Posted on 04/13/2002 10:36:17 PM PDT by JohnnyReb1983
Secession Crisis
States' Rights "Powers Reserved To The States"
The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted as a single unit two years after ratification of the Constitution. Dissatisfaction with guarantees of freedom listed in the Constitution led the founding fathers to enumerate personal rights as well as limitations on the federal government in these first 10 amendments. The Magna Carta, the English bill of rights, Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights, and the colonial struggle against tyranny provided inspiration and direction for the Bill of Rights.
The 10th Amendment states: "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." This amendment was the basis of the doctrine of states' rights that became the ante-bellum rallying cry of the Southern states, which sought to restrict the ever-growing powers of the federal government. The principle of states' rights and state sovereignty eventually led the Southern states to secede from the central government that they believed had failed to honor the covenant that had originally bound the states together.
The nullification crisis of the 1830s was a dispute over Northern-inspired tariffs that benefited Northern interests and were detrimental to Southern interests. The legal basis for the Southern call for nullification of the tariff laws was firmly rooted in states'-rights principles. Northern proposals to abolish or restrict slavery- an institution firmly protected by the Constitution- escalated the regional differences in the country and rallied the Southern states firmly behind the doctrine of states' rights and the sovereignty of the individual states. Southerners viewed the Constitution as a contractual agreement that was invalidated because its conditions had been breached. The Confederacy that was subsequently formed by the seceded states was patterned on the doctrine of states' rights. That doctrine, ironically, played a large role in the destruction of the country that it had caused to be created.
If you read it, you would see that while slavery was a small issue, it was the Northern federal powers that pissed off the South.
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." ...Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.
That's Alexander Stephens speaking. He was one of the leaders of secession and at the time he was confederate vice president. What did he know that you don't?
How can you tell from my posts what race I am? Or do you just label everyone who disagrees with you a 'Black Nationalist'?
Nobody is buying your washed up, murderous old ideology anymore unless you present it as something else.
I could say the same to you.
"Slavery is a form of communism, and as the-Abolitionists and Socialists have resolved to adopt a new social system, we recommend it to their consideration." -- George Fitzhugh, "Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters"
"The dissociation of labor and disintegration of society, which liberty and free competition occasion, is especially injurious to the poorer class; for besides the labor necessary to support the family, the poor man is burdened with the care of finding a home, and procuring employment, and attending to all domestic wants and concerns. Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether, and slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism." -- George Fitzhugh, "Sociology for the South; Or the Failure of Free Society."
More from this book:
"Our only quarrel with Socialism is, that it will not honestly admit that it owes its recent revival to the failure of universal liberty, and is seeking to bring about slavery again in some form. "
"We slaveholders say you must recur to domestic slavery, the oldest, the best and most common form of Socialism."
"We cannot believe that the Socialists do not see that domestic slavery is the only practicable form of socialism - they are afraid yet to pronounce the word."
Please, don't back away from your original assertions about nationalism and sectional pride being the root of trouble for society. That sounds so very natural coming from you, since that is exactly what the marxist academics have been saying for decades. You're one of them, aren't you?
Go sing a few verses of John Lennon's puky "Imagine" with your egghead pals.
Did I actually say that about you? After you called me and those who agree with me "comunists" [sic] and accused me of promoting a disguised form of communism, I showed you that at least one and possibly more of those who supported secession and the confederacy were well disposed to aspects of socialism and communism. The connection between secessionist fire-eaters and anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-libertarian thought is worth persuing, and is ignored by those who like to portray Lincoln as a communist or socialist. You make no response to this. That doesn't surprise me.
I use the word "anti-democratic" advisedly. To be sure we are not a pure democracy, but a republic. If you gut all the democratic elements from our system, though, you won't have much of a republic left.
The larger point is, if you are proud of the South, if you support the "Southern cause", you ought to accept that there are some things in that legacy that you might have to reject or be ashamed of. This should temper some of the claims that you make on behalf of that legacy or cause. Apparently it does not. Certainly not in your case. You simply ignore things that run counter to your own opinions.
If you don't apply the same degree of scrutiny and skepticism to the history of the cause you support as you do to the history of those who opposed that cause, what can you possibly contribute to the conversation? If you obsess about what someone has written about Lincoln or Sherman and just ignore facts about your own "side," why would anyone bother talking to you about such things?
Please, don't back away from your original assertions about nationalism and sectional pride being the root of trouble for society.
Here is what I wrote in my first post: "Healthy pride certainly has its place, but regional, sectional, ethnic, racial, and even national pride are poor teachers of history. Once we decide to be proud of our ancestors, it's easy to forget any things they may have done that we might be ashamed of." That is something very different from what you claim I said. And I stand by it.
A healthy pride has its place. It helps nations and peoples to survive. But pride -- like guilt or shame or defensiveness -- is not a good teacher of history in the end. It distorts, conceals and denies too much.
If you want to know the facts of history you have to at least face some things that pride doesn't want to know about. Pride can take us a long way to understanding history, but if our interest is in looking behind the myths and understanding what actually happened we can't submit wholly on the demands or dictates of pride.
That sounds so very natural coming from you, since that is exactly what the marxist academics have been saying for decades. You're one of them, aren't you?
Go sing a few verses of John Lennon's puky "Imagine" with your egghead pals.
Actually no, but I do try to find out about topics before opining on them. It looks like you just want to believe what you want to believe and then fall back on abuse when people disagree with you. How is argument possible or profitable if one doesn't look at documents and evidence, but just employs ad hominem attacks at those who do?
The great advantage of our Union is that it brings people of very different views together and allows them to live together. Sealed off in small "sovereign" states or hostile federations, people would probably regard whatever was different from themselves or anyone who disagreed with them in the terms that you use to describe those you argue with. Whatever the disadvantages of the way we live now, the fact that this sort of behavior is less common has to be counted as a large plus.
I see no point in pursuing this useless conversation further. So I won't.
At least you admit that the North didn't give a crap about ending slavery. The north simply wanted to preserve easy access to southern raw materials and markets. It's not really that much different today with oil.
I admit it freely. Now, will you admit that by far the single, most important reason for the south's action was the defense of the institution of slavery?
Stop trying to transfer the guilt of the US onto the South. America is not founded on principles of humanism. It's about preserving life, liberty and property for people who fought for and earned their independence. Slaves had their liberty handed to them on a silver platter. The biggest thing wrong with the Constituition was the Fugitive slave act. It's against the bible. Escaped slaves had earned their freedom. Northerers signed up to it. Slave ships dropped anchor in Boston Harbor.
Different states seceded for different reasons.
That is hard to grasp, for a reconstructed goosestepper.
Thank goodness the Southern states ratified the 13th Amendment, and freed the slaves in the North - applied the Emancipation Proclamation legally.
This country would be nowhere without the South. I'll give the Northerners credit for knowing that much. They were afraid the CSA was going to show them up, so they had to destroy it.
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.