Posted on 08/01/2022 9:00:05 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
For some time I have wondered how to explain the cause of the Civil War in simple terms that are easy to understand. I now see that Ayn Rand did it years ago. Laws passed by a Northern controlled Congress routed all the money produced by the South into Northern "elite" pockets.
You, of course, are free to cite anything you might wish as "necessary".
But if you wish to invoke our Founders imprimatur, then you will need to go by their definitions, and they regarded the British declaration of war on Americans as a "necessary" cause for revolution.
Nothing happening in 1860 remotely fit our Founders' understanding of either "necessity" or "mutual consent."
Right, see my post #350. The ratio of Union to Confederate Kentucky soldiers was roughly 3.5 to one.
The term for that is "preemptive attack".
It's what many aggressive nations have claimed as their justification for starting wars.
But history does not usually look kindly on such aggressive nations and that is one reason why, for just one example, that the United States took no blatant military actions against the Japanese before December 7, 1941.
Oh, dear... now did I just hurt your sensitive feeeeeeeeelings?
Both in numbers and percentages, Southern conscripts outnumbered Union conscripts considerably:
Yeah, but it wasn't the "moral roots" that were driving northern opposition to slavery. It was hatred and fear.
They hated blacks, and they feared they would take away their jobs.
The economic roots of abolitionism came from free-men not wanting to compete against "free" slave labor.
Exactly right, and it was by far the more significant factor in the 1850s-1860s.
The political roots of abolitionism came from Northern politicians not wishing to grant Southern slavocrats more unbalanced political power than they already enjoyed, via the Constitution's 3/5 rule.
This is mostly correct. Every state had two senators, and to this day I resent that Rhode Island has two. There are a lot of itty bitty states in the Northeast that ought to be combined to make a single state. They have more power than they deserve.
Those seem perfectly reasonable to me, so your problem with them is what, exactly?
My problem is that all our lives we have been led to believe that opposition to slavery was only for moral reasons and this has always been a deliberate attempt to misinform the public. I myself didn't realize it was incorrect until a few years ago when I learned the reality in the North was very different from what we had been taught.
The hated black people. They hated the idea of black people living among them. They also hated the idea that black people might take a job away from them.
They weren't moral at all. They were just as nasty and vicious as we have all been led to believe the Southerners were.
My problem is people trying to feed me bullsh*t. Usually when someone is covering up the truth, it's not because they have your best interest at heart.
First, Congress defines "due process"...
The term precedes the congress. Congress can't reach back in time and change the meanings of things already written.
Fifth Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
.
.
.
and second, there was no intimidation --
They spent 4 years fighting a war to keep slavery, but just gave it up because they realized the error of their ways? You gonna go with that?
none, zero, nada intimidation -- of lawful voting Southern US citizens after the Civil War.
The assertion that the citizens of the state were "unlawful" citizens is asinine. At this time, the States defined who were their citizens, not the Federal government.
The Federal government appropriating this power is tyranny, and it is unlawful.
But if you believe in depriving people of their rights is correct and proper, then I don't see where we can reach an agreement on this topic.
I will point out that I made mention of the same issue on "Instapundit", and Law Professor Glenn Reynolds responded to my comment saying that Law school Academics find the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments "problematic" because there was no authority to strip citizens of the right to vote.
You are not reading carefully. I didn't say "Maryland", I said "Mayland." It was an area in one of the Southern states that did not support the Confederacy, and caught hell from both sides.
Regardless of your pro-Confederate fantasies, the Civil War was declared officially over by President Johnson on August 20, 1866.
Well, like the Democrats, you won't bow to reality, but will instead define everything in such a manner that it can be forced to fit what you wish to believe.
Lincoln's own statement on the matter has been posted upthread. It contradicts your claim.
Couldn't get any ships. Wasn't allowed to use Foreign ships and had to go through the Northeastern monopoly where they priced the carrying fees just beneath the cost of all the fines and penalties he would pay from trying to use foreign ships or crew.
It was a great little racket for the North, and it was enforced by the Federal government. Kinda like all those "vaccines" that are made in Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey.
I hear Pfizer made 90 billion. Best year they ever had.
People decide for themselves what is painful and unbearable. I am not arrogant enough to believe I should have the right to decide for them.
But if you wish to invoke our Founders imprimatur, then you will need to go by their definitions, and they regarded the British declaration of war on Americans as a "necessary" cause for revolution.
Like this one? "He has incited domestic insurrections amongst us..." (Meaning slave rebellions.)
Nothing happening in 1860 remotely fit our Founders' understanding of either "necessity" or "mutual consent."
There was no "mutual consent" with the British, and it astonishes me that you continue trying to hang on to that silly argument when it clearly is not related to anything the founders did.
They decided unilaterally that they wanted out of the British Union and so they just left.
And as I have pointed out to you numerous times, the Canadians, under the exact same rule as Massachusetts, did not see the colonies reasons for leaving as "necessity."
What would they be "preempting" then?
I very greatly doubt you will say "a coming attack."
for just one example, that the United States took no blatant military actions against the Japanese before December 7, 1941.
And here we go again with your silly effort to make Fort Sumter into Pearl Harbor. I wouldn't be surprised if your own allies cringed at this.
Oh, dear... now did I just hurt your sensitive feeeeeeeeelings?
I've got think skin. Pretty sure I can bear it.
That statement outside of the timeline context and necessity involved is meaningless.
The Confederacy was fighting a war of survival, the North was fighting a war of subjugation. I give defenders a lot more leeway morally than I do attackers.
The total numbers serving the Union army were around 2.5 million, so there were far fewer conscripts in the North vs. Confederates.
And again, out of context. The North's population was 4 times the size of the South, and that was before they dragooned the Irish off the boats.
This nation drafted men for war, even when our own survival as a nation was not under threat.
Here you go Bro! Wisconsin Supreme Court can explain it to you!
“If elections are conducted outside of the law, the people have not conferred their consent on the government. Such elections are unlawful, and their results are illegitimate.” — Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, writing for the Wisconsin Supreme Court majority in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
You don’t pay attention to detail. The Navigation Act applied to shipping between US ports, so Southerners could send cotton to Europe on whatever ships they wanted. Indeed most cotton that went overseas did go out through Southern ports. The Warehousing Act didn’t apply to exports, so there was no unfair Northern advantage their either.
Blue states? I’m enamored of blue states? In a pigs eye Reb.
I’m a conservative, an American through and through.
You’re not. You’re Democrat in conservative clothing.
You ought to paying the man for the education his giving you.
You f’ing Rebs are the limit. Coming here calling yourselves conservatives while you worship treasonous Southern Democrats.
Bullshit stupid. He sent on resupply ship.
Take your meds and shut up.
It’s not musings you idiot. It’s the truth.
You Rebs make me sick.
Conservatives my ass, you’re Democrats.
You probably need to "lighten up, Francis."
Here's something for you Reb.
Look up The Army's Surgeons Manual authored by William C. Grace. William C. Grace was the Chief Medical Steward for The Surgeon's Generals Office in Washington DC during the CW. William C. Grace was my gg grandfather. I was born in the northeastern NJ town of Kearny. Named for it's most famous son Union General Phil Kearny. I know who I am Reb. Who are you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.