1855

Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era | 2004 | Nicole Etcheson

[PeterPrinciple]

If you are going to pass judgement on 19th century Americans by using 21st century mores and values then you are going to get a very distorted view of history and come up with very unreasonable conclusions..

---

So what would be the standards for mores and values in the time periods?

So far I see two standards for both time periods that were guiding people.

1) Bible guidelines of what is right and wrong.

2) “Other” which includes economics, power, politics which are closely related.

There are these “touchstones” that we test what is true and right.

Slavery has existed from the beginning of time and will be there until the end. It is in the Bible and in some ways one can perceive it has condoning but the bigger picture is that all men are equal in opportunity and before the law.

The power/economics/political standards were on both sides of the fences.

So have the mores and values really changed?

[rustbucket]

Add me to your ping list, please.

[PeterPrinciple]

Abe would have saved both “evil” slavery and the union if he could

---

My read is a little different on your post. It is the nature of reasonable man to avoid conflict. None of us like it nor look forward to it. History abounds with situations that should have been dealt with earlier than later.

Lincoln saw the conflict coming and knew it was unavoidable , yet did compromises to avoid it. You and I would do the same thing and we and our leaders are doing it today.

The union was a higher priority but slavery was also on the table. It was not for one and not the other, it was priority.

I firmly believe fiscal conservatism is a priority over social conservatism. Not that I don’t care about social conservatism but that if we cut off the money a lot of liberal ideas will die. Many vehemently disagree with me and call me names for my stance.

The issues of abortion, immigration, homos, state vs federal power and others are still on the table and unresolved. We might as well have the fight early to find out what we are about.

just my opoinion, you don’t have to agree.

[central_va]

I would say in the 19th century what passed for common knowledge would not be condoned today.

The model for slavery in the 19th century wasn't master - tortured slave. That is ridiculous, the model would be parent - child. But the child would never be capable of ever taking care of him/herself on their own. No amount of education could raise the slave above his primitive natural state if left to his own devices.

Freeing the slaves was thought a cruel thing to do to a childish/childlike person, only abolitionist were that "evil" to think that freeing slaves all at once with no consideration of the slaves ability to cope was a just thing to do.

[PeterPrinciple]

Freeing the slaves was thought a cruel thing to do to a childish/childlike person, only abolitionist were that “evil” to think that freeing slaves all at once with no consideration of the slaves ability to cope was a just thing to do.

---

So it is still a power/economic/political touchstone, even today as it was then.

What are we going to do with all our welfare slaves? We conservatives want to cut them off and help them survive in ways other than relying on govt and are still the evil ones.....

[central_va]

We conservatives want to cut them off and help them survive in ways other than relying on govt and are still the evil ones.....

I agree. We off shored out manufacturing base, which provided stability to the lower classes and the lower wrungs of the economic ladder to make life better. This was so short sighted and stupid on so many levels. I would like to eliminate the income tax and replace it with tariffs and excise/sales taxes. This would halt the march to socialism.

[PeterPrinciple]

The model for slavery in the 19th century wasn’t master - tortured slave. That is ridiculous, the model would be parent - child.

---

Would you agree that BOTH situations existed then? It is just as ridiculous to say it was only parent - child.

[central_va]

The beaten up chained slave is Hollywood's impression of slavery, did abuse happen? Yes that happened, just like police commit atrocities. Not very often for that most part cops are decent people and do a great job. But a tiny few get all the bad publicity.

None of the slave abuse jives with the fact that slaves were incredibly expensive. A young strong male would cost $100,000 (adjusted for inflation). How much abusing you going to do to your capital investments? Aetna and NY life would sell life insurance policies on slaves. Now if abuse and killing were common would they do that? Reality doesn't jive with the Hollywood version if slavery.

[henkster]

The original colonies, and Texas, could present a facially legitimate argument that they had a right to seceed. States admitted to the Union after the ratification of the Constitution were created by the Union. Having never been independent polities prior to statehood, I don’t believe there is any legitmate argument they could make that they had a right to seceed from the nation that created them.

[central_va]

I don't believe there is any legitmate[sic] argument they could make that they had a right to seceed[sic] from the nation that created them.

The people of the 19th century would never agree with you.

"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."

-- Jefferson Davis

[PeterPrinciple]

I would like to eliminate the income tax and replace it with tariffs and excise/sales taxes. This would halt the march to socialism.

---

I am sorry and hate to bust your balloon. But there are no magic bullets to fix things. The corruption just changes and morphs because that is the nature of man.

We got rid of emphasis on tariffs because of all the corruption and went to income taxes because it was going to solve all the problems and encourage free markets.

I do not necessarily disagree with you but we need to recognize that when ever we fix something with govt, it causes MORE problems than it solves.

So does that make me a pessimist or a realist? Optimist is probably off the table?

[henkster]

Not all of them. Only the ones who were on the wrong side of the war and history.

[central_va]

Instead of this the seceding States cried lustily,-"Let us alone; you have no constitutional power to interfere with us." Newspapers and people at the North reiterated the cry. Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the Nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves. The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.

-- US Grant

[PeterPrinciple]

How much abusing you going to do to your capital investments?

---

Again, I refer you to the nature of man. What are the rats doing to our national capital resources. What do many employers do to their most productive employees. I have worked with farmers that destroy every piece of equipment they own.

Some will think like you propose, MANY WILL NOT.

[henkster]

But they didn’t.

As another poster has pointed out, if you believe a great injustice was done, the Constitution contains provisions for its alteration and you are free to avail yourself of them.

[central_va]

So tell me straight up yes or no, do YOU feel it would have been justice if Lee and Davis had been hanged for treason after the Civil War? I want YOUR opinion no one else’s.

[PeterPrinciple]

The original colonies, and Texas, could present a facially legitimate argument that they had a right to seceed. States admitted to the Union after the ratification of the Constitution were created by the Union. Having never been independent polities prior to statehood, I don’t believe there is any legitmate argument they could make that they had a right to seceed from the nation that created them.

---

Now you made me think also. If I go to recent history it would be the USSR. Did Poland have a right to succeed from the USSR to become an independent nation? One of the factors that led to the demise of USSR was satellite countries asserting their power and beginning to ignore the central authority.

We have states now that are beginning to ignore federal rules and regulation with obamacare being an example. Personally, I applaud states taking back powers in principle but also know that there will be problems. Is this is a “revolution” or maybe a form of “secession”

Are rights and legitimacy really factors?

[CougarGA7]

The people of the 19th century would never agree with you.

Not all of them.

"The Constitution of the United States then forms a government not a league; and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same....each State having expressly parted with so many power as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, cannot, from that period, posses any right to secede, because such a secession does not break a league, but destroys the units of a nation; and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offence against the whole Union." - Andrew Jackson

The opposing views were debated just as vehemently then as it sometimes still is today.

[henkster]

Legally, yes, they could have been hanged. Would it have been “just?” That’s a matter of subjective opinion. My personal opinion is that, in the interests of healing the wounds and reuniting the nation, it was best to not hang them.

[Pelham]

You do admit that the United States were born out of secession from the United Kingdom?

“But if you’re going to go outside of the Constitution and revolt, you better have a really good moral cause for your actions, because you’re going to have to justify it to God and the whole world.”

I imagine that Barack Obama’s idea of “a really good moral cause” and his conception of “God and the whole world” differ dramatically from mine. That’s always the problem with arguing for subjective judgements of that sort.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolves of 1798, authored by Jefferson and Madison, show the two to be strong defenders of state’s rights versus the national government, granting states the power to nullify federal law. George Washington didn’t like the resolves, clearly seeing that they could lead to disunion. But it can’t be argued that the Founders were set against secession when two of the more prominent ones authored the Resolves.

“If you can’t do that, and premise your rebellion on an unjust cause, you’re probably never going to gain access to the kind of physical means it’s going to take to carry out your revolutionary acts.”

King George believed that the American Patriot cause was unjust. But since France was happy to poke a stick in the eye of England they were more than happy to provide us with arms, French Marines, and more importantly their navy. The Revolution was won at the Battle of the Capes when Admiral Francois Paul defeated the British fleet sent to reinforce and rescue Cornwallis at Yorktown.