In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. (fact checking time)

breitbart.com ^ | July 5th | TruthFinderXXX

[DiogenesLamp]

A conflict that ended 150 years ago.

A conflict that boiled over 150 years ago, but continues today. A conflict even now that impinges upon the desire of states to be free of the rule of Washington D.C. and the North Eastern (and now Western Coast) elites.

[DiogenesLamp]

Which is sort of like saying that the benefit an extortion victim receives is that he gets to continue living.

You would regard the refusal of the South to sign an agreement with the North as a form of extortion?

Hyperbole much?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

It’s a weird form of slavery that pays an above-average (for China) wage, pays overtime, and has a waiting list of people seeking jobs.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You’re the one who said that the deal was accept southern demands or be conquered by Britain. “They wouldn’t have gotten a deal otherwise, so apparently whatever benefit they received was a consequence of the Deal they made! (It was continuing independence from England. That was their benefit. )”

[DiogenesLamp]

I think the “fight to free the slaves” was a good rallying cry as the battles went on and the thought process of the front line men turned to, “Why the hell am I 1,500 miles from home shooting up some guy and burning his home.” It gave the Union “moral cover.”

One of my primary arguments. It was an ex post facto rationalization for sending men to stop other men from gaining Independence. Just such an occurrence as was predicted in Anti-Federalist paper # 29.

Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.

.

.

But the Congregationalist Yankee conservative nature of my moral upbringing just cannot conceive of anyone thinking it was OK to buy and sell another human.

But would you buy their freedom? If I recall properly, a slave cost about $7,000 dollars. Those people who bought them spent that money when the industry was legal, and billions of dollars of saved wealth was invested into this industry, and then stripped from them with no compensation when it was made illegal. Those loses were not suffered equally, but borne completely by people who had done nothing illegal at the time.

I suppose it was a lot easier to rob them and kill them than it was to pay them, because the moral diversion of "Slavery is now Bad" can always be used to cover up the murder and robbery thus justified.

Long post, but that’s how I came to my thinking on the civil war.

Much insight can be discerned in your thoughts on the subject. Not something you've considered lightly.

My thinking is another borrow from Lincoln. When it comes to a war of principles, "One war at a time."

The first principle of this nation is that there is a God given right to separate from a larger Union. That ought to be the primary focus of discussion rather than Slavery, which was condoned by the Union until a group of them tried to escape.

[DiogenesLamp]

Got bogged down. Not sure the method is usable. Too many unpredictable variables.

I empathize with that problem emphatically.

Most people don’t know that in most northern states emancipation was gradual. At least the northeastern states. The midwest states were born free. At least in theory.

It started in Massachusetts with the freedom trials; Abolition societies suing slave owners for illegal incarceration. They pointed to the newly created Massachusetts constitution as the supreme law (which was filled with new noble ideas inspired by the Declaration of Independence) and it stated that "All men are born free and equal", and that was that for the trial.

Of course, Liberal Massachusetts was even back then using court cases to overturn existing laws. They prefer their monarchs in Judges robes.

If I remember correctly NJ still had a very few slaves in 1860.

1865. I recently checked.

[rockrr]

Hyperbole much?

[rockrr]

Those loses were not suffered equally, but borne completely by people who had done nothing illegal at the time.

except wage war against their own country.

[DiogenesLamp]

Divorce for cause, if you will, not divorce at pleasure.

This clause carries a lot of weight in my opinion.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

My thinking is that to err on the side of caution, "Just cause" should be left to the eye of the beholder. The English argued that the Colonists really didn't have a good reason for leaving, the stamp acts had been repealed, they were discussing representation in parliament, and most of their grievances were being addressed.

The colonists disagreed that their grievances had been adequately assuaged, and so they invoked their "natural law" right to leave and form their own government.

I will point out to you that the only extant philosopher of natural law that argued the right to independence and the right to form a Free Republic was Emerich de Vattel. No other writer of natural law would have dared suggest such a thing because all the rest of them lived in Monarchies.

Only Vattel, as a citizen of the Kingless Swiss Republic could make such a bold suggestion. The Idea of Independence was put into their heads by Vattel. :)

The DoI was simply not about whether they had a “right” to rebel and, if successful, be independent. It was t show why their rebellion was moral and justified.

But the argument that a Union which was the consequence of voluntary assent can also be dissolved by removing that consent, would seem to me a very powerful argument.

Indeed, many Northern newspapers of the time agreed. Their Headlines were along the lines of "Go in Peace our Bretheren". Much of the North had no interest in forcing the South back into the Union, and were it not for the recalcitrance and hyperbole streaming out of Washington they would have left their secession a fait accompli.

A sh*t they really did not give till they were stirred up by manufactured outrage and ordered to fight.

[DiogenesLamp]

To preserve the Union in the face of the Southern rebellion.

Against continued rule from Washington D.C., a condition from which I would expect most of us are currently weary as well.

If Texas left, I would certainly cast my lot with her.

[DiogenesLamp]

See, we can agree on things. :)

Probably quite a lot.

[DoodleDawg]

Against continued rule from Washington D.C., a condition from which I would expect most of us are currently weary as well.

Your question wasn't why the South rebelled, it was why did the North fight. I answered it. The reason why the South started the conflict isn't relevant.

If Texas left, I would certainly cast my lot with her.

I'm sure you would.

[DiogenesLamp]

To be fair, Whitney wasn’t trying to rescue slavery.

No, indeed he was not, but it is often not always possible to predict the social/financial effects of a new idea. For example, who would have thought television and movies would have wrecked the culture? Their inventors envisioned them as great teaching aids, and worthy benefits to society instead of the empowerment of Liberals and the streams of cultural sewage they have turned out to be.

In fact, if I remember correctly, he thought his invention would help end slavery because it so greatly reduced the amount of labor needed to clean seeds out of cotton.

He should have invented a cotton picker to go with it. Much misery would have been averted.

Best laid plans and all that...

Yeah. The law of unintended consequences can be a stone cold b*tch.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think the war between the English and Scots-Irish idea is stretching things. English descended people made up the considerable majority in both sections.

Years ago someone sent me a match of historical migrations from Europe to America, and my recollection is that it did indeed show a much greater migration from the "Seeds of Albion" (Scotch-Irish) to the Southern parts of the country.

It was simply a beautiful map and showed demographic migration patterns clearly, and how they broke down into regional conflicts and so forth. Brilliant piece of work.

I have the link for it somewhere, but it is currently lost in my forest of links. If I can somehow find it, i'll post it because you strike me as the sort of fellow who can grasp complex factors governing the larger picture.

[DiogenesLamp]

It was his election as such they objected to, not anything he did himself.

They projected upon him their worst fears and then proceeded to act upon them.

Do not mistake it. It would be a very real fear if someone led you to believe that your primary source of income is to be threatened and possibly extinguished.

The prospect of losing what you have is very unappealing to anyone, and many people will react viscerally to such a threat, real or not.

In retrospect we can say they overreacted, but who could honestly believe they would do better in their place?

[Sherman Logan]

That's pretty much where we differ.

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends"

What were "these ends"?

Just what I've been talking about. The expansion of liberty, not the expansion of slavery.

Whether a people will gain their independence is largely a function of military effectiveness. Which the Founders knew perfectly well. Their Declarations was thus almost entirely a proclamation of why their desire for independence was right.

Because the British government was, or they believed it was, destructive of "these ends."

You may note that none of the secessionists contributed anything even vaguely similar, a paean to the spread of liberty.

Why was that? Perhaps because even they choked on claims their revolt was in the service of human liberty?

[DiogenesLamp]

And the motiviation to damage those rocks to begin with? What caused that? Foreign squatters on their land. :)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

As long as "the People" are in some approved arbitrary political entity, like a state, and not in some other entity, political or otherwise, right?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Foreign squatters on their land. :)

Funny sort of squatting that includes the deed to the property.

[Sherman Logan]

I think you’re missing an even more important point than loss of income. Invested capital.

Value of all slaves was something in the vicinity of $3B. Abolition would, and indeed did, confiscate all that value.

The primary investments of southerners for 60 years had been in slaves. Their value was almost equal to all other wealth in the South combined. 48% of all wealth.

In fact, it was 19% of all wealth in the entire country.

Our economy got all freaked out when it lost something like 10% to 15% of value during the Great Recession.

How do you think it might have reacted to 48%? With the additional fact that the value of much of the land itself was based on a labor force.

Ran across a really great site to quantify the value of slaves and slavery. Recommended.

http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php