do all fatigue work, cooking and washing clothes." (The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 497, emphasis added)

LINK

And I'm sure you're familiar with Sherman and Lincoln's taste for total war.

Cotton is not the only thing one could use slaves for. You too easily discount the ideology of the Slave Power as a factor; that machine processing would have become more efficient in no way means that slavery would be automatically dropped for that reason. After all, it was not throughout the decades of the Industrial Revolution that preceded the Civil War, and in fact the South in general showed marked disinterest in industrializing at all.

Chattel slavery was dying. Cotton was no longer king. The new industrial age required more skilled, educated workers concentrated in urban areas. No way chattel slavery could survive in such an environment!

1.) I reject this assertion. So did the founders of this nation, seeing how they saw fit to provide for suppression of that very thing in the enumerated powers of the government. Under the Constitution, the only method for legitimate secession is the amendment mechanism, i.e. Amendment XXVIII:

In dispute.

quote: There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from peacefully and democratically separating from the Union. The Constitution doesn’t say that ratification is irrevocable. Nor does it give the citizens of a majority of states any right to prevent the citizens of a minority of states from withdrawing their states from the Union. Nor does it say that the Union itself is permanent. Lloyd Paul Stryker, who opposed secession, admitted the Southern states had an “arguable claim that no specific section of the Constitution stood in their way,” i.e., no section of the Constitution prohibited peaceful, democratic separation (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930, p. 447). Indeed, the right of secession is implied in the Tenth Amendment, which reads,

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 Constitution does not give the federal government the power to force a state to remain in the Union against its will. President James Buchanan acknowledged this fact in a message to Congress shortly before Lincoln assumed office. Nor does the Constitution prohibit the citizens of a state from voting to repeal their state’s ratification of the Constitution. Therefore, by a plain reading of the Tenth Amendment, a state has the implied legal right to peacefully withdraw from the Union.
This view is strengthened by the fact that several of the states specified in their constitution or in their ratification ordinance that they should retain all rights and powers that were not expressly granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

LINK

It is a government of the nation as a whole, and changes of that magnitude must be decided upon by the nation as a whole.

Only if you believe a larger political entity has the right to exploit and oppress a smaller entity within its borders.

General Leonidas Polk ordered the invasion and occupation of Columbus, KY on September 4, 1861. NEXT!

Are you joking?! Polk penetrated some meters into disputed territory for a defensive purpose after Lincoln's massive invasion. We both know you are being ridiculous.

Where have I said I love Lincoln?

You do admit that Lincoln was a racist. The evidence clearly shows he was a white supremacist. You have also admitted he intended to raise the tariff. The high tariff would have devastated the Southern economy.

I hate slavery.

How many slaves work for you?

Slavery Footprint

You still haven't actually answered the question.

I have. I don't think a slave society is responsive to the will of all the people.

 

[Rogue 9]

The dominant political force in the South was the plantation aristocracy throughout the antebellum period,

Nonsense. The North had greater financial power and, increasingly, a larger population which translated into greater power in the House.

I said the dominant political force in the South, not in the whole of the Union. Slave states held a majority in the Senate until 1820, and parity until 1850 (though a split was maintained because California sent a proslavery Senator to Washington as part of the Compromise of 1850). Minnesota's admission in 1858 irreversibly upset the split Senate that was so very important to the Slave Power's interests (so very important that during the debate on Californian admission there was serious discussion of slave state militia going to Washington to... how did John Hammond put it? "Kick them out of the Capitol and set it on fire," I believe).

The upshot of this is that thanks to the structure of the Senate and the fact that the Democratic Party was (and is) national and wielded great influence in the North as well as the South, Southern interests held outsized sway in Congress and Southern and pro-Southern candidates won the Presidency far more often than not. The only reason Lincoln didn't lose the 1860 election horribly is because the Deep South delegations walked out of the Democratic National Convention when it declined to demand federal guarantees of slavery in all the territories as a platform plank, leading to a split ticket. It's arguable that secession actually happened at the DNC, since there was no other possible result once the Deep South states nominated Breckenridge to compete with Douglas. (This was incredibly foolish of them even though Stephen Douglas didn't share their fanaticism for slavery expansion, by the way; he was a Manifest Destiny-believing expansionist and as President likely would have set about conquering Caribbean islands if not huge swathes of the Central American mainland, where slave states could be set up with no realistic possibility of interference from the abolitionists in the North.)

How about saving 100s of 1000s of lives!

Some more reasons to wait: While some Yanks treated contrabands with a degree of equity and benevolence, the more typical response was indifference, contempt, and cruelty. Soon after Union forces captured Port Royal, South Carolina, in November 1861, a private described an incident there that made him “ashamed of America”: “About 8-10 soldiers from the New York 47th chased some Negro women but they escaped, so they took a Negro girl about 7-9 years old, and raped her.” From Virginia a Connecticut soldier wrote that some men of his regiment had taken “two ****** wenches [women] . . . turned them upon their heads, and put tobacco, chips, sticks, lighted cigars and sand into their behinds.” Even when Billy Yank welcomed the contrabands, he often did so from utilitarian rather than humanitarian motives. “Officers and men are having an easy time,” wrote a Maine soldier from occupied Louisiana in 1862. “We have Negroes to do all fatigue work, cooking and washing clothes." (The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 497, emphasis added)

LINK

I've read The Battle Cry of Freedom straight through (as well as many other books on the subject by a wide variety of authors) and am under no illusions on the matter. As I've said multiple times before, it would be shocking for a white man of the 19th century not to hold such views, and the North didn't initially go to war for the purpose of bringing abolition. The fact remains that abolition was eventually a war aim and the end result. Even if the Confederacy would ever have allowed slavery to die (something that would have taken at least a generation if not two and a constitutional amendment if it were to happen at all, and it was certainly something its founders intended to never happen) it would have been decades later, with millions more living and dying in bondage.

That said, the incident I referred to was Lincoln offering compensated emancipation to the border states while the war was underway, telling their delegations that if they did not accept, slavery would be worn away despite them through the "friction and abrasion" of the war. They refused, and there wasn't a lot more waiting to do; they lost their remaining slaves to the 13th Amendment.

And I'm sure you're familiar with Sherman and Lincoln's taste for total war.

General Sherman's Special Field Orders, Number 120, governing the Georgia campaign, which do not outline total war, but rather provisions for foraging. Union war measures were outright kid-gloved through 1862, only becoming harsher as the war dragged on, and even then there wasn't classic total war in the sense of indiscriminately targeting the whole population, civilian and military, as targets of military operations. "The hard hand of war," as Sherman put it, was the hardship and privations of war, not indiscriminately shooting everyone in sight. (Also the burning is greatly exaggerated; I've personally seen plantation mansions and other antebellum architecture in the path of the march, still standing.) It isn't pleasant, but then that's rather the point.

Also: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-dzCt2xeSo]Marching through Georgia - YouTube[/ame]

Chattel slavery was dying. Cotton was no longer king. The new industrial age required more skilled, educated workers concentrated in urban areas. No way chattel slavery could survive in such an environment!

Actually, the problem wasn't that cotton was no longer king; it was that Egypt was starting to produce cotton at competitive rates to the American South. The thing is, the new industrial age required that, but it had for thirty years at least, and the South had simply bypassed it, consciously preferring the Jeffersonian agrarian ideal ("let our workshops remain in Europe"). Cotton was still an essential commodity, so they could get away with doing that. They could have continued to get away with it for quite some time yet; Egypt was breaking their monopoly, but they were still competitive.

In dispute.

Not by James Madison. From a letter of his to Nicholas P. Trist, dated February 15, 1830:

In forming this compound scheme of Government it was impossible to lose sight of the question, what was to be done in the event of controversies which could not fail to occur, concerning the partition line, between the powers belonging to the Federal and to the State Govts. That some provision ought to be made, was as obvious and as essential, as the task itself was difficult and delicate.

That the final decision of such controversies, if left to each of the 13 now 24 members of the Union, must produce a different Constitution & different laws in the States was certain; and that such differences must be destructive of the common Govt. & of the Union itself, was equally certain. The decision of questions between the common agents of the whole & of the parts, could only proceed from the whole, that is from a collective not a separate authority of the parts.

The question then presenting itself could only relate to the least objectionable mode of providing for such occurrences, under the collective authority.

The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on, is manifestly the Supreme Court of the U. S., clothed as it is, with a Jurisdiction "in controversies to which the U. S. shall be a party;" the Court itself being so constituted as to render it independent & impartial in its decisions; [see Federalist, no. 39] whilst other and ulterior resorts would remain in the elective process, in the hands of the people themselves the joint constituents of the parties; and in the provision made by the Constitution for amending itself. All other resorts are extra & ultra constitutional, corresponding to the Ultima Ratio of nations renouncing the ordinary relations of peace.

Nor by Washington. From his Circular to the States:

Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithfull and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain. Many other considerations might here be adduced to prove, that without an entire conformity to the Spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an Independent Power; it will be sufficient for my purpose to mention but one or two which seem to me of the greatest importance. It is only in our united Character as an Empire, that our Independence is acknowledged, that our power can be regarded, or our Credit supported among Foreign Nations. The Treaties of the European Powers with the United States of America, will have no validity on a dissolution of the Union.

quote: There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from peacefully and democratically separating from the Union. The Constitution doesn’t say that ratification is irrevocable. Nor does it give the citizens of a majority of states any right to prevent the citizens of a minority of states from withdrawing their states from the Union. Nor does it say that the Union itself is permanent. Lloyd Paul Stryker, who opposed secession, admitted the Southern states had an “arguable claim that no specific section of the Constitution stood in their way,” i.e., no section of the Constitution prohibited peaceful, democratic separation (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930, p. 447). Indeed, the right of secession is implied in the Tenth Amendment, which reads,

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 Constitution does not give the federal government the power to force a state to remain in the Union against its will. President James Buchanan acknowledged this fact in a message to Congress shortly before Lincoln assumed office. Nor does the Constitution prohibit the citizens of a state from voting to repeal their state’s ratification of the Constitution. Therefore, by a plain reading of the Tenth Amendment, a state has the implied legal right to peacefully withdraw from the Union.
This view is strengthened by the fact that several of the states specified in their constitution or in their ratification ordinance that they should retain all rights and powers that were not expressly granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

LINK

A plain reading of the Tenth Amendment only implies that if it has not followed a plain reading of the remainder of the Constitution. The power to regulate and dispose of the territory of the United States is enumerated to Congress, nothing in the Constitution (which the Tenth Amendment is) may be construed to prejudice the claims of the United States, and the Constitution and laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. I provided the relevant passages to EdwardBaiamonte upthread when he challenged my assertion that the secession method used was unconstitutional, and no one has commented on it since.

Only if you believe a larger political entity has the right to exploit and oppress a smaller entity within its borders.

I refer you to Madison, above. Also, just for fun:

If all the States, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one:" it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We, the People."

Are you joking?! Polk penetrated some meters into disputed territory for a defensive purpose after Lincoln's massive invasion. We both know you are being ridiculous.

It's only ridiculous if one accepts the premise that the secessions were right and proper. I don't. You demanded evidence that the Union was invaded in 1861.

You do admit that Lincoln was a racist. The evidence clearly shows he was a white supremacist. You have also admitted he intended to raise the tariff. The high tariff would have devastated the Southern economy.

How high did he intend to raise the tariff? We don't know, because he never had a peacetime to do it in. The Southern export economy was the engine of slavery, it's reason for existence. First, we don't know that it would have been raised high enough to devastate the Southern economy (it could have withstood quite a bit of raising, given how low the starting point was), and second even if it did, it would have driven down demand for slave labor. The Deep South had a consciously undiversified economy; they could have easily not depended so much upon exports if they had chosen a different course.

I hate slavery.

How many slaves work for you?

Slavery Footprint

Irony: The link contains an internal popup that seems heavily pro-Lincoln.

According to that survey, 21. In my own defense, I'm very aware of the fact and campaign actively against sweatshop practices. I also think the number is high; I work in manufacturing in the United States (making furniture, if you're curious), and in cooperation with my extended family grow a large vegetable garden and small orchard that supplies the majority of my food (and as the survey notes, food is the biggest part). But now you're changing the subject.

You still haven't actually answered the question.

I have. I don't think a slave society is responsive to the will of all the people.

This leads to an obvious corollary. A non-local authority that mandates a non-slaveholding society is more responsive to the will of the slaves than a local authority that would not (and the masters, being slaveholders, are irrelevant to the issue, being evil men who deserve naught but the sword). This is why I judge governments based on their actions rather than their location or remoteness from myself.

 

[Thunderbird]

share their fanaticism for slavery expansion,

I'm not sure why you keep demonizing the South. Many of the most stalwart defenders of classical liberalism are Southerners.

A large majority of Southern families did not own slaves. Many Southerners fought the North because 1) They did not want to be robbed by the national government that served the interests of Northern plutocrats. 2) The North invaded their homeland.

Some Surprising Facts About The Confederacy

Those who want to subjugate the people first demonize them. This is Spielberg's strategy and should be condemned.

"The hard hand of war," as Sherman put it, was the hardship and privations of war, not indiscriminately shooting everyone in sight.

Don't ignore the suffering caused by Lincoln's invasion.

Northern atrocities: Generals Sherman and Sheridan: The War Criminals

I'm sure you condemn this kind of barbarity.

Cotton was still an essential commodity, so they could get away with doing that. They could have continued to get away with it for quite some time yet;

Slavery was profitable because the U.S. had too few workers. As immigrants poured in the situation changed

According to that survey, 21. In my own defense, I'm very aware of the fact and campaign actively against sweatshop practices. I also think the number is high;

With laudable honesty you acknowledge you have slaves working for you. By your own logic you have no reason to object if some overarching political entity (say the U.N.) outraged by your slave-holding came and arrested you, burned your home, and drove your family onto the street. Would you cheer such brutality?

Tyrants and Imperialists often pose as liberators as they gobble up territory - think of Mao invading Tibet & Mussolini invading Ethiopia.

I hate to see Lincoln, who was responsible for killing far more Americans than any other president, rated our top leader.

 

[Rogue 9]

share their fanaticism for slavery expansion,

I'm not sure why you keep demonizing the South. Many of the most stalwart defenders of classical liberalism are Southerners.

A large majority of Southern families did not own slaves. Many Southerners fought the North because 1) They did not want to be robbed by the national government that served the interests of Northern plutocrats. 2) The North invaded their homeland.

Some Surprising Facts About The Confederacy

Those who want to subjugate the people first demonize them. This is Spielberg's strategy and should be condemned.

First: It was fanaticism for slavery expansion. The Deep South's delegates to the DNC would not accept a candidate nor endorse a platform that didn't agree with them on that point. This isn't demonization; it's documentable historical fact.

Second: A large majority of Southerners didn't own slaves, but a large plurality of them were relatives of those who did. Free southerners, furthermore, were almost entirely vested in the institution; it was the driver of nearly the entire Southern economy, so owning slaves was not necessary to not want it threatened. Beyond that, slaveholders held almost every important political office in the slave states. This gentleman has some figures of interest on the matter.

Even ignoring the economy, it was also the basis of the entire social fabric of the slave states; I have already posted Calhoun's opinion on the matter, and can go further than that. An 1856 editorial from the Richmond Enquirer stated:

Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves... In this country alone does perfect equality of civil and social privilege exist among the white population, and it exists solely because we have black slaves. Freedom is not possible without slavery. The spectacle of Republican freedom and Democratic equality in this country, is an eye-sore to an aristocracy whose system of exclusive privilege and arbitrary distinctions rests upon the false assumption of a right to degrade and oppress men whom God has made as good as themselves. The abolition of negro slavery in the South would inevitably end in the ruin of the political institution of the country.

The aristocracy referred to is Great Britain. I'm rather pressed for time, but I could fill a forum page with more of the same. Incidentally, this is why many of the early American proponents of classical liberalism were Southerners; when your philosophy is that God Almighty has cast your slaves in an inferior mold, and believe that the continuation of political liberty is dependent upon continued slavery (after all, Jefferson's political philosophy holds that no one is competent to exercise the franchise unless he is essentially independently wealthy or at least entirely self-reliant), there is no contradiction between that slavery and your political liberty.

Classical liberals outside the United States (Bastiat was particularly prolific on the matter; I own a copy of his essay The Law with a preface written by Thomas DiLorenzo, and when I read it I have to laugh at the irony, as well as his inability to keep from talking about Lincoln when introducing a work by a man who died in 1850) held - correctly - that slavery was a monstrous cancer and blight upon the American republic's example.

"The hard hand of war," as Sherman put it, was the hardship and privations of war, not indiscriminately shooting everyone in sight.

Don't ignore the suffering caused by Lincoln's invasion.

Northern atrocities: Generals Sherman and Sheridan: The War Criminals

I'm sure you condemn this kind of barbarity.

An article that can't even correctly identify Lincoln's Secretary of War? Surely you can do better.

War is hell, to quote the man himself. If you don't want to have one, don't start one. Which the South did, crowing all the while that they would whip the Yankees in a few short months. The things to understand: The Shenandoah Valley, Atlanta's munitions dumps, Savannah's warehouses of cotton, all were major strategic assets to the Confederacy. Leaving such things in the hands of the enemy is a good way to lose a war, something Sherman understood all too well.

Cotton was still an essential commodity, so they could get away with doing that. They could have continued to get away with it for quite some time yet;

Slavery was profitable because the U.S. had too few workers. As immigrants poured in the situation changed

No it didn't. Immigrants had been pouring in for decades, and slavery remained as strong as ever. You need to remember that the institution was as much about the social fabric as economics anyway; it was considered degrading among southern whites to do menial labor, because that's what slaves were for.

According to that survey, 21. In my own defense, I'm very aware of the fact and campaign actively against sweatshop practices. I also think the number is high;

With laudable honesty you acknowledge you have slaves working for you. By your own logic you have no reason to object if some overarching political entity (say the U.N.) outraged by your slave-holding came and arrested you, burned your home, and drove your family onto the street. Would you cheer such brutality?

That's your angle? No, because I'm not holding slaves nor am I employed in keeping them. At no point did I say the Union should have been attacking most of the Western world for buying what slave labor produced, which would be the analogous situation. By their measure, furthermore, every free Southerner had slaves working for him, since their metric is whether someone gains benefit from slave labor at all, so you can't consistently claim that only a small minority owned slaves on one hand and use that metric to say everyone in the modern first world owns slaves on the other. Go burn that strawman somewhere else.

I would, however, cheer the violent deaths of the actual slave-takers. Especially those concerned in question 11; I daresay I'd do it myself.

Incidentally, you undermine your own position - if modern industrial practices make slave labor obsolete and untenable, why is it still employed?

Tyrants and Imperialists often pose as liberators as they gobble up territory - think of Mao invading Tibet & Mussolini invading Ethiopia.

I hate to see Lincoln, who was responsible for killing far more Americans than any other president, rated our top leader.

And those who are actually liberators don't need to pose. Whether someone is identified as a liberator or not is of little relevance; if he is then he is, and if he isn't he'll say he is because no one wants to self-identify as a moustache-twirling villain. At any rate, the comparisons are rather nonsensical. Lincoln carried on a civil war against an internal insurrection, not an external war of conquest against Canada or whatever.

 

[gipper]

share their fanaticism for slavery expansion,

I'm not sure why you keep demonizing the South. Many of the most stalwart defenders of classical liberalism are Southerners.

A large majority of Southern families did not own slaves. Many Southerners fought the North because 1) They did not want to be robbed by the national government that served the interests of Northern plutocrats. 2) The North invaded their homeland.

Some Surprising Facts About The Confederacy

Those who want to subjugate the people first demonize them. This is Spielberg's strategy and should be condemned.

First: It was fanaticism for slavery expansion. The Deep South's delegates to the DNC would not accept a candidate nor endorse a platform that didn't agree with them on that point. This isn't demonization; it's documentable historical fact.

Second: A large majority of Southerners didn't own slaves, but a large plurality of them were relatives of those who did. Free southerners, furthermore, were almost entirely vested in the institution; it was the driver of nearly the entire Southern economy, so owning slaves was not necessary to not want it threatened. Beyond that, slaveholders held almost every important political office in the slave states. This gentleman has some figures of interest on the matter.

Even ignoring the economy, it was also the basis of the entire social fabric of the slave states; I have already posted Calhoun's opinion on the matter, and can go further than that. An 1856 editorial from the Richmond Enquirer stated:
The aristocracy referred to is Great Britain. I'm rather pressed for time, but I could fill a forum page with more of the same. Incidentally, this is why many of the early American proponents of classical liberalism were Southerners; when your philosophy is that God Almighty has cast your slaves in an inferior mold, and believe that the continuation of political liberty is dependent upon continued slavery (after all, Jefferson's political philosophy holds that no one is competent to exercise the franchise unless he is essentially independently wealthy or at least entirely self-reliant), there is no contradiction between that slavery and your political liberty.

Classical liberals outside the United States (Bastiat was particularly prolific on the matter; I own a copy of his essay The Law with a preface written by Thomas DiLorenzo, and when I read it I have to laugh at the irony, as well as his inability to keep from talking about Lincoln when introducing a work by a man who died in 1850) held - correctly - that slavery was a monstrous cancer and blight upon the American republic's example.

An article that can't even correctly identify Lincoln's Secretary of War? Surely you can do better.

War is hell, to quote the man himself. If you don't want to have one, don't start one. Which the South did, crowing all the while that they would whip the Yankees in a few short months. The things to understand: The Shenandoah Valley, Atlanta's munitions dumps, Savannah's warehouses of cotton, all were major strategic assets to the Confederacy. Leaving such things in the hands of the enemy is a good way to lose a war, something Sherman understood all too well.

No it didn't. Immigrants had been pouring in for decades, and slavery remained as strong as ever. You need to remember that the institution was as much about the social fabric as economics anyway; it was considered degrading among southern whites to do menial labor, because that's what slaves were for.

With laudable honesty you acknowledge you have slaves working for you. By your own logic you have no reason to object if some overarching political entity (say the U.N.) outraged by your slave-holding came and arrested you, burned your home, and drove your family onto the street. Would you cheer such brutality?

That's your angle? No, because I'm not holding slaves nor am I employed in keeping them. At no point did I say the Union should have been attacking most of the Western world for buying what slave labor produced, which would be the analogous situation. By their measure, furthermore, every free Southerner had slaves working for him, since their metric is whether someone gains benefit from slave labor at all, so you can't consistently claim that only a small minority owned slaves on one hand and use that metric to say everyone in the modern first world owns slaves on the other. Go burn that strawman somewhere else.

I would, however, cheer the violent deaths of the actual slave-takers. Especially those concerned in question 11; I daresay I'd do it myself.

Incidentally, you undermine your own position - if modern industrial practices make slave labor obsolete and untenable, why is it still employed?

Tyrants and Imperialists often pose as liberators as they gobble up territory - think of Mao invading Tibet & Mussolini invading Ethiopia.

I hate to see Lincoln, who was responsible for killing far more Americans than any other president, rated our top leader.

And those who are actually liberators don't need to pose. Whether someone is identified as a liberator or not is of little relevance; if he is then he is, and if he isn't he'll say he is because no one wants to self-identify as a moustache-twirling villain. At any rate, the comparisons are rather nonsensical. Lincoln carried on a civil war against an internal insurrection, not an external war of conquest against Canada or whatever.

Much of what you state is accurate, but some is not and some minimizes the tyrannical actions taken by Lincoln.

First, we can all agree that African slavery was wrong and a terrible institution that needed termination. It was and still is a national disgrace. You would be hard pressed to find one sane American today who would dispute this point, including white Southerns. Slavery was destined for dissolution on its own, much like racism towards African Americans.

We agree that NEARLY ALL Southerns did not own slaves and that slavery was part of southern culture. But this statement: it was considered degrading among southern whites to do menial labor diminishes your credibility. How could southerns not do menial labor, when most did not own slaves? And this at a time, when farming was the main occupation. This in no way lessens how insulting that is of southerns of that time, but may reflect a bigotry you possess toward them.

You also stated the South started the war. While it is true many in the south wanted war and thought they could easily whip the north and the firing on Fort Sumter started the hostilities, it has been documented by many historians that Lincoln purposely set up the situation to begin the war. Does he fail to get some credit for starting the war?

It is easy to get caught up in the minutia of the politics and reasons for the war, but if we look at it clearly, we must conclude it was entirely unnecessary and a terrible wrong committed by our government. And as the old saying goes...two wrongs do not make a right. Was all the killing and destruction necessary? Of course not. Even if a settlement could not be reached to avert war, it would have been much better to allow the South to peacefully secede, as was granted by the Constitution. However, the tyrannical Lincoln did not see it this way. Lincoln breached the Constitution repeatedly, while claiming he was abiding it.

 

[Thunderbird]

What a surprise, another unconvincing book length post from Rogue.

Second: A large majority of Southerners didn't own slaves, but a large plurality of them were relatives of those who did. Free southerners, furthermore, were almost entirely vested in the institution;

Yea and many had relatives in the North too. And the Northern economy was closely connected to the Southern economy.

Even ignoring the economy, it was also the basis of the entire social fabric of the slave states;

Many Southern leaders detested the institution.

Examples: The CSA's two highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and supported emancipation in various forms. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Johnston called it "a curse." (Johnston initially opposed using slaves as soldiers only because he feared it would be disruptive and ineffective, not because he had any sympathy for slavery. He later came to support the proposal.) Other Confederate generals who supported emancipation included General Daniel Govan, General John Kelly, and General Mark Lowrey.

LINK

and believe that the continuation of political liberty is dependent upon continued slavery (after all, Jefferson's political philosophy holds that no one is competent to exercise the franchise unless he is essentially independently wealthy or at least entirely self-reliant), there is no contradiction between that slavery and your political liberty.

You're a classical liberal and yet you hate Jefferson? You are an odd one. Provide evidence that Jefferson thought the franchise should be limited to the "independently wealthy".

You rebuke Jefferson for not being democractic enough yet you yourself don't believe in democracy and you serve an apologist for Northern plutocrats.

War is hell, to quote the man himself. If you don't want to have one, don't start one. Which the South did,

If you are going to justify mass murder - 100s of 1000s of deaths - you should come up with better excuses. You have not been able to provide any evidence that the South intended to invade the North prior to Lincoln's invasion.

it was considered degrading among southern whites to do menial labor, because that's what slaves were for.

Laughable. The majority of Southerners who didn't own slaves certainly worked for a living.

Incidentally, you undermine your own position - if modern industrial practices make slave labor obsolete and untenable, why is it still employed?

Please notice the difference between chattel slavery and wage slavery.

Lincoln carried on a civil war against an internal insurrection, not an external war of conquest against Canada or whatever.

Not so very different. Instead of pointing the guns south he could have pointed them north. Both invasions would be anti-democratic. But you don't believe in democracy so that won't concern you.

 

[Rogue 9]

Much of what you state is accurate, but some is not and some minimizes the tyrannical actions taken by Lincoln.

First, we can all agree that African slavery was wrong and a terrible institution that needed termination. It was and still is a national disgrace. You would be hard pressed to find one sane American today who would dispute this point, including white Southerns. Slavery was destined for dissolution on its own, much like racism towards African Americans.

We agree that NEARLY ALL Southerns did not own slaves and that slavery was part of southern culture. But this statement: it was considered degrading among southern whites to do menial labor diminishes your credibility. How could southerns not do menial labor, when most did not own slaves? And this at a time, when farming was the main occupation. This in no way lessens how insulting that is of southerns of that time, but may reflect a bigotry you possess toward them.

You also stated the South started the war. While it is true many in the south wanted war and thought they could easily whip the north and the firing on Fort Sumter started the hostilities, it has been documented by many historians that Lincoln purposely set up the situation to begin the war. Does he fail to get some credit for starting the war?

It is easy to get caught up in the minutia of the politics and reasons for the war, but if we look at it clearly, we must conclude it was entirely unnecessary and a terrible wrong committed by our government. And as the old saying goes...two wrongs do not make a right. Was all the killing and destruction necessary? Of course not. Even if a settlement could not be reached to avert war, it would have been much better to allow the South to peacefully secede, as was granted by the Constitution. However, the tyrannical Lincoln did not see it this way. Lincoln breached the Constitution repeatedly, while claiming he was abiding it.

It was not entirely unnecessary. We're talking about the disintegration of the country. If that were not serious enough, at the time the United States was the only major functioning republic in the world, at a time when there was serious doubt about whether a republic could function for long; demonstrating inability to sustain itself against internal revolt would put down the idea of non-aristocratic government for a long, long time. (You also mistake what I mean by menial labor, but I'll address that in detail to Thunderbird.)

Also, the Constitution does not allow the South (or anyone else) to peacefully secede, at least not through the method used by the South in 1860-61. I've already posted why upthread in detail, but to condense it so you don't have to go back through:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This is the problem with the 10th Amendment argument. The 10th Amendment specifies that all power not given to the federal government in the Constitution is retained by the states or the people. However, as an argument for state-level secession ordinances, it falls flat twice: First because the power to dispose of and regulate the territory of the United States is enumerated as a power of the federal Congress; and second because the Amendment lies within the Constitution, and nothing in the Constitution can be read to prejudice the territorial claims of the United States. Further, the Constitution and laws pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land, anything in the laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding, so a state law cannot override this. Pretending that the secessions were legal is a farce; what happened was an attempted (and failed) revolution.

What a surprise, another unconvincing book length post from Rogue.

Which you will, in characteristic fashion, doubtlessly fail to substantively address.

Bluntly, I grow tired of you ignoring points you can't address (there have been many), responding only to things I say that you think you can score cheap points on (butchering sentences to do so on occasion), and doing so with copypasta from Southern Heritage and Lew Rockwell rather than doing your own legwork (while I work almost entirely from primary sources, having researched the topic from the original sources for years). But here we go again. I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand.

Second: A large majority of Southerners didn't own slaves, but a large plurality of them were relatives of those who did. Free southerners, furthermore, were almost entirely vested in the institution;

Yea and many had relatives in the North too. And the Northern economy was closely connected to the Southern economy.

Which is in no way a counter to what I said. You may notice (in fact I know you do since you've brought it up) that the Lincoln administration went well out of the way to avoid striking at slavery in the first year or so of the war, and when it did it justified it as a war measure. If one were to actually read Lincoln's correspondence freely instead of what the various writers at the von Mises Institute have preselected for him (especially with General Fremont when he reversed the general's emancipation order; it's particularly instructive), one would realize that this is because people in the North (not to mention the critically important border states) were also opposed to emancipation to the degree that it would have cost the loyalty of several more states, the capital city, and the war to adopt an overt policy of emancipation at that stage. (This also comes out if you read many other primary source documents and accounts from border state loyalists; several said that if they thought that the purpose of the war was emancipation rather than union, they would defect at once.) This means that the difference between rebel and loyalist, in large part, was determined by belief or lack of it that Lincoln intended to free the slaves. Clearly, the Deep South did; their declarations of causes say as much.

Even ignoring the economy, it was also the basis of the entire social fabric of the slave states;

Many Southern leaders detested the institution.

Examples: The CSA's two highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and supported emancipation in various forms. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Johnston called it "a curse." (Johnston initially opposed using slaves as soldiers only because he feared it would be disruptive and ineffective, not because he had any sympathy for slavery. He later came to support the proposal.) Other Confederate generals who supported emancipation included General Daniel Govan, General John Kelly, and General Mark Lowrey.

LINK

Good for them. Let me know when you find such an opinion from Jefferson Davis, Robert Rhett, or anyone else who was a prominent political leader. The various state declarations and copious volumes of speeches and memorandums from secession conventioneers extoll the "blessings of African slavery," and name the preservation thereof as the primary motivator for their actions in sundering the Union.

You're a classical liberal and yet you hate Jefferson? You are an odd one. Provide evidence that Jefferson thought the franchise should be limited to the "independently wealthy".

You rebuke Jefferson for not being democractic enough yet you yourself don't believe in democracy and you serve an apologist for Northern plutocrats.

Sure!

Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth. Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phaenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example. It is the mark set on those, who not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman, for their subsistence, depend for it on casualties and caprice of customers. Dependance begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. This, the natural progress and consequence of the arts, has sometimes perhaps been retarded by accidental circumstances: but, generally speaking, the proportion which the aggregate of the other classes of citizens bears in any state to that of its husbandmen, is the proportion of its unsound to its healthy parts, and is a good enough barometer whereby to measure its degree of corruption. While we have land to labour then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a workbench, or twirling a distaff . Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry: but, for the general operations of manufacture, let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strenth of the human body. It is the manners, and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.

So, unless one is independent of an employer (owning one's own land from which he makes his living, or otherwise possessed of means to not be dependent upon another), one is likely to corrupt society and through it the government. It's not hard to see the logic; dependence creates leverage over the dependent, which if he has franchise could be used to manipulate his vote. (Vote so-and-so or you're fired.) The example of the Roman Senate and its patronage system gave him good reason to think this, but the secret ballot takes a lot of teeth out of the threat.

I also note I did not say I hate Jefferson. Hate is a very strong word. The man had a lot of good ideas, a few bad ones, and was instrumental in bringing forth the first modern republic. Note that Alexander Stephens, linked to and quoted above, said Jefferson and the other founders were wrong when they supposed the races to be equal and slavery something to be encouraged to die out in course; this is evidence enough that they were in fact right (and the Confederacy was engaged in revolution against the founding).

If you are going to justify mass murder - 100s of 1000s of deaths - you should come up with better excuses. You have not been able to provide any evidence that the South intended to invade the North prior to Lincoln's invasion.

I don't need to. This is farcical and I should never have played along with it just to get a tit for tat fact in. The Slave Power fired on federal forts, ships, and soldiers; seized federal armories, post offices, and other property; carved out huge chunks of United States territory; and did almost all of it before Lincoln was even in office, because they didn't want to abide by the results of a constitutionally conducted election that they had full franchise in. If that isn't casus belli, nothing is.

Laughable. The majority of Southerners who didn't own slaves certainly worked for a living.

But they didn't do it picking cotton, which was one of the fears - that if slavery was abolished, they might have to. And thus become dependent upon an employer, incidentally. A yeoman farmer works for himself; that the majority of Southrons were farmers doesn't mean that they wanted to work for the plantation aristocracy as laborers in the absence of slaves. Remember Calhoun:

There is no part of the world where agricultural, mechanical, and other descriptions of labor are more respected than in the South, with the exception of two descriptions of employment, that of menial and body servants. No Southern man—not the poorest or the lowest—will, under any circumstance, submit to perform either of them. He has too much pride for that, and I rejoice that he has. They are unsuited to the spirit of a freeman. But the man who would spurn them feels not the least degradation to work in the same field with his slave, or to be employed to work with them in the same field or in any mechanical operation; and, when so employed, they claim the right, and are admitted, in the country portion of the South, of sitting at the table of their employers. Can as much, on the score of equality, be said for the North? With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals, if honest and industrious, and hence have a position and pride of character of which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them.

They are upper class because they are not black, and this is drawn (by Calhoun favorably) in comparison to the Northern industrial system where being white didn't automatically make one superior.

Incidentally, you undermine your own position - if modern industrial practices make slave labor obsolete and untenable, why is it still employed?

Please notice the difference between chattel slavery and wage slavery.

Why? You didn't until just now when it became convenient.

Lincoln carried on a civil war against an internal insurrection, not an external war of conquest against Canada or whatever.

Not so very different. Instead of pointing the guns south he could have pointed them north. Both invasions would be anti-democratic. But you don't believe in democracy so that won't concern you.

Canada wasn't in defiance of a fair and duly conducted election and the resulting mandate of the people. It comes down to this: The secession at its core was an assertion that a group can decide to break up the country because it does not like the results of a presidential election. No constitutional republic could operate under such a rule; it's absurd.

 

[Thunderbird]

This is the problem with the 10th Amendment argument.

Let's look at Article 6.

quote: Critics of the Confederacy maintain that certain clauses in the Constitution prohibit secession, even though not one of those clauses mentions the subject. They point out, for example, that the Constitution prohibits states from entering into treaties with foreign powers. They place particular emphasis on the Supremacy Clause, which reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. (Article 6, Paragraph 2)

However, it goes without saying that this clause and the clauses regarding state relations with foreign governments only apply to states that are in the Union. Again, there’s simply nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the citizens of a state from democratically revoking their state’s ratification of the Constitution. The explanations of the Supremacy Clause that are given in the Federalist Papers do not say the clause prohibits secession or makes ratification irrevocable.

LINK

(while I work almost entirely from primary sources, having researched the topic from the original sources for years).

Again thanks for reminding us what a Super-Genius you are. We might forget so please keep reminding us over and over. lol

Good for them. Let me know when you find such an opinion from Jefferson Davis, Robert Rhett, or anyone else who was a prominent political leader.

quote: In keeping with such opposition to the wickedness of the slave trade, the Constitution of the Confederate States of 1861 permanently abolished the practice in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. Confederate President Jefferson Davis made clear his plans for the infant country when he stated, "The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline and thus be made unfit for slavery."

LINK

I don't need to. This is farcical and I should never have played along with it just to get a tit for tat fact in.

A lot of words to say "You can't." You know full well the South had no interest in invading the North prior to Bull Run.

quote from Alexander Stephens: The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln's inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. (“Cornerstone Speech,” March 21, 1861, Savannah, Georgia, in Henry Cleveland, editor, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, Philadelphia, 1886, pp. 727-728, original emphasis)

LINK

The Slave Power fired on federal forts, ships, and soldiers; seized federal armories, post offices, and other property; carved out huge chunks of United States territory;

Wow!! The South gained control of post offices!!! Definitely that justifies all those kids and the elderly being deprived of food and medicine by Lincoln's blockade. And upwards of 600,000 dead. And all those orphaned and crippled.

And how many casualties did the Confederacy inflict prior to Bull Run?

No constitutional republic could operate under such a rule; it's absurd.

Tell that to Slovakia. If a region votes for independence it's not the end of the world.

 

[Rogue 9]

This is the problem with the 10th Amendment argument.

Let's look at Article 6.

quote: Critics of the Confederacy maintain that certain clauses in the Constitution prohibit secession, even though not one of those clauses mentions the subject. They point out, for example, that the Constitution prohibits states from entering into treaties with foreign powers. They place particular emphasis on the Supremacy Clause, which reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. (Article 6, Paragraph 2)

However, it goes without saying that this clause and the clauses regarding state relations with foreign governments only apply to states that are in the Union. Again, there’s simply nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the citizens of a state from democratically revoking their state’s ratification of the Constitution. The explanations of the Supremacy Clause that are given in the Federalist Papers do not say the clause prohibits secession or makes ratification irrevocable.

LINK

I can't help but notice that my argument is based almost entirely upon Article 4, which your copypasta doesn't address. The Supremacy Clause is only important insofar as it means a state law can't override Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.

In any case, Texas v. White makes the whole thing moot. It's just fun to point it out.

(while I work almost entirely from primary sources, having researched the topic from the original sources for years).

Again thanks for reminding us what a Super-Genius you are. We might forget so please keep reminding us over and over. lol

I think I have reason to be annoyed that original research is answered with canned arguments and copy-pasted blog posts. Relative intelligence has little to do with it; you don't address the primary sources because they don't support your argument, and bluntly the smarter you are the more likely you realize that. Mr. Davis and company (none of them stupid men) knew it too; there are multiple postwar addresses, letters, etc. from ex-Confederate leaders both political and military (Stephens, Davis himself, and Jubal Early are especially prominent) that speak of the need to gain control of the historical narrative so as to realize, in the words of the title of Edward Pollard's second book on the history of the war, the Lost Cause Regained; work continued through the turn of the century by the United Confederate Veterans, United Daughters of the Confederacy, and similar organizations, aided by the urge for reconciliation and to sweep the "Negro question" under the rug. The Civil War is not one in which the victors wrote the history.

quote: In keeping with such opposition to the wickedness of the slave trade, the Constitution of the Confederate States of 1861 permanently abolished the practice in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. Confederate President Jefferson Davis made clear his plans for the infant country when he stated, "The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline and thus be made unfit for slavery."

LINK

Funny how Stephens in his postwar memoirs states that education was denied the slaves in order to defend himself by saying he thought that was wrong. The ban on the trans-Atlantic slave trade was already in place under the United States Constitution, and the Confederate Constitution was almost word for word copied from it bar minor changes to the Presidential term, the states' relationship to federal judges, and of course permanent bars on emancipation and guarantees of the right of property in slaves. The Confederate Constitution still permitted the slave trade with slaveholding states of the United States, it's worth pointing out.

A lot of words to say "You can't." You know full well the South had no interest in invading the North prior to Bull Run.

quote from Alexander Stephens: The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln's inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. (“Cornerstone Speech,” March 21, 1861, Savannah, Georgia, in Henry Cleveland, editor, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, Philadelphia, 1886, pp. 727-728, original emphasis)

LINK

You know what else he said in the Cornerstone Address?

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Link to an actual source, not a collection of egregious cherry picking.

Fine. You want evidence of slave state aggression. You may have it. Starting from most recent and working backward (though not exhaustively; I'd rather not be here all week listing it all):

The shelling of Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861. I trust I need not source this.

The shelling of the Star of the West, January 9, 1861.

South Carolina's governor and Congressional delegation plotted to send a regiment of militia to Washington to break up Congress should John Sherman be elected Speaker of the House, as illustrated in this letter posted December 20, 1859.

While I advise against the ejection of Sherman if elected, I do not wish to be understood as not desiring the war to begin at Washington; but as I would prefer it should begin in sudden heat & with good provocation rather than a deliberate determination to perform an act of violence which might prejudice us in the eyes of the world. If however, you upon consideration decide to make the issue of fire in Washington, write or telegraph me, & I will have a Regiment in or near Washington in the shortest possible time.

Only the withdrawal of Sherman's nomination prevented this from actually happening. Note that this plan was not contingent upon Northern invasion of South Carolina.

Prior to the 1856 election, Senator James Mason of Virginia requested Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of War, to provide the federal armories of the slave states with percussion muskets to replace the obsolete flintlocks, and to send said flintlocks to armories in free states, so that if Fremont won the election (which he did not) the Slave Power would have the advantage in the ensuing war. His letter:

SELMA, NEAR WINCHESTER, VA., Sept. 30, 1856.

MY DEAR SIR: I have a letter from WISE, of the 27th, full of spirit. He says the Governments of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana, have already agreed to rendezvous at Raleigh, and others will -- this in your most private ear. He says, further, that he had officially requested you to exchange with Virginia, on fair terms of difference, percussion for flint muskets. I don't know the usage or power of the Department in such cases, but if it can be done, even by liberal construction, I hope you will accede. Was there not an appropriation at the last session for converting flint into percussion arms? If so, would it not furnish good reason for extending such facilities to the States? Virginia probably has more arms than the other Southern States, and would divide in case of need. In a letter yesterday to a Committee in South Carolina. I gave it as my judgment, in the event of FREMONT's election, the South should not pause, but proceed at once to "immediate, absolute, and eternal separation." So I am a candidate for the first halter.

WISE says his accounts from Philadelphia are cheering for Old Buck in Pennsylvania. I hope they be not delusive. Vale et Salute,

(Signed) J.M. MASON.

Colonel DAVIS.

WISE is Governor Henry Wise of Virginia. Peaceful secession my ass.

During the debate on the admission of California, 1850, there were multiple threats of violence and invasion, all from the Slave Power. James Hammond writing to John C. Calhoun, March 5, 1850:

On mere Legislative Compromises I look with horror. They are the apples of Hippomenes cast behind him in the race. Our only safety is in equality of power. We must divide the territory so as forever to retain that equality in the Senate at least, and in doing so we should count Delaware with the North. She is no Southern or Slave State. I would infinitely prefer disunion to any thing the least short of this - and I would rather have it I believe any how for fear of future Clays, Bentons, Houstons and Bells. If the North will not consent to this I think we should not have another word to say, but kick them out of the Capitol and set it on fire. We must act now, and decisively.

Italics in the original.

Congressman Albert G. Brown of Mississippi, speaking on the House floor.

The southern States, in convention at Nashville, will devise means for vindicating their rights. I do not know what these means will be, but I know what they may be, and with propriety and safety. They may be to carry slaves into all of southern California, as the property of sovereign States, and there hold them, as we have a right to do; and if molested, defend them, as is both our right and duty.

We ask you to give us our rights by non-intervention; if you refuse, I am for taking them by armed occupation.

That should be enough to get on with. Don't pretend the South wasn't outrageously aggressive in the run-up to the war; it demonstrably was.

The Slave Power fired on federal forts, ships, and soldiers; seized federal armories, post offices, and other property; carved out huge chunks of United States territory;

Wow!! The South gained control of post offices!!! Definitely that justifies all those kids and the elderly being deprived of food and medicine by Lincoln's blockade. And upwards of 600,000 dead. And all those orphaned and crippled.

And how many casualties did the Confederacy inflict prior to Bull Run?

I was being thorough. The point is massive seizure of federal property and roughly 800,000 square miles of United States territory in response to not liking the results of a constitutionally conducted election that they had full franchise in (and then some really, considering the 3/5ths clause). If the South didn't want to suffer so greatly, they were free to stop rebelling at any time.

No constitutional republic could operate under such a rule; it's absurd.

Tell that to Slovakia. If a region votes for independence it's not the end of the world.

I note you cut out the bit where I defined what "such a rule" is. Slovakia didn't break up the country simply because one region's favored candidate didn't win an election; there were far deeper reasons than that (namely the breakup of the Soviet bloc and end to de facto Soviet rule) and you know it. Also, Czechoslovakia was dissolved by act of the federal parliament, i.e. the government of the whole, which would also be permissible (if extremely unlikely) in the case of the United States. The comparison isn't applicable.

At any rate, to start a running tally of things you don't address, since you seem so concerned with the subject, starting only with the most recent post for brevity's sake:

1.) The reasoning behind slavery being a motivator even for those who didn't directly own slaves, and why this wasn't a large factor in the loyal states; namely that their loyalty depended on believing that emancipation wasn't Lincoln's purpose rather than having zeal for emancipation themselves.

2.) Jefferson's position on the effect of wage earners on the vote. You demanded evidence and didn't react when it was presented, so I shall accept your concession.

3.) The fact that the South seceded in response to a fair and free election that they had full franchise in (so the "without representation" clause so important in the American Revolution does not apply). You carefully cut that part out to attack other things said around it, but not that.

4.) That emancipation was feared (partially) because it would mean that someone other than the slaves would need to perform menial labor (as defined by Calhoun), with evidence presented. I'm noticing a trend where you drop a line of argument as soon as a primary source is actually posted.

5.) Your hypocrisy in suddenly deciding to care about the difference between chattel and wage slavery when your cheap tu quoque argument was turned back on you.

6.) Item 3 again, once more cutting it out so you could attack something dependent on it in isolation.

 

[Thunderbird]

I can't help but notice that my argument is based almost entirely upon Article 4,

quote: The founding fathers specifically rejected the idea that the federal government could use force against a state to compel obedience. The only two situations in which the framers permitted the general government to use force against a state, or even in a state, were (1) if the state were invaded or (2) if the state's legislature or governor requested federal assistance to deal with domestic violence. Constitutional scholar and former law professor John Remington Graham discusses this point:

It is an historical fact that, on two occasions during their deliberations, the framers in the Philadelphia Convention voted to deny Congress the power of calling forth military forces of the Union to compel obedience of a state, and on two further occasions they voted to deny Congress the power of sending the Federal army or navy into the territory of any state, except as allowed under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution--to repel a foreign invasion or at the request of its legislature or governor to deal with domestic violence. (A Constitutional History of Secession, Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 2002, p. 287)

LINK

In any case, Texas v. White makes the whole thing moot. It's just fun to point it out.

Has the Supreme Court never been wrong?

The Civil War is not one in which the victors wrote the history.

Characteristically silly. Have there been no sentimental panegyrics to Lincoln? Name a recent movie that's pro-South.

Fine. You want evidence of slave state aggression. You may have it.

OMG! You provide examples of some pretty unpleasant words and some plans that never came to fruition. They certainly justify a massive intervention and upwards of 600,000 dead!!! Almost as evil as securing control of all those post offices!

At any rate, to start a running tally of things you don't address,

Yea I don't feel compelled to comment upon every irrelevant notion that meanders through your mind, every foggy thought that wanders lonely through your brain.

 

[Rogue 9]

I can't help but notice that my argument is based almost entirely upon Article 4,

quote: The founding fathers specifically rejected the idea that the federal government could use force against a state to compel obedience. The only two situations in which the framers permitted the general government to use force against a state, or even in a state, were (1) if the state were invaded or (2) if the state's legislature or governor requested federal assistance to deal with domestic violence. Constitutional scholar and former law professor John Remington Graham discusses this point:

It is an historical fact that, on two occasions during their deliberations, the framers in the Philadelphia Convention voted to deny Congress the power of calling forth military forces of the Union to compel obedience of a state, and on two further occasions they voted to deny Congress the power of sending the Federal army or navy into the territory of any state, except as allowed under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution--to repel a foreign invasion or at the request of its legislature or governor to deal with domestic violence. (A Constitutional History of Secession, Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 2002, p. 287)

LINK

1.) I can't help but notice that this still doesn't address the fact that the Constitution expressly states that nothing in it shall be construed to prejudice the territorial claims of the United States.

2.) The text of Article One, Section 8 doesn't say "with permission of the state legislatures" even if that's what I was talking about, which I wasn't. Since you're kind enough to bring it up, though, the federal government has the authority to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, in those exact words.

In any case, Texas v. White makes the whole thing moot. It's just fun to point it out.

Has the Supreme Court never been wrong?

You clearly don't understand Texas v. White if you think that. Texas' own legal arguments rested on its secession being invalid, because if the defense of White, et al had stood, it would result in the dissolution of the state. The court ruling as it did upheld the rights of the citizens of Texas as well as those of Texas as a state; a different result would necessarily treat it as conquered territory and require that it be reorganized as a territory and once again apply for statehood. Texas won the case on every point, regaining the bonds that were at issue in the case and having its statehood (and that of every other former Confederate state for that matter) assured on the bargain.

As for the actual question, in the legal sense no, the Supreme Court by law isn't wrong, since it is the highest arbiter of the law. It might be factually or morally wrong, but legally it is incapable of being so.

Characteristically silly. Have there been no sentimental panegyrics to Lincoln? Name a recent movie that's pro-South.

Name one textbook used in public schools to this day that teaches the actual motives behind secession. You can't, because they don't. High school American history textbooks either conspicuously ignore the issue or mention states' rights and a way of life that included slavery in the same breath. A victor's history would name the preservation of chattel slavery (coincidentally the right answer, but that's what you get when the good guys win ) as the cause of the war, but that doesn't happen because the textbook market has to keep Southern school boards happy to sell books. I never once saw the Declarations of Causes as part of my formal schooling for this reason. As a result, unless the teacher is himself informed and proactive, the curriculum does not teach students about the cause of the war beyond vague generalities. Movies do not history make.

The American Civil War is one of the great exceptions to the general rule of victors writing the history because it is basically the only war in history in which the losing side was almost immediately restored to equal footing with the victors, and said losing side set about writing the history to their liking (while the North frankly didn't care about the issue all that much).

Fine. You want evidence of slave state aggression. You may have it.

OMG! You provide examples of some pretty unpleasant words and some plans that never came to fruition. They certainly justify a massive intervention and upwards of 600,000 dead!!! Almost as evil as securing control of all those post offices!

You miss the point. Every time there was a possibility of the Republican Party gaining the Presidency or an abolitionist gaining power beyond a back bench seat in Congress, violence was planned and threatened, contingent upon that happening (and not upon said Republicans or abolitionists doing anything with their offices first). The first time it actually happened, violence resulted. This is not a coincidence.

At any rate, to start a running tally of things you don't address,

Yea I don't feel compelled to comment upon every irrelevant notion that meanders through your mind, every foggy thought that wanders lonely through your brain.

That's a lot of words to say "you can't," to borrow a phrase. Every one of those was a line of argument you had pursued, and proceeded to ignore when you couldn't find something in the giant wall of text you keep linking to that refutes what I said or sourced. In civilized debate circles, that's called conceding. If you think you're fooling anybody (or at least anybody who doesn't already agree with you) carrying on as you are, you're greatly mistaken.

In case you're wondering, I've read that wall of text. I didn't say "egregious cherrypicking" idly; the author produced yet another iteration in the neo-Confederate cottage industry of carefully excerpting very narrow segments of the historical record and leaving out the vast reams of evidence that contradict his chosen position. Yes, tariffs were an issue. No, they were not the overwhelmingly important issue, and no that issue on its own would not have brought about the 1860-61 secession. Yes, Stephens in the middle of his public relations campaign in favor of the new Confederate government said that the North need not fear war (when it was already upon them), but he is contradicted many, many times by other leaders in other places and times (and he said quite damning things elsewhere in the same speech; I notice the author refers to it as the "Cornerstone Speech" and yet leaves out the part that's the reason why, for obvious reasons). And so it goes. If you were to use that as a citation for any scholarly purpose, you'd be laughed out of the room. (At least, outside of the pre-1990 American South, where/when honestly exploring the motives behind the secession could and did lead to professors being forced to resign in Southern universities.) I shouldn't even be entertaining it, but if I only addressed what you'd legitimately sourced there wouldn't be much to say.

 

[oldfart]

Much of what you state is accurate, but some is not and some minimizes the tyrannical actions taken by Lincoln.

I had basically dropped out of this thread as it was going nowhere fast, but you raise a few issues that deserve response. When Americans created the myth of Lincoln, they at the same time lost touch with the complex and gifted real Lincoln. I think you may have fallen into this trap here.

When you refer to "tyrannical actions taken by Lincoln", I assume your primary issue here is the habeas corpus issue. The Constitution specifically allows for the suspension of habeas corpus, but places that provision in Article I indicating that it is a legislative rather than executive power. As Congress was not in session when Lincoln was inaugurated and not due to meet until the December term, Lincoln took the step himself, claiming national exigency, and called Congress into session for July 4, 1861 to ratify or reject his measures. He invited Congress to determine if he had the power to take these war measures and expressed a preference that Congress act in this area, preferring legislative to executive action. Congress ratified his actions and passed legislation instituting the war measures, forming the Committee on the Conduct of the War to provide an ongoing vehicle to review and restrain executive actions even when Congress was not in session. The historical record does not support the label "tyrannical" for Lincoln's early war measures.

If you had some other actions in mind, I would be happy to discuss them with you.

First, we can all agree that African slavery was wrong and a terrible institution that needed termination. It was and still is a national disgrace. You would be hard pressed to find one sane American today who would dispute this point, including white Southerns. Slavery was destined for dissolution on its own, much like racism towards African Americans.

You might be hard pressed to find defenders of slavery but I run into them all the time. One of the myths of historical revisionism is that slavery was a good bringing culture to heathen and uncivilized Africans. While admitting that slavery is not a good thing now, these revisionists who can be found in virtually every history department in the South, still claim that slavery served a noble purpose in its time.

As to the issue of whether slavery was on a path to economic extinction, that is the subject of a lively debate in economic history. Personally I belong to the school that slavery was not a dying institution, but was evolving into an even more threatening and malignant form. I'll leave that discussion for another thread. But if you want to debate it, I suggest you first check out the definitive work on the subject: "Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery" (1974) by the economists Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman. I think Fogel & Engerman has some substantial flaws, but it's the recognized starting point in the debate.

You also stated the South started the war. While it is true many in the south wanted war and thought they could easily whip the north and the firing on Fort Sumter started the hostilities, it has been documented by many historians that Lincoln purposely set up the situation to begin the war. Does he fail to get some credit for starting the war?

I think your argument is too cute by half. The Deep South had left the Union before Lincoln was president. Lincoln refused to comment after the election on the issue of slavery, referring everyone to his body of writing and speeches on the topic. After all, Buchanan was still president. I fail to see how Lincoln can be held at fault here. The best work here is Russell McClintock's "Lincoln and the Decision for War" (2008) which I highly recommend [published by my alma mater!].

Before becoming president and in the months immediately afterward Lincoln had a three-part policy, first espoused only privately to political friends and made public in the First Inaugural. First he would pursue any proposal that would accommodate the South and preserve the Union, so long as it did not compromise the Republican principles regarding extension of slavery in the territories. This is encompassed by the portion of the First Inaugural dedicated to a constitutional amendment. The second part of his policy was the defense of the Union, which he labored to explain predated the Constitution. This also is elaborated in the First Inaugural. Finally, if it came to a passage at arms, his basic strategy was to hold onto the Upper South by any means available, hopefully through compensated emancipation, and hope that the Lower South could be brought back into the Union through negotiation. All of this was abandoned only about May--June 1862 and was simultaneous to the commitment to emancipation.

It is easy to get caught up in the minutia of the politics and reasons for the war, but if we look at it clearly, we must conclude it was entirely unnecessary and a terrible wrong committed by our government.

This is stunningly bad historical analysis. Hopefully you lifted it from somewhere and it does not reflect the overall quality of your thought.

Even if a settlement could not be reached to avert war, it would have been much better to allow the South to peacefully secede, as was granted by the Constitution. However, the tyrannical Lincoln did not see it this way. Lincoln breached the Constitution repeatedly, while claiming he was abiding it.

First there is no right of succession in the Constitution. And Lincoln's analysis of the issue in the First Inaugural is still the best treatise on organic law in this regard ever written. If you want to contest this, I suggest you read it first.

Second, your counterfactual "it would have been much better..." is an unprovable counterfactual which I would label a vicious fantasy. Are you seriously suggesting that any America remotely similar to America today could have emerged from an independent South based on slavery?

Third, I believe you have just adopted the position you started out claiming no one was adopting, that slavery should have been left alone and the Union sundered just because that was what Southern fireeaters wanted.

Finally, your post is long on assertions and short of any reasoning or evidence. If you care to back any of them up, I will be happy to respond.

Jamie

 

[Mr. H.]

We watched this for the first time tonight.

Very good film. The only "cheesy" part was at the end when Lincoln was superimposed on a candle flame. Too Spielberg/Holocaust - ish. **** that.

I'm perplexed as to why, for all of Lincoln's tenure, that Spieljew would focus on the 13th amendment.
Typical Spielberg statement there.

The Lincoln makeup job made him look like Ben Stiller.

I give it 8 out of 10 ****-its.