The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Only Texas permitted its citizens to vote on the secession ordinance.

I'm sorry didn't you just say the states were the agents of the will of the people? If they didn't want to secede then secession wouldn't have happened. Look at West Virginia for example.

You lost learn to live with it.

I didn't know there was a competition. Or were you referencing the Civil War? Because I live in Ohio. We stayed in the Union.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The South lost and the Union prevailed, further they cemented their win with Court rulings. Congress would have to establish a procedure for the States to ever be able to legally leave the Union. They have done no such thing so no State can leave the Union.

The Southern States had no right to leave the Union in 1860 either. Only by WINNING the Civil War would they have been able to justify their leaving, they lost, they had no right to leave in the manner they attempted to leave.

Pretty simple concept really.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.

The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The South lost and the Union prevailed, further they cemented their win with Court rulings. Congress would have to establish a procedure for the States to ever be able to legally leave the Union. They have done no such thing so no State can leave the Union.

The Southern States had no right to leave the Union in 1860 either. Only by WINNING the Civil War would they have been able to justify their leaving, they lost, they had no right to leave in the manner they attempted to leave.
Pretty simple concept really.

Yes and no. The states had the right to leave in what ever manner they wished. They had the legal high ground, the problem was that the Union had the moral high ground.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The South lost and the Union prevailed, further they cemented their win with Court rulings. Congress would have to establish a procedure for the States to ever be able to legally leave the Union. They have done no such thing so no State can leave the Union.

The Southern States had no right to leave the Union in 1860 either. Only by WINNING the Civil War would they have been able to justify their leaving, they lost, they had no right to leave in the manner they attempted to leave.
Pretty simple concept really.

Yes and no. The states had the right to leave in what ever manner they wished. They had the legal high ground, the problem was that the Union had the moral high ground.

They had NO LEGAL grounds at all. That was the whole point. Not only was there no procedure for leaving the States had no grounds to leave. The Union had bent over backwards accommodating the South since the Union was formed. And in the 1850's had even created new legislation to appease them and they had won Supreme Court Cases in regards slaves and the North.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The South lost and the Union prevailed, further they cemented their win with Court rulings. Congress would have to establish a procedure for the States to ever be able to legally leave the Union. They have done no such thing so no State can leave the Union.

The Southern States had no right to leave the Union in 1860 either. Only by WINNING the Civil War would they have been able to justify their leaving, they lost, they had no right to leave in the manner they attempted to leave.
Pretty simple concept really.

Yes and no. The states had the right to leave in what ever manner they wished. They had the legal high ground, the problem was that the Union had the moral high ground.

They had NO LEGAL grounds at all. That was the whole point. Not only was there no procedure for leaving the States had no grounds to leave. The Union had bent over backwards accommodating the South since the Union was formed. And in the 1850's had even created new legislation to appease them and they had won Supreme Court Cases in regards slaves and the North.

They had the same legal grounds to secede as the Republic of Texas has to secede from Mexico or that the colonies had to secede from the British Empire. What part of the Constitution did the South violate by leaving. Where was law prohibiting them to do so? There wasn't. So in the absence of law, there was no illegal act. Texas v. White, though ruling that the States had no right to secede(after the fact with a radical Supreme Court BTW), it allowed some possibility of divisibility through revolution, or through consent of the States. This is the only case that deals with seceesion and its legality and it extremely vague and was meant to be. The only thing that made what the South did illegal is its military loss. Had they won or just negotiated a peacful end, then we would be looking at ths a whole lot different.

But let me lay this on you. If the States had no right to secede to begin with, then why did Congress have to readmit them on litmus? If they had no right to secede, shouldn't they have already been in the Unon to begin with(as Texas v. White rules) and not eligible for readmittance as they were already members? Fact s they legally seceded, they lost the war and the Union had to readmit them on litmus.

Sit down old man, I do this for a living.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes and no. The states had the right to leave in what ever manner they wished. They had the legal high ground, the problem was that the Union had the moral high ground.

They had NO LEGAL grounds at all. That was the whole point. Not only was there no procedure for leaving the States had no grounds to leave. The Union had bent over backwards accommodating the South since the Union was formed. And in the 1850's had even created new legislation to appease them and they had won Supreme Court Cases in regards slaves and the North.

They had the same legal grounds to secede as the Republic of Texas has to secede from Mexico or that the colonies had to secede from the British Empire. What part of the Constitution did the South violate by leaving. Where was law prohibiting them to do so? There wasn't. So in the absence of law, there was no illegal act. Texas v. White, though ruling that the States had no right to secede(after the fact with a radical Supreme Court BTW), it allowed some possibility of divisibility through revolution, or through consent of the States. This is the only case that deals with seceesion and its legality and it extremely vague and was meant to be. The only thing that made what the South did illegal is its military loss. Had they won or just negotiated a peacful end, then we would be looking at ths a whole lot different.

But let me lay this on you. If the States had no right to secede to begin with, then why did Congress have to readmit them on litmus? If they had no right to secede, shouldn't they have already been in the Unon to begin with(as Texas v. White rules) and not eligible for readmittance as they were already members? Fact s they legally seceded, they lost the war and the Union had to readmit them on litmus.

Sit down old man, I do this for a living.

The original plan was that they were still States. That was Lincoln's plan followed by Johnson. The Radical Republicans running Congress would have nothing to do with it and nearly impeached Johnson and created Reconstruction through act of Congress.

The Union was binding on all. YES revolution or Civil War won would split the Country, but no LEGAL move would until addressed by Congress. It took a super Majority to create the Union and it takes an act of Congress to split it.

 

[JW Frogen]

I think it was for the best the South lost the Civil War, it ended slavery and the South would have been at each others' throats with the states rights idiocy for decades had they won. Mexico might even have picked some of the territory back.

Still, I prefer Bryan hot dogs to Oscar Myer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The South lost and the Union prevailed, further they cemented their win with Court rulings. Congress would have to establish a procedure for the States to ever be able to legally leave the Union. They have done no such thing so no State can leave the Union.

The Southern States had no right to leave the Union in 1860 either. Only by WINNING the Civil War would they have been able to justify their leaving, they lost, they had no right to leave in the manner they attempted to leave.

Pretty simple concept really.

"Might makes right" is a simple concept, you're right about that. However, the Constitution is what matters, and the Constitution does not forbid the states from seceding. But we all know Lincoln didn't really care about the Constitution.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

They had NO LEGAL grounds at all. That was the whole point. Not only was there no procedure for leaving the States had no grounds to leave. The Union had bent over backwards accommodating the South since the Union was formed. And in the 1850's had even created new legislation to appease them and they had won Supreme Court Cases in regards slaves and the North.

They had the same legal grounds to secede as the Republic of Texas has to secede from Mexico or that the colonies had to secede from the British Empire. What part of the Constitution did the South violate by leaving. Where was law prohibiting them to do so? There wasn't. So in the absence of law, there was no illegal act. Texas v. White, though ruling that the States had no right to secede(after the fact with a radical Supreme Court BTW), it allowed some possibility of divisibility through revolution, or through consent of the States. This is the only case that deals with seceesion and its legality and it extremely vague and was meant to be. The only thing that made what the South did illegal is its military loss. Had they won or just negotiated a peacful end, then we would be looking at ths a whole lot different.

But let me lay this on you. If the States had no right to secede to begin with, then why did Congress have to readmit them on litmus? If they had no right to secede, shouldn't they have already been in the Unon to begin with(as Texas v. White rules) and not eligible for readmittance as they were already members? Fact s they legally seceded, they lost the war and the Union had to readmit them on litmus.

Sit down old man, I do this for a living.

The original plan was that they were still States. That was Lincoln's plan followed by Johnson. The Radical Republicans running Congress would have nothing to do with it and nearly impeached Johnson and created Reconstruction through act of Congress.

The Union was binding on all. YES revolution or Civil War won would split the Country, but no LEGAL move would until addressed by Congress. It took a super Majority to create the Union and it takes an act of Congress to split it.

Yet an act of Congress gave creedence to the split by forcng the South to readmit. You just made my point for me and you don't even know it. By requiring a litmus for readmittance Congress recognized the Confederacy as a seperate nation and the Southern States as conquered colonies.

Furthermore, you have no legal evidence of your claim that it takes an act of Congress to split the Union. Where is that in the Constitution? Don't bother looking it isn't there.

I will give you however that there is no right or wrong answer to this question. I have successfully argued both sides of this case in moot court. It is not as simple as you make it sound and there are very good point son each side. Fact is, the issue to this day has not been address by law. Salmon Chase wrote the majority opinion in Texas v. White and was hated by both sides for it. It settled nothing. So for me it goes back to the basic principle of law. If the law does not exist, then in a court of law it is not illegal. However, it here that our morals and common sense are supposed to come forth. Was it right for the South to secede? 620,000 men died looking for the answer and we are nowhere close to it today.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.

The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.

It's true that their agrarian economy made it so that tariffs hurt them while it helped the industrial north, and that their agrarian economy made slavery a viable system as well. However, slave owners were a minority in the south, so it's not entirely correct to say that the economic reasons for secession all fall back to slavery.

Also, the Civil War was not fought to grant human beings freedom. Lincoln's only goal was to bring the southern states back into the Union. Freeing the slaves was simply an afterthought that he used to try to further hurt the south, and to make it so that other nations, such as Great Britain, would not aid a slave nation such as the Confederacy.

As for arguing it's righteousness, I can certainly argue that. Every other civilized nation ended slavery peacefully during that period, why is it that we supposedly needed to destroy the south for that to happen?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.

The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.

It's true that their agrarian economy made it so that tariffs hurt them while it helped the industrial north, and that their agrarian economy made slavery a viable system as well. However, slave owners were a minority in the south, so it's not entirely correct to say that the economic reasons for secession all fall back to slavery.

Also, the Civil War was not fought to grant human beings freedom. Lincoln's only goal was to bring the southern states back into the Union. Freeing the slaves was simply an afterthought that he used to try to further hurt the south, and to make it so that other nations, such as Great Britain, would not aid a slave nation such as the Confederacy.

As for arguing it's righteousness, I can certainly argue that. Every other civilized nation ended slavery peacefully during that period, why is it that we supposedly needed to destroy the south for that to happen?

Try again. Slavery was the basis for the Southern economy. Cotton was merely a bi-product of it. Your argument is based on the assumption that Lincoln started the war, when the opposite is the case. Remember that Casus Belli lies in the firing on Fort Sumter by the South. The South brought the war. They brought it to create a nation in which slavery would be protected.(See seccessionst commisioners speeches and Alexander Stephens' inaugural address.) Also, slavery was growing at an exponential rate, so the argue that slavery would die out peacefully is naive at best.

Slaveowners were a minority, but they controlled the South. Also, a general resentment towards colored people existed in the south that directly led to the States each voting to secede one by one. (again, see seccessonist commisioners speeches)

Yes, the Emancipation Proclamation was an afterthought and Lincoln even resisted it, but that stll does not change the fact that south went to war to protect and institution that was not even being attacked, but actually protected by the Constitution. The South started it on the premise of protecting the states right to enslave colored folks and they lost.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.

The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.

It's true that their agrarian economy made it so that tariffs hurt them while it helped the industrial north, and that their agrarian economy made slavery a viable system as well. However, slave owners were a minority in the south, so it's not entirely correct to say that the economic reasons for secession all fall back to slavery.

Also, the Civil War was not fought to grant human beings freedom. Lincoln's only goal was to bring the southern states back into the Union. Freeing the slaves was simply an afterthought that he used to try to further hurt the south, and to make it so that other nations, such as Great Britain, would not aid a slave nation such as the Confederacy.

As for arguing it's righteousness, I can certainly argue that. Every other civilized nation ended slavery peacefully during that period, why is it that we supposedly needed to destroy the south for that to happen?

Try again. Slavery was the basis for the Southern economy. Cotton was merely a bi-product of it. Your argument is based on the assumption that Lincoln started the war, when the opposite is the case. Remember that Casus Belli lies in the firing on Fort Sumter by the South. The South brought the war. They brought it to create a nation in which slavery would be protected.(See seccessionst commisioners speeches and Alexander Stephens' inaugural address.) Also, slavery was growing at an exponential rate, so the argue that slavery would die out peacefully is naive at best.

As I've said before, Lincoln gave the south no other choice but to fire on Fort Sumter because he wanted to invade the south. He said as much in his inaugural address, and he simply needed northern sympathy on his side which he didn't have until Fort Sumter.

I don't deny that they seceded partly to protect slavery. Though I don't feel that slavery was ever threatened by Lincoln, because of his support for the Corwin Amendment.

Their agrarian economy was also becoming more industrialized, which meant that slavery was becoming less economical. Because of this, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both believed that slavery would simply fade on its own in the south the way it did in the north.

 

[Equat]

I see no substantiation in Lincoln's Address for your assertions.

 

[Equat]

I see no mention that Lincoln intended to invade anyone unless they started the fight nor do I see any mention that Lincoln discussed taxes in his address.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

It's true that their agrarian economy made it so that tariffs hurt them while it helped the industrial north, and that their agrarian economy made slavery a viable system as well. However, slave owners were a minority in the south, so it's not entirely correct to say that the economic reasons for secession all fall back to slavery.

Also, the Civil War was not fought to grant human beings freedom. Lincoln's only goal was to bring the southern states back into the Union. Freeing the slaves was simply an afterthought that he used to try to further hurt the south, and to make it so that other nations, such as Great Britain, would not aid a slave nation such as the Confederacy.

As for arguing it's righteousness, I can certainly argue that. Every other civilized nation ended slavery peacefully during that period, why is it that we supposedly needed to destroy the south for that to happen?

Try again. Slavery was the basis for the Southern economy. Cotton was merely a bi-product of it. Your argument is based on the assumption that Lincoln started the war, when the opposite is the case. Remember that Casus Belli lies in the firing on Fort Sumter by the South. The South brought the war. They brought it to create a nation in which slavery would be protected.(See seccessionst commisioners speeches and Alexander Stephens' inaugural address.) Also, slavery was growing at an exponential rate, so the argue that slavery would die out peacefully is naive at best.

As I've said before, Lincoln gave the south no other choice but to fire on Fort Sumter because he wanted to invade the south. He said as much in his inaugural address, and he simply needed northern sympathy on his side which he didn't have until Fort Sumter.

I don't deny that they seceded partly to protect slavery. Though I don't feel that slavery was ever threatened by Lincoln, because of his support for the Corwin Amendment.

Their agrarian economy was also becoming more industrialized, which meant that slavery was becoming less economical. Because of this, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both believed that slavery would simply fade on its own in the south the way it did in the north.

Bullshit. Show me in his address where he said that.

The beliefs of Jefferson and Lee are in contrast to actual numbers. In 1860 the average slave was worth $878 and the institution of slavery was worth $3.5 billion. That is real money and in no way supports your thesis that slavery was dying. The domestic slave trade was booming.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I see no mention that Lincoln intended to invade anyone unless they started the fight nor do I see any mention that Lincoln discussed taxes in his address.

Well I recommend you read the part of his address I quoted a bit closer. He's saying there shall be no invasion if they pay their tribute to the federal government, implicitly saying there will be an invasion if they don't.

 

[Equat]

Actually only two federal military installations located in the South remained in the North's hands by the time Lincoln came to office. He had three goals: (1) to preserve the Union; (2) to protect federal property in the South; and (3) to ensure that the South would respect and follow (at the point of a sword if necessary) due constitutional process, i.e., the Republicans won the election and Lincoln was president.

Lincoln had absolutely no intention of letting Buchanan's lack of action be the guide for his presidency.

Do you believe that Lincoln intended to reverse Buchanan's actions by attacking the seceded states? Regardless of his intentions, Lincoln didn't have a Bay of Pigs invasion to justify (consistend with neo-Confederate reasoning) Sumter as Castro would have had to attack Quantanamo.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Try again. Slavery was the basis for the Southern economy. Cotton was merely a bi-product of it. Your argument is based on the assumption that Lincoln started the war, when the opposite is the case. Remember that Casus Belli lies in the firing on Fort Sumter by the South. The South brought the war. They brought it to create a nation in which slavery would be protected.(See seccessionst commisioners speeches and Alexander Stephens' inaugural address.) Also, slavery was growing at an exponential rate, so the argue that slavery would die out peacefully is naive at best.

As I've said before, Lincoln gave the south no other choice but to fire on Fort Sumter because he wanted to invade the south. He said as much in his inaugural address, and he simply needed northern sympathy on his side which he didn't have until Fort Sumter.

I don't deny that they seceded partly to protect slavery. Though I don't feel that slavery was ever threatened by Lincoln, because of his support for the Corwin Amendment.

Their agrarian economy was also becoming more industrialized, which meant that slavery was becoming less economical. Because of this, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both believed that slavery would simply fade on its own in the south the way it did in the north.

Bullshit. Show me in his address where he said that.

The beliefs of Jefferson and Lee are in contrast to actual numbers. In 1860 the average slave was worth $878 and the institution of slavery was worth $3.5 billion. That is real money and in no way supports your thesis that slavery was dying. The domestic slave trade was booming.

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

The fact that the south's economy was indeed industrializing means that slavery would no longer be economical. You can point to the price of slaves but the fact is that slavery is really only viable in an agrarian economy, and, as we saw in the north, as an economy industrializes slavery is no longer economical as opposed to paid educated workers.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

As I've said before, Lincoln gave the south no other choice but to fire on Fort Sumter because he wanted to invade the south. He said as much in his inaugural address, and he simply needed northern sympathy on his side which he didn't have until Fort Sumter.

I don't deny that they seceded partly to protect slavery. Though I don't feel that slavery was ever threatened by Lincoln, because of his support for the Corwin Amendment.

Their agrarian economy was also becoming more industrialized, which meant that slavery was becoming less economical. Because of this, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both believed that slavery would simply fade on its own in the south the way it did in the north.

Bullshit. Show me in his address where he said that.

The beliefs of Jefferson and Lee are in contrast to actual numbers. In 1860 the average slave was worth $878 and the institution of slavery was worth $3.5 billion. That is real money and in no way supports your thesis that slavery was dying. The domestic slave trade was booming.

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

The fact that the south's economy was indeed industrializing means that slavery would no longer be economical. You can point to the price of slaves but the fact is that slavery is really only viable in an agrarian economy, and, as we saw in the north, as an economy industrializes slavery is no longer economical as opposed to paid educated workers.

That quote does nothng to support what you say it does. And there may be like three people in the acdemic world that agree with you on the use of slaves in agrarian society vs. slaves in an industrial society. You think slaves couldn't run a sawmill or foundry? Slavery was its own economy and its own society. You really should stop regurgitating everything some Community College history professor says and use you fucking head. God knows you ar esmart enough to do so.

But I leave you to it. Good night.