Posted on 02/17/2003 5:53:30 PM PST by Truthsearcher
Why the sympathy for the South?
[p3] And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
[p4] In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
[p5] They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
[p6] In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments -- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
[p7] Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms:
[p8] "ARTICLE 1. -- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
[p9] Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country as a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
[p10] In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended, for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.
[p11] The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.
[p12] If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were -- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
[p13] By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May, 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
[p14] Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with defined objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
[p15] We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
[p16] In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations.
Who decides what is good or evil? To PETA is is evil that you "own" a pet. It is evil that you -- the horror! -- eat meat. Twenty years ago the Soviet Union thought the US was evil. Today Saddam Hussein thinks the US is evil. Michael Moore thinks Republicans are evil. Prohibitionists in the 1920s thought it evil to drink alcoholic beverages.
Why did no northerners think slavery evil from 1776-1861? Were they making too much money off the slave trade? All those slaves came in to the US on ships registered in Boston and owned by northerners. Did it only become an issue after the trade in slaves was abolished? Hmmmmm. "We can't make money off it anymore -- let's call it evil now!!"
You'll recall that slavery was considered during the ratification and drafting, and that it was patently obvious to many that the Constitution would never have been ratified if it forbade slavery. To characterize it as "clearly understood" as "legal" and "right" is ridiculous. It was necessary for half of the signers to look the other way on this one issue until it could be resolved in some other way... or else we would have become yet another version of balkanized Europe. The Great Compromise, repeated Congressional debates, numerous anti-slavery movements, rules for states joining the union that hinged on slave-owning laws, etc., all did their best to resolve the issue without tearing the nation apart, and they successfully stalled the inevitable for almost half of our history. You may choose to ignore this, but that does not mean it didn't happen.
"It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."-Gen Patrick Cleburne, CSA
Southerners are tired of being slammed over their heritage. Plain and simple. You are taking the side of the NAACP in this issue, which is to try to make a current generation pay for the sins of a very few long-ago forebears. I sincerely hope that you are not so stupid as to believe that anyone in the entire country thinks slavery is a good idea.
You are now making a case for perpetual arrogance for a victor over the vanquished, like you had some part in it! Astonishing in its sheer egomania, if nothing else. I guess we Southerners should just be glad people like you deem to let us exist, isn't that what you REALLY mean?
God every time someone opens up this can of worms, there are the same old tennis volleys back and forth: states' rights, slavery, Lee freed his slaves, Grant kept his, Lincoln didn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863, Britain outlawed slavery earlier, on and on and on. What does it take for people like you to just let it be without having to throw insults and act superior?
The War Between the Staes was fought over 140 years ago, and the South lost. We have rebuilt, and we have sucked it up, and we are tired of all the jokes, we are tired of all the insults, and we just want to look forward.
You don't have to aplogize, your kind never does. I just hope that sometime a Southerner shows you the true grace and gentility that comes from the upbringing that most of us had, and makes you ashamed of your hateful, spiteful remarks.
Slavery was already starting to die in the South when the war began. R.E.Lee referred to it as the "peculiar institution" and recognized that it was costing them relations and business with Europe, and the Confederate Constitution featured more stringent restrictions on slavery than the US Constitution at the time. If ending slavery was the sole purpose of the war (it wasn't... retaining the union as a whole was a major factor), then fighting it was premature, and a blatant violation of SunTzu's principles of war.
I oppose going against Iran today for the same reasons. Give them a generation, and they will solve their (mullah) problem on their own, and won't be resentful for centuries for being forced to do so.
Percentage of Families Owning Slaves
Union Aligned States - 8%
Confederate Aligned States - 31%
So, those who state that few people in the south owned slaves are liars. Thirty one percent, by any measure, doesn't constitute 'few'.
Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Read, in their own words, why they ceceded - slavery figures prominently.
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America
Article I, Section 9
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
The states were forbidden the right of choosing for themselves whether or not to outlaw slavery. Which shows the whole 'states rights' arguement for what it is - a lie.
While you are reading the Confederate Constitution, pay special attention to how many times you see 'slave', 'slavery', and 'slave owner', and DON'T SEE 'states rights'. It will tell you a great deal about what their pre-occupation really was.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson & Slavery in Virginia
"I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]; but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by Legislative authority; and this, as far as my suffrage [vote and support] will go, shall never be wanting [lacking]." - George Washington
"In 1769, I became a member of the legislature by the choice of the county in which I live [Albemarle County, Virginia], and so continued until it was closed by the Revolution. I made one effort in that body for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, which was rejected: and indeed, during the regal [crown] government, nothing [like this] could expect success." - Thomas Jefferson
Your "reasons for seceding" are largely opinion and quasi-historical summary, not the original documents.
Although the original documents often refer to slave ownership, it is mentioned in the context of the constitution, the promises made by it, the contract between government and the states and the rights to free determination.
In the sense of the feelings and writings of the time, even Lincolns feelings and writings, the slavery issue was more connected with states right as were the taxes, the railroad, the refusal of other states to honor agreements.
It was not until the southern states had had a belly full of it all, that they seceded.
I will grant you that many rich land owners who also owned slaves were important signatories of the secession documents. They were of course, leaders in the community.
What some pigheaded idiots will not understand is that the average southerner, the ones who fought and died in the war, were not fighting for their right to own a damn slave. They could never afford the cost. They had no need for a slave. They fought for liberty and freedom from a government that was destroying their livelihoods bit by bit. Their jobs, and their abilities to take care of their families were being eroded by northern bigotry toward the south, the likes of which still exist today.
Yeah! Tax us to build the rails and give us no sidings or access.
Buy our cotton for next to nothing and do not allow us to process it for ourselves. When we try to get out from under your mantle, threaten us and our families with retribution and harm.
Just how much crap do do think a southerner could take.
Slavery was a accepted practice and legal. As has been stated, it was not a growing enterprise and was in the process of becoming something that just did not work. Many plantation slaves had already been given their freedom. Many fought on the southern side.
Social changes were already occurring. What happened was a vocal anti-slavery group with access to the media of the day in New york City and Boston pressed their desires upon the new administration.
The southern states had already had enough and were on the breaking point. They, with no promises that anything was going to change as far as the treatment they were receiving, made the decision to secede. To build the mills, and to free trade their goods at a fair price, in a fair market. The slave owners were a minority group in this decision. They were not running the show.
The facts are not in dispute, that after the war and emancipation of the slaves who were now freemen and women, that they remained on the plantations and in the households for which they had worked and worked as freemen while living in the same quarters with the same rules and the same environments.
A number did not and listened to the false promises of yankees for a better life, only to become sharecroppers and starving half the time.
Yes, the legacy of slavery did in fact carry on in the eyes of some southerners who blamed the north for so much grief and hardship after the war. The legacy of slavery carried on as the slaves who chose to venture north found a more hostile environment than they left. Many returned and found homes in the south near people who did not treat them with dis-respect. That is why there is such a strong and unbreakable southern black heritage and history.
Now we can discuss a totally separate topic that is and has been a issue, but not at all linked to slavery. That is segregation. You must be carefully to not link the two. the reason for that is that bigot and desires for segregation is a product of race and social norms, not slavery.
Integration in the south, north, east and west is not at all a slavery issue. Many northerners believe that it is. Many northerners believe that southern whites are all bigots and prejudiced as well. Nothing farther from the truth. Blacks are just as prone to these feelings as whites.
Speaking as a man who has lived on both sides of the mason line, I can tell you that the southern black family as a rule is less bigoted and prejudice than in the north. They are not playing the victim card and declaring discrimination to the degree that they are in the north.
Many southern whites and blacks resent the implications of the north as we still hear it today! We are still sick of it and are disgusted by it. We find the Confederate bashing has formed rifts that may never heal. We say no, to the gradual beat of the same drum that once beat before to intimidate the south and the southern heritage.
In closing, I have never said nor ever will say that slavery was ever right. Hell, I am the direct descendant of white slaves or should I say indentured servants who were of the wrong religion in Yugoslavia. They fled to the United States and freedom in 1920. What is the difference between a person who is snatched of the street or out of ones own home and placed into servitude and a slave?
Why does slavery still exist in all it's forms and yet people say nothing regarding this and want to open age old wounds and long past repression of black that were sold into slavery by some of these very same countries where slavery exists today. Somalia comes to mind and other Muslim dominated nations. Why can't these same outraged critics do something about that rather than trying to eliminate the Confederate battle flag.
Why when we helped to eliminate apartheid and free their people do they say nothing about what happened and is continuing to happen in Mugabe's reign of terror and the genocide of whites in the area. It is all twisted logic if freedom and equality is the goal, and situations like this exist in the world.
I fail to see what is so "ridiculous" about what I had stated. Regardless of the reasons behind the recognition of slavery as a "legitimate" (for want of a better word) institution in the new United States, the fact is that slavery was permitted. What you've stated here is correct -- the founding fathers, in an attempt to secure ratification of the Constitution, simply delayed the inevitable.
But I would suggest this -- if the southern states in the 1780s and 1790s had known what would transpire in the 1860s, I'd guess that not a single one of them would have ratified the Constitution.
What made the whole question about slavery as it related to the Civil War patently ridiculous was that the Union had no moral authority to weigh in on the issue one way or another. The Union was no better than the Confederacy when it came to slavery -- the Union simply didn't need slaves to the same extent that southern states did.
The federal government...always looking for an angle to raise a buck, no matter who it hurts.
However: it's quite clear that without slavery, the war would not have happened.
The other issues - states' rights, tariffs, homesteading, territorial organization - would have created friction for the young republic, but without the prism of the slavery issue, they would have been addressed without resort to war.
An interesting question is -- would the Civil War not have happened if Lincoln had not been elected president (which could be seen as a somewhat haphazard result of political factioning/balkanization in the North).
We say now, in hindsight, that the slavery issue could only be resolved by war. But I don't think so at all -- there were many ways to de-fuse the situation and allow slavery to whither, then die, without civil war.
But the deification of Lincoln makes this impossible for some to see.
The south seceded because of the election of Lincoln, which, to the south, foretold how the issue of slavery was to be dealt with. So (in legal analogy) Lincoln's election was the proximate cause, not slavery, although slavery was an actual cause.
Well stated.
1. God
2. State
3. region
4. Country
5. Robert E. Lee
6. Stonewall Jackson
That doesn't make us looney-toons.
No, it doesn't make you a "looney-toon," but you are one the most disgraceful Freepers I've ever met, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Why the hell isn't Richard Petty on that list???
LOL.
You musta caught me on a good day. :^)
...so let me give you an idea of what us "Neo" types really believe, and I would like your honest and truthful opinion on each point: 1. Believe in the Constitution as it was written, without Supreme Court adaptations.....
As do I. The Constitution was written so that those with common sense can follow it's laws. Now obviously if a foreign power had invaded the United States when the Congress was out of session in the 17 or 1800s, then the president has to take immediate action to save the union, he can't wait for congressional debate on suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus while troops are advancing on Washington. This is why there was no section dealing to restrictions on the president as there was with the Congress. The founding fathers knew there would be emergencies in cases of rebellion or invasion. 1861 was rebellion. It was rebellion because the seceding states did not follow Article IV in proving their secession. Anyone that takes a lawyerly approach to a document written in simplicity for those with common sense can twist it to say anything they want it to. Reading the Constitution with logic and common sense makes it clear that the actions of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln were Constitutional. Any Congress that thinks their president went out of bounds has the power to impeach and remove the president. That is the Constitutional check on the president. None of these presidents were removed for their emergency actions.
2.That Slavery was and is wrong, but not what most Confederates fought for.
I agree. But secession was for slavery.
3. That secession is and was LEGAL, and is the one safeguard against an overzealous Federal System.
It would be legal if Article IV is followed by any state wishing to secede.
4. That serving in the armed forces of this country is a Southern Tradition, and an obligation.
I don't have the statistics. I know many here in Illinois that served. Half my family served.
5. Live and LET LIVE. (in other words, we are NOT interested in what Yankee types think of our way of life, and don't intend to change for them or anyone else.
I agree except for when it comes to something that interferes with basic freedoms as slavery did.
6. In Divine guidance, and in the belief that the Judeo-Christian principles must be a guiding factor in our nation.
I agree and Paul's (paraphrasing) "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" commandment applies to us in our treatment of our "neighbors". Jesus defined our neighbors as those that would show us Christian charity. Most American blacks believe in Christ. American blacks therefore are defined as Abraham's seed because as of the crucifixion, any that believe on Christ is a spiritual descendant of Abraham. (Not to mention they are also genetic descendants because most white Americans are genetic descendants of Abraham and there has been enough intermixing to say a vast majority of American blacks are, but that's another story and not central to this point) Therefore slavery was immoral and it was immoral for our or any God revering country to practice it or secede to perpetuate slavery against Abraham's seed.
7. Our belief system in this order: 1. God 2. State 3. region 4. Country 5. Robert E. Lee 6. Stonewall Jackson That doesn't make us looney-toons......
Those are good things to praise. I believe the slaveholder secessionists are the culprit of the 1861 rebellion. They did what they did for filthy lucre.
The Erie Canal was a New York State project. I do not believe that the Federal government had any role in its financing, construction, or operation.
ML/NJ
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.