Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux
“Maybe you just don’t appreciate how lucky you are to be an American.”
Considering the dozen Revolutionary War soldiers that I have as ancestors there is no luck involved it’s in my blood. Maybe you should feel grateful that you get to sponge off of what they created.
So as regards Post #36, I would like to reiterate that the United States of America did not enter the War against the Secessionist states due to slavery, they entered it only to maintain the Union. Lincoln was very clear on this issue. Slavery was, at best, a secondary issue as to why the United States fought (the South, on the other hand…). Therefore, any comments on Lincoln’s actions regarding Maryland or the impact of the Emancipation Proclamation are moot as to why the War was fought. Both were tactical moves towards the main United States goals of maintaining the Union.
As regards the tariff issue, I do agree that this was an important issue, and one that South Carolina mentioned in the 1860 “Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States”. By the way, don’t you find it very interesting that this was an address to the SLAVEHOLDING, and not the high tariff states? I do, and I think it’s indicative of the prioritization of their grievances. When you read this address the first 9 paragraphs do talk about tariffs and compare the United States government to the British government. Interestingly, they go from “taxation without representation” to “taxation without a representation adequate to protection” and state that there is no difference. It appears that they only liked democracy when they were in the majority. It is in paragraph 10 where the fun begins (you know what’s coming, don’t you). I quote “…if the people of the North, have the power by Congress–”to promote the general welfare of the United States,” by any means they deem expedient–why should they not assail and overthrow the institution of slavery in the South?”. The document then goes on to continue to talk about slavery. The last sentence in the document, directed to the other Seceding states, is a kicker. “We ask you to join us, in forming a Confederacy of Slaveholding States.” So, while this document does address tariffs, a reading of it shows that the main thrust of the document is Slavery, and not tariffs. As an interesting historical note, the issues of tariffs did cause a true national crisis. Only problem was, this was the Tariff of 1828, known in the South as the Tariff of Abominations. This caused South Carolina to enact the South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification in 1832. It was largely resolved by Tariff of 1832. I ask you to note the dates: 1828, 1832. What do these dates have in common? How about the fact that 1832 was over a generation removed from the start of the Civil War? If Tariffs were a main point in starting the Civil War, what action on tariffs by the Federal government precipitated the crisis leading to Secession? I would be very grateful if you would point out the action by the Federal government in the 2 years preceding Secession on Tariffs that caused this crisis. I have been unable to find anything.
This comment goes on to state that only 5 of the 13 Confederate States mentioned slavery issues in their Secession Ordinances. Let’s go through each and see.
1. South Carolina –mention of slavery (and essentially nothing but Slavery) – no mention of Tariffs
2. Georgia – mention of slavery (and essentially nothing but Slavery) – no mention of Tariffs
3. Mississippi – boy howdy do they mention slavery! This one requires a quote, the first sentence of the second paragraph: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery— the greatest material interest of the world.” – no mention of Tariffs
4. Texas - mention of slavery (and essentially nothing but Slavery) – no mention of Tariffs
5. Virginia – basically nothing but a 4 paragraph statement that they are seceding, although it does include the statement “…the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.” That strongly implies it’s about slavery.
6. North Carolina – a 2 paragraph statement that essentially says, we’re going. No mention of any reason for going.
7. Florida - mention of slavery (and essentially nothing but Slavery) – no mention of Tariffs
8. Alabama – pretty short and sweet. The only thing it mentions as a cause is the election of Lincoln.
9. Louisiana – a 4 paragraph statement that essentially says, we’re going. No mention of any reason for going.
10. Arkansas – pretty short and sweet. The only thing it mentions as a cause is the election of “the sectional party now in power in Washington City”.
11. Tennessee – a 3 paragraph statement that essentially says, we’re going. No mention of any reason for going.
So for the writer to make the assertion that “…only 5 of the 13 Confederate States mentioned slavery issues in their Secession Ordinances”, that is true but still misleading. The real answer is, of the States that mentioned a reason for going, ALL of them referenced slavery as the primary cause, and NONE of them mentioned tariffs at all.
With this long thread, I’m afraid we’re getting away from my main point. That point is, that the South seceded from the United States solely due to slavery. The North entered into the war solely to preserve the Union. The Ordinances of Secession, where they gave any reason at all, are very clear that the preservation of slavery, and it’s expansion into the territories were the only reason they seceded. Even the address by South Carolina to the Slaveholding States quickly devolves from tariffs to slavery. I have no doubt that the South had many other grievances, but none of them rose to the level of Secession.
“Shouldn’t we rely more on the speeches and writings of the Southern and Northern leaders of the time rather than analysis from people who were not part of it?”
Yes, let’s. You will find that most said the war was NOT about slavery. Hell, go straight to the horse’s mouth: Lincoln himself never said he waged war over slavery. Many leading Union military officers said they never would have fought the war if it had been over slavery. They were almost unanimous in saying the war was fought to “preserve the Union.”
Are you kidding me? So, are you now finally admitting that secession was not unconstitutional?
You gonna quote Marx to justify the civil war?
You lose by default.
And yet there is “bleeding Kansas”...the moneky wrench of voilent conflicts directly over slavery before the Civil war.
I swear you neo confederates like to pretend the Civl war just popped up out of nowhere as through there werent already decades of violent confrontations over slavery.
And once again....Baldwin is a 9/11 truther and everything he says becomes suspect...I wouldnt put a lot of stock into what he writes.
But what was the Southern motivation? Look at the writings and speeches of the Southern leaders and the motivation was slavery.
Once more than one state secedes it is no longer unilateral.
“I’ve never claimed that secession was unconstitutional. My claim is that unilateral secession as practiced by the slavocrasy was clearly illegal and ultimately judged to be unconstitutional.”
Where in the Constitution that was in effect in 1860 and 1861 was secession — unilaterally or not — prohibited?
Ex-post facto laws are convenient for those who want to justify their unjustifiable actions. Saying secession was illegal after the fact only seeks to assuage the blame the North had for fighting the war in the first place, for “preserving the Union.” Their clarion call that the war for the preservation of the Union can ONLY be acceptable if secession were deemed illegal. We know that Lincoln did not fight the war to free the slaves, but we do know that Lincoln’s reason for fighting the war was to preserve the revenues that a united country brought to the national coffers. Why else would Lincoln have fought it? A Confederate States of America posed no physical threat, but it was a financial loss to the federal treasury, and that was something Lincoln could not abide.
Staying in the Union would cost the South millions (for instance, see the Morrill Tariff as an example), but the Southern states leaving the Union would cost the North millions (because more than 80% of all revenues were spent in the North, though the Southern states contributed the majority of revenues to the federal treasury, and under the new tariffs would be called upon to contribute even more).
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Full Definition of UNILATERAL
1
a : done or undertaken by one person or party
b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : one-sided
c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party
It's more like the states (collective) telling errant states what they can and can't do. That's the way the country was wired, first in 1777 with the Articles of Confederation, and again in 1788 with the ratification of the United States Constitution.
Article I (Article 1 - Legislative) of the Constitution spells out duties and responsibilities of Congress.
Section 10Thus no states may enter into independent confederacies - only Congress possesses that authority.1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Article II (Article 2 - Executive) establishes the role of the executive (president).
Article III (Article 3 - Judicial) defines the duties and responsibilities of the judicial branch - essentially the Supreme Court.
Section 21: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Thus the Constitution grants the Supreme Court (the collective states) authority and jurisdiction over disputes between states.
Article IV (Article 4 - States' Relations) defines the relationship of the states to the whole.
Section 31: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Thus it is up to Congress to admit or expel states. In the event of a circumstance such as happened with West Virginia, it is up to Congress plus the affected states to make such a division. Individual states do not possess the authority to do so - not legally at any rate.
To recap: yes it is a case of the federal government telling the states what they can and cannot do - that is the way the law was designed. No, it doesn't go against the 10th amendment because the Constitution granted the appropriate powers to both the Congress to define and organize the states and to the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between the states.
As to rising up in revolt - if you do so you had best be able to prove your case against an alleged "dictatorial government" or you're likely going to have a rough go of it. The Colonialists did; the insurrectionists didn't.
“You gonna quote Marx to justify the civil war? You lose by default.”
I’m not citing Marx to justify the Civil War. I’m citing him (and he was just one of several neutrals) to explain that the war was about economics, and tariffs, not about slavery.
Hell, the North never claimed it was about slavery until it eventually realized they had to come up with some moral excuse to justify the slaughter, and admitting that they fought the war for economic reasons was not going to sit well with history. The victors get to write the history — and they ONLY write their side of the story, and they must make themselves look good, and moral, and just. That’s just fact.
Look, I wish there had never been any secessions, and that the country could have worked out its differences. I wish there had never been a Civil War, because there is nothing more tragic, or more ugly than a civil war. But in order to avoid civil wars people must be honest about the causes of previous civil wars.
By golly you (almost) got the definition right. Too bad you don’t use any of the definitions that you supplied.
Unilateral Secession is the circumstance wherein not all parties are participants to the act. In the case of the southern rebellion no northern states had any say in the proceedings. The north claimed that this act was illegal and this opinion was ultimately sustained by the supreme court.
Neo Confederate, am I? Because I seek the truth about how and why the damn thing was ever fought in the first place makes me a Neo Confederate? You sound like one of those “My country, right or wrong!” folks. Germany in the 1930s and 1940s had quite a few people who thought like that. You sound like a good little Bundist.
For 20 days there was one party, South Carolina, which unilaterally seceded. on Jan 9th 1861 unilateral secession ended.
You live in the People’s Socialist Republic of Washington. You must like paying high taxes, and being governed by hardcore leftists (I mean, it’s not every state that has a statue dedicated to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin). You live in a state where when the Democrat candidate for governor lost, they had to recount, and recount, and continue to recount until — voila! — enough “missing” ballots were found in the trunk of someone’s car to put her over the top! That sounds like Josef Stalin’s famous idiom that it doesn’t matter who votes, what matters is who counts the votes. So can I assume you accept and embrace an all-powerful and tyrannical government, where cultural Marxism is the order of the day?
Because, rest assured, there are millions of Americans who do not subscribe to that. And if such tyranny is imposed on them you can expect a fight. And the next civil war will make the last one look like child’s play. I pray God it never gets to that point. But if it does, all bets are off.
Whose side will you be on? The side of tyranny, or the side of freedom?
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.