Texas students take aim at Jefferson Davis campus statue

waff.com ^ | May 9, 2015 | David Warren

[riverdawg]

“Many Confederates viewed their insurrection as a second war of independence against tyranny.

What tyranny specifically?”

In its Declaration of Secession, South Carolina explicitly mentions the abrogation by fourteen states of Section 2, Article IV of the U.S. Constitution:

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp

This Constitutional crisis, and the election in 1860 of Lincoln, who was vilified by many in the slave holding states for his famous “house divided” remarks during and after the debates with Douglas, precipitated the series of successions.

Here I am trying to represent the common perspective of many in the South at the time, not to defend it.

[DoodleDawg]

Well I asked for examples of the tyranny that you said caused the Southern states to secede and you respond with actions by individual states, all of which I believe were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So if we can agree that an accurate definition of tyranny is “cruel and oppressive government or rule” then can you tell me exactly what tyranny the South was trying to flee?

[riverdawg]

Don’t you think that the failure of fourteen states to uphold an article of the U.S. Constitution could have been reasonably interpreted by elected officials in the other states as “oppressive government or rule” worthy of “trying to flee”?

[DoodleDawg]

Don’t you think that the failure of fourteen states to uphold an article of the U.S. Constitution could have been reasonably interpreted by elected officials in the other states as “oppressive government or rule” worthy of “trying to flee”?

You're kidding, right?

[riverdawg]

We could spend years, as some historians have, debating the motivations of the leaders of the various states that seceded from the Union. Instead, why not read and think about what they wrote at that time in the various declarations of secession? And you might start by answering the question I posed in my last post.

[DoodleDawg]

What I’m trying to identify are those acts of tyranny that you claim provoked the Southern secession. I know all the excuses that the South gave for their actions. I’m trying to understand the oppressive or unjustly severe conditions that the South was laboring under. The arbitrary acts of a cruel government which they had no say in. All the actions which define a tyranny, and I’m afraid I can’t find them.

[riverdawg]

“What I’m trying to identify are those acts of tyranny that you claim provoked the Southern secession.”

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 3

“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.”

This provision of the U.S. Constitution was widely unenforced in the North, as were the various Federal Fugitive Slave Acts and numerous affirming Federal court decisions. Many Southerners viewed this as a form of tyranny, as indicated by the language in several of the declarations of secession, and an abrogation of the famous Compromise of 1850. Of course, the long-standing animus between the North and the South also involved other issues unrelated directly to slavery, such as the protective tariffs and non-tariff restrictions on imported machinery and the “free soil” movement.

[DoodleDawg]

This provision of the U.S. Constitution was widely unenforced in the North, as were the various Federal Fugitive Slave Acts and numerous affirming Federal court decisions

I'm still not seeing how this qualifies as "tyranny" under the commonly accepted definition but maybe that's just me.

You yourself mentioned how the federal government passed laws to ensure Article IV was enforced. That doesn't sound like tyranny to me. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 were both meant to strip fleeing slaves of any legal protections they may have had. So it isn't non-compliance that the Southern states complained about, it was the fact that they thought that the fleeing slaves had habeas corpus rights and the protections of the court which guaranteed them a fair legal hearing before being extradited. Southern states couldn't handle that. Also you complain that the Northern states didn't enforce the law. But the Prigg v. Pennsylvania decision made it clear that federal laws were federal responsibility to enforce, and that states could not be compelled to do it for them. So maybe if the federal government forced the states to do their bidding, that might have qualified as tyranny. But they didn't.

Of course, the long-standing animus between the North and the South also involved other issues unrelated directly to slavery, such as the protective tariffs and non-tariff restrictions on imported machinery and the “free soil” movement.

Again, where is the tyranny of an oppressive and overreaching federal government in any of that?

[riverdawg]

It is true that the federal government, and some state governments in the North, had laws on the books that nominally enforced Article V. But these were widely ignored are rarely enforced against those harboring or abetting the harboring of escaped slaves. There were clear moral reasons for this widespread, open, and personal nullification of the Fugitive Slave Acts among citizens and their elected officials in the North. But the bottom line is that many Southerners viewed such nullification as a form of tyranny by federal and Northern state officials, much like some of us view many of President Obama’s executive actions as a form of tyranny.

[DoodleDawg]

But these were widely ignored are rarely enforced against those harboring or abetting the harboring of escaped slaves.

As I said before, states could not be compelled to enforce federal law.

But the bottom line is that many Southerners viewed such nullification as a form of tyranny by federal and Northern state officials, much like some of us view many of President Obama’s executive actions as a form of tyranny.

And we all know that the South never, ever even considered nullification in any way, shape or form. </sarcasm>

[riverdawg]

“As I said before, states could not be compelled to enforce federal law.”

But some states were failing to enforce their own laws, as well.

“And we all know that the South never, ever even considered nullification in any way, shape or form. </sarcasm>”

I think it was my mother who first told me “two wrongs don’t make a right”.

In any case, I was simply trying to use the words of the secessionists to convey what might have been their interpretation of various actions by federal and state officials as “tyrannical.”

[Rebelbase]

” opponents argue the memorials are too often insensitive or antagonistic”

Poor feelings. Always getting hurt. If they don’t like the monument they can look away.

[hal ogen]

I find these idiot “students” offensive. If there parents are aware of their student’s ignorance, they should stop funding their purported “education”.

[DoodleDawg]

But some states were failing to enforce their own laws, as well.

What laws were those? The ones requiring a writ of habeas corpus, runaway slave or not? Or which guaranteed a slave the right to legal proceedings before being extradited? Laws like that?

I think it was my mother who first told me “two wrongs don’t make a right”.

No but it does make the first wrong guilty of incredible hypocrisy.

[x]

If they don’t like the monument they can look away.

Although the statues are literally carved in stone or cast in bronze, if enough people don't like them, the university probably won't keep them around.

As the statues are part of an ensemble, what to do with the space if students don't want the statues is going to be a problem for the university.

[rockrr]

Instead, why not read and think about what they wrote at that time in the various declarations of secession?

I have - all of them. And I've compared them to the Declaration of Independence as a sort of benchmark since so many lost causers attempt to apply that in an analogous way to their insurrection. They all come up short and they all seem contrived - with the exception of those which told the honest truth - that they were quitting over slavery.

The plain, unvarnished truth is that, although there was friction and strife, there was no tyranny.

[riverdawg]

I have no argument with the claim that the driving force of the secessions was Lincoln's election and his determination to end slavery; that's clear in most (but not all) of the individual declarations. And it's clear from his writings and speeches that he was willing to use force to maintain the union and to abolish slavery. That was the morally correct position. But I don't see a contradiction between acknowledging that slavery was the core issue leading up to the rebellion and understanding that many Southerners believed that the Union was breaking a compact (the Constitution, the Compromise of 1850, and various other state and federal laws) in a tyrannical (I.e., extra-legal) way in doing so.