To be like Lincoln

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Mike D

Hey Man,


1. I never stated that their was a law that allowed secession only that the main reason the souther states seceeded was because of taxation.
2. I never said anything at all about slaves other than slavery was a bad thing.

---

You never stated it, but you just responded to my post refuting those ridiculous arguments with some non-sequiter about 'the repercussions of slavery and emancipation of blacks in this country'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs

I stated that in one of my earlier posts, but I also said that without the slavery issue there would have been no secession. It was the precipitating factor as is clear from each state's declarations at the time. I was accused of falling for revisionist history.

The revisionists are those that try to downplay the importance of that one issue. The truth was that the southern states viewed the right to slavery as sacrosanct. It was an issue that was central to their decision to join the revolution. Of course, they wanted to have their cake and eat it toon On one had they wanted to maintain an absolute right to own slaves. On the other, they wanted those slaves -- treated as chattel under the law -- to be counted for census purposes to increase the value of the southern vote.

The great compromise was that slavery was permitted but was never mentioned in the Constitution. Rather Article 2, section 2 stated that "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." It then stated that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (Art. 1, section 2) Both of these sections were modified following the Civil War.

The South accurately saw the increasing hostility of the northern states towards slavery as a threat to the rights they had negotiated following the revolution. They sought to improve their poltiical position by having slavery instituted in new states and to have territories be bound by the same obligations to return runaway slaves. They seceded when it became apparent that they were going to ultimately lose this battle in the face of opposition to slavery and as it became clear that there was little support for enforcing the law on return of runaways that made it to the north.

The right to dissolve the union was one never mentioned in the Constitution. However, those southern states that felt the need for such a discussion included arguments that the right to secede was inplicit in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They characterized the union as being the equivalent of a gentleman's club where members could leave at will. This was never argued in court by either side. Rather, the southern states seceded and the northern states treated this as an act of insurrection under the Constitution.

Ultimately, the issue of the legality was answered by a devastating war which was won by the Union. Their legal position was subsequently made explicit under law with the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution which were ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures as required. Needless to say, the southern state legislatures were those put into place by the victors, not the losers. Right or wrong, that's how war works when talking no longer suffices.

Every time I hear these issues argued again, I wonder at the motives of those, such as DiLorenzo, who argue the CSA position not as history but as politics. Are you seriously seeking a return to slavery? Are you seeking to dissolve our country even as you wave the flag and urge wars against all those who oppose us?

When I was a kid, these types of discussions were simple warm ups for proclamations against civil rights legislation and all those liberals stirring up trouble. My parents were leaders in the civil rights movement in the 50's in Tennessee, so the same people used to put fish hooks in breadballs and throw them to my dogs and tail my mother for two hours before ticketing her for going 26 mph in a 25 mph zone. I always liked those people. They taught me how to fight.

---

Dilorenzo or no one wants to return to slavery. He just argues there was no provision either way on getting out of the Union. While the north discussed it without threat on two previous occasions. I feel as does Dilorenzo, slavery would have fallen under it's own weight.(I agree with you that slavery was a major factor in the cause, but politically, not for any moral reasons on the Norths side). Where else in the world was a war fought to end slavery?
I think we all lost and gained from the CW. We all lost some freedom the framers intended, but we gained in prosperity with interstate trade, which would have been much more difficult without a powerful central government.

"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." Thomas Jefferson

Slavery is alive and well in Africa. Black slaves are common in many of the countries in Africa and they are owned by black people.
GO figure

Pete

states are sovereign. there would be no government without them. So to say they can't leave that which they created is kind of absurd. It wasn't the constitution that said anything about states leaving it was the declaration of independence. Also look at Jeffersons inaugural address. He stated "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." and again later in a speach he said "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate." I guess I'm not to sure how the states didn't have a right to secede, they created the body known as the federal government and if the people of that state don't want to be a part of it any longer then how can the thing that it created tell you no. Do any of you let your children tell you what you can and can't do? It would be like you living in there house and laying down ground rules and then getting mad at you when you did something they didn't like but wasn't part of the rules...so you leave and they tell you no you have to stay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backpasture

You never stated it, but you just responded to my post refuting those ridiculous arguments with some non-sequiter about 'the repercussions of slavery and emancipation of blacks in this country'.

---

Dude, I don't know what you are smoking but perhaps it would be wise to back away from the pipe before you implode.

Just trying to be helpful to my fellow man,

Mike

Anyone that believes that the Civil War was about slavery simply chooses to ignore the historical facts. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Hester

Anyone that believes that the Civil War was about slavery simply chooses to ignore the historical facts. :rolleyes:

---

It was a factor though. It's main purpose was as a propaganda tool, it certainly was no antislavery crusade.