War Between the States about slavery? No way

The Tampa Tribune ^ | April 25, 2011 | Al Mccray

[phi11yguy19]

i’d say the loser of an argument about the constitutionality southern secession, lincoln’s war, etc. would be the one who starts a defense with “forget the constitution”.

i’d also say the open-mindedness that opens a constitutional debate with “forget the constitution” shows a singleness of thought that many a man who feels himself above the law shares. do you contend that der fuhrer was a man who respected his constitution over his personal will? if i say “case closed, lincoln” instead, do i still “lose the argument”?

as for pennsylvania, individual southerners and groups of southerners didn’t secede...the staaaates seceded. if PA wants to join VT, TX, MN, NY, NH, etc. who have all had open, public questions of secession (”public” as in public officials aka congressmen, not some guys standing outside your local bar), then i’d have to get involved politically. if PA had a convention in Harrisburg and voted to secde, I’d have to decide if I’m on the side of whatever cause prompted it and stay, or if I’d be better off moving to NJ. As hooorrrible as that scenario would be (freedom of choice and self-determination), I’d take it over war.

[Tublecane]

“Except that if the union was preserved, then the union is indeed perpetual...Washington was our 17th president by my count. Hancock was first, having as president of Continental Congress signed Declaration of Independence.”

That’s one way to look at it, and I’m not gonna pretend there was no connection between the three seperate systems (CC, AofC, and U.S.). They are all, along with the whole colonial experience, part of the American story. But that’s more a romantic than historical view of things. Not that history can’t be romantic.

Let’s put it this way, if a convention called today to consider adoption of a balanced budget amendment out of nowhere recommended chucking the Constitution altogether, not a few people would think it insane. If delegates to the Continental Congress had suddenly found themselves under the Constitution, their heads would’ve spun. We aren’t the French, and their cyclone of systems (Monarchy to Estates-General to Reign of Terror to Consulate to Empire) of the 90s was not our march of charters (CC to AofC to U.S.) of the 80s. That much I can say.

[rockrr]

driftless2 - With all due respect I think you’re missing the point in the discussions with our FRiend here. It really isn’t about the north vs. south - it’s all about dissension with him. He doesn’t like our nation, but wouldn’t like a confederate alternative any better. Were Pennsylvania to secede he would be dissatisfied with that as well.

He isn’t a Lost Causer in the southron sense - he represents the ultimate expression of Lost Cause.

[phi11yguy19]

Did northern firms probably fit out and own these ships despite the laws? Almost certainly. Should the directors of these firms have been hanged as pirates? You betcha.

There's no "probably" about it. It's being a problem of "the north" is due to its exclusivity (see "almost all") to the north. Was the illegal industry involving massive cargo ships in the biggest harbors/cities in the north somehow hidden from view for 53 years? No. Was congress aware of this for the 53 years since it "banned" it? Yes. Was there 53 years of strict enforcment of laws, prosecution and moral outrage? No. Maybe it possibly just a case of "northern culture"?

Just like the southern planters and slave traders who bought the slaves they brought in were for the most part able to get away with it.

How similar the cultures! The acts of a few are the scourge of all - but the South's are worse, so let's burn, r@pe and kill them.

"I strongly suspect you are exaggerating its volume."

Moral relativity based upon volumetric assumptions. Where you going with any of this? I believe I started out a loooong time ago pointing out the moral hypocrisy of defending slavery as a north vs south phenomenon or as a moral basis for the war. it was neither.

We can play moral equivalency games all day. I could contrast the millions who died in the slave trade (from being captured to transatlantic sickness to exposure to the new world) to the (insert number here) of similar deaths once instituted in the south. Could also thrown in how those millions were in their younger years when they died and compare to how many lived past 100 in the south.

There is no winner in moral equivalency games - evil is evil, whether the "culture" realizes it, defends it, nurtures it, ignores it or not - so what's the point? I'd hope we all agree that massive unnecessary wars are evil as well. Slavery didn't come into the reasoning for lincoln's war - the lawfullness of secession did. Secession is both a legal and moral issue, and on both counts, Lincoln failed.

Of all slaves brought across the Atlantic over the entire period of the slave trade, <5% came to what is now the US.

One of my favorite stats as well. How many were killed to end the other 95% of that figure? How many other republican forms of government were overthrown?

[phi11yguy19]

@rockrr Re: dissention, not liking our nation, etc.

Keep sticking to whatever stereotypes help you sleep well at night, rockhead.

And feel free to throw me in with the the group of all these other America-hating clowns. We're all pretty clear by now on your "solution" to dissention.

[rockrr]

There’s not even a rough approximation between you and those fellows, but go ahead and flatter yourself - I’m sure you have no other choice.

[driftless2]

I think you’re correct. I was merely trying to point out to our friend the spectacular problems that would be involved in declaring some state as a “sovereign” nation. I don’t believe he has any idea how unbelievably difficult it would be to set up a separate country inside another one. But say the separate country of Pennsylvania is established, but the majority of the citizens decide to take actions that our friend doesn’t like. Then would he want to set up another country inside the Pennsylvania boundaries? The mind boggles. The whole idea of singular secession is insanity.

[phi11yguy19]

Feel free to ping when talking of "your friend" so he doesn't miss the fun.

"The mind boggles."
Truly unfortunate, since even over-simplified wiki can 'splain it:

The United Kingdom comprises four distinct countries: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, it is a unitary state, not a federation like the United States...

Hmmm, so what's a federation?

A federation...is a type of sovereign state characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the central government.

The mind boggles.

[Who is John Galt?]

LOL, I usually get 'fascist', 'federal bootlicker' and accused of being "NonSequitur".

Oh, come on, rockrr - everyone knows you're not Non-Sequitur. You're his loveable, but overly excitable, sidekick! ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2635724/posts?q=1&;page=101#117 ) Or should we say, 'ex-sidekick,' since Non-Sequitur is no longer with us?

;>)

(And, as I've noted previously, you need to be more careful about including folks on the address line - you forgot phi11yguy19 again, on your Post #726. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a weaselly little butt kisser, rather than a loveable-but-overly-excitable-ex-sidekick, now would you? Take care, my friend! ;>)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

What other reason was there to retain a military presence in the mother of all tariff collecting ports in the south again

Charleston was the "mother of all tariff collecting ports in the south"? It was a DISTANT second among southern ports, with only about 15% of New Orleans collections, and the top nine tariff-collecting ports in the south together collected less than a tenth of what was collected in New York. Charleston collected less than 1% of what New York did.

[Who is John Galt?]

I just noticed - apparently our friend rockrr is now "banned or suspended" ( http://www.freerepublic.com/~rockrr/ )! Can you believe that? Hope the happy-go-lucky little guy didn't get despondent over my "weaselly" comment, and rashly choose to 'digitally' remove himself out of remorse...

;>)

[phi11yguy19]

‘tis a shame. his commentary was ever so helpful

[Who is John Galt?]

‘tis a shame. his commentary was ever so helpful

He obviously took it hard when Non-Sequitur got banned - his posts became more and more emotional, and less and less rational.

Poor soul, he was just too high strung (and co-dependent)...

;>)

[driftless2]

Like I said pal, how you gonna set it up? Your own country I mean. The country of Pennsylvania.

[phi11yguy19]

Last I checked, Bubba, NYC wasnt (and still isn't) in the south, so what's your point there? Is this another attempt to divert the entire discussion away from the main focus because you object to my wording of "mother of all points" to describe the second largest tariff port in the south (via your stats)? It takes a little longer to send 75,000 troops all the way down to LA than it does SC, but they sure got around to it.

Was this post supposed to tell any of use here anything? You've effectively skipped over referenced, factual responses to every one of your lies here, but you pop your head up again to say "AHA! Charleston was #2, not #1 - gotcha!"???

Care to apologize to everyone for your lies about Dred Scott yet? It might not make a difference since we've all witnessed the extent you'll focus on insignificant points to distract from the important facts that blow you're lies out of the water...but the effort at humility would be nice.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Last I checked, Bubba, NYC wasnt (and still isn't) in the south, so what's your point there?

That the whole issue of the alleged importance of tariff collections at southern points is wildly overblown by lost causers who want to deflect the notion that southern secession was over the issue of slavery. Clear enough?

Was this post supposed to tell any of use here anything? You've effectively skipped over referenced, factual responses to every one of your lies here, but you pop your head up again to say "AHA! Charleston was #2, not #1 - gotcha!"???

I apologize if I've somehow given you the impression that I'm obliged to answer each and every one of your posts. Mea culpa. But just to be clear, by the "Mother of all" tariff collection points in the south, you really mean "a distant number two." Is that about right?

the effort at humility would be nice.

Pretty rich, coming from you.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

By the way, I’m heading out to the desert for the weekend. Don’t take my absence for vindication.

[Who is John Galt?]

...the whole issue of the alleged importance of tariff collections at southern points is wildly overblown by lost causers who want to deflect the notion that southern secession was over the issue of slavery. Clear enough?

Actually, the whole issue of the alleged importance of slavery is wildly overblown by union enthusiasts, who choose to ignore the simple fact that it is the constitutionality of State secession that was the critical issue (both in the 1830s and the 1860s). If secession was constitutional, then it mattered not at all whether the Southern States seceded over concern for the institution of slavery, or simply because Northerners suffered from halitosis, as well as hypocrisy.

"Clear enough?"

;>)

[central_va]

rockrr banned? Why wasn't I told!!!!

What'd he do?

[central_va]

It is amazing how fast some Freepers forget that everyone of us lives in a semi autonomous functional country(state) and the we’d hardly notice if FedGov™ disappeared. Lincoln did a hell of a job destroying the republic.

If FedGov™ collapses then the state will be the governing body. Yes there will still be socialists and conservatives but no anarchy.