To be like Lincoln

[backpasture]

Defeat at Appomattox proves nothing as to the legality of the South's secession.

Really?? So, did they take their case to the courts and argue its legal merits? Where is the right to secession in the Consitution? Or, where is it written into law? We are a country of LAWS. The only place where secession is legal is in your fantasy life.

'The rules of engagement of the left', as you put it, apparently means basing your beliefs and arguments on reality.

Of course, when you believe that the south has a legal argument for secession, and that the slaves in America were no worse off than the citizens of a modern 2nd world country, then it's hard to find many folks who aren't to 'the left' of you politically.

[YardleyLabs]

So Lincoln did not shell civilians which was illegal at the time, suspend habeas corpus, close newspapers which didn't agree with him, and even lock up politicians(northern) who disagreed? Northern states did not convene in 1814 and 1832 to decide on secession? And Jefferson did not say "In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."? Please point out where Dr. Dilorenzo has lied.

I guess since nearly a 3/4 of a million casualties to free 4 million slaves was "essential" and worth it, 30,000 US casualties in Iraq to free 24 million people was a bargain

Apparently the issues at stake were worth it to the Confederacy since, as far as I can determine, more Union soldiers were killed than members of the Confederacy. Death toll per the Encyclopedia Americana:

• United States: 360,222
  • k. in battle: 67,058
  • d. of wounds: 43,012
  • [Total battle deaths: 110,070]
• Confederacy: 258,000
  • k. in battle: 94,000
• [TOTAL: 618,222]

Civilian deaths are estimated at 50,000 total (both sides). Non-battle deaths came from a variety of sources, most notoriously, deaths in prison camps operated by both sides, largely from starvation and disease.

I don't know about shelling civilians, although I suspect that both sides did that to some extent. Suspension of habeas corpus was definitely done as permitted by Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution in case of insurrection. Other than DiLorenzo, I haven't found details concerning northern secession. Presumably nothing came of it.

On the issue of my "revisionist" theory that slavery was the most immediate issue leading to secession, I offer the following:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Those sound like pretty clear statements to me. The "revisionists" are those who now try to downplay the central role of slavery from the very beginning of the secession movement. (quotes from http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) For those arguing these issues, I think it only appropriate to include sources for claims made.

[Captain Mike D]

Apparently the issues at stake were worth it to the Confederacy since, as far as I can determine, more Union soldiers were killed than members of the Confederacy. Death toll per the Encyclopedia Americana:

• United States: 360,222
  • k. in battle: 67,058
  • d. of wounds: 43,012
  • [Total battle deaths: 110,070]
• Confederacy: 258,000
  
  • k. in battle: 94,000
• [TOTAL: 618,222]

Civilian deaths are estimated at 50,000 total (both sides). Non-battle deaths came from a variety of sources, most notoriously, deaths in prison camps operated by both sides, largely from starvation and disease.

I don't know about shelling civilians, although I suspect that both sides did that to some extent. Suspension of habeas corpus was definitely done as permitted by Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution in case of insurrection. Other than DiLorenzo, I haven't found details concerning northern secession. Presumably nothing came of it.

On the issue of my "revisionist" theory that slavery was the most immediate issue leading to secession, I offer the following:









Those sound like pretty clear statements to me. The "revisionists" are those who now try to downplay the central role of slavery from the very beginning of the secession movement. (quotes from http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) For those arguing these issues, I think it only appropriate to include sources for claims made.

After about forty years I will not be able to site sources from my early education in NC but this may help /www.civilwar.com/component/option,com_premiermenu/Itemid,62/

Please read through ALL of the materials offered from the Panicof of 1857 through the slavery issues. There were many issues that caused the secession.

[Captain Mike D]

Really?? So, did they take their case to the courts and argue its legal merits? Where is the right to secession in the Consitution? Or, where is it written into law? We are a country of LAWS. The only place where secession is legal is in your fantasy life.

'The rules of engagement of the left', as you put it, apparently means basing your beliefs and arguments on reality.

Of course, when you believe that the south has a legal argument for secession, and that the slaves in America were no worse off than the citizens of a modern 2nd world country, then it's hard to find many folks who aren't to 'the left' of you politically.

Why don't you ask Walter Williams- Professor of Economics at George Mason University the repercussions of slavery and emancipation of blacks in this country.

Knowing his race may be a factor for you to be able to validate his theories in your mind He is a black man.

By the way D.S. you should know the person you are writing to before you use the term - You.

[backpasture]

Why don't you ask Walter Williams- Professor of Economics at George Mason University the repercussions of slavery and emancipation of blacks in this country.

Knowing his race may be a factor for you to be able to validate his theories in your mind He is a black man.

What does this have to do with your argument the arguments that 1) The south was 'legally' entitled to secede. 2) That slaves in America supposedly had it as good as the citizens of Iraq at least (before we kicked the hornet's nest there and 'liberated' them).

Are you now arguing that freeing the slaves was a bad thing?

[tpaschal30]

Really?? So, did they take their case to the courts and argue its legal merits? Where is the right to secession in the Consitution? Or, where is it written into law? We are a country of LAWS. The only place where secession is legal is in your fantasy life.

'The rules of engagement of the left', as you put it, apparently means basing your beliefs and arguments on reality.

Of course, when you believe that the south has a legal argument for secession, and that the slaves in America were no worse off than the citizens of a modern 2nd world country, then it's hard to find many folks who aren't to 'the left' of you politically.

Show us in the Constitution where it is illegal. There was no mention.

[Captain Mike D]

What does this have to do with your argument the arguments that 1) The south was 'legally' entitled to secede. 2) That slaves in America supposedly had it as good as the citizens of Iraq at least (before we kicked the hornet's nest there and 'liberated' them).

Are you now arguing that freeing the slaves was a bad thing?

Hey Man,

Why don't you stop foaming at the mouth and look back at the posts through the thread.
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.

So go peddle your elitest hatred somewhere else, or better still, why don't you go put an MH after whatever that pups name is in your avatar.
And while you are at it why don't you come out of the closet and let us all know you you are.

[Captain Mike D]

Show us in the Constitution where it is illegal. There was no mention.

Congress violated Article 1 Section 9 re: tarriffs upon the goods of states.

You are right, No mention regarding the states right to seceed.

[YardleyLabs]

After about forty years I will not be able to site sources from my early education in NC but this may help /www.civilwar.com/component/option,com_premiermenu/Itemid,62/

Please read through ALL of the materials offered from the Panicof of 1857 through the slavery issues. There were many issues that caused the secession.

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.

[backpasture]

Show us in the Constitution where it is illegal. There was no mention.

So, again I ask: Did the southern states argue the merits of this ridiculous argument in a court of law, and prove the 'legality' of secession?

Your argument is ridiculous. There is no 'legal' secession. Interesting to hear the kinds of arguments they make out on the lunatic fringe, though.