Stephen's Corner Stone Speech

[hawglips]

David: ...primary sourced political statements of the 1860 timeframe all declare that the cause of the final schism of the Union was slavery.

"Final" schism? Even if your statement was true (which I do not believe to be the case), does a "final" issue mean all the other ones did not exist? And why try to limit the discussion to documentation in the year 1860? Is this because the 4 most popular declarations among advocates of forcing union are of that particular vintage?

I'd like to broaden the view, rather than try to force a narrow, blindered focus on any particular corner of the picture.

In addition to the links already shown here, I'd also suggest some other other fine secession declaration reading:

http://thenaturalamerican.com/civil_war.htm

http://groups.msn.com/TheSouthernRep...orktreaty.msnw

http://www.civilwarhome.com/cherokeecauses.htm

http://www.csawardept.com/documents/...solutions.html

A "must read" for all us students of secession is SC's address to the southern States, which was their case laid out for secession aimed at their closest peers, and not for northern consumption. This is arguably one of the very best documents out there on the topic of why they seceded, and is not a favorite of the slaveryslaveryslaveryslavery crowd.

http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/scdebate3.htm

And one can't ignore the evil, racist, slavemonging John C. Calhoun's speech on the "great and primary cause" of the endangered union.

http://sciway3.net/2001/john-c-calhoun/1850.htm

Also, the letters from the wicked, evil, racist slaving governors of NC, VA, TN, AR, MD, MO, KY to Lincoln after he called for troops are eye openers for those who are only used to seeing the slavery,slavery,slavery,andmoreslavery piece of the puzzle so promiscuously offered up as (the only) evidence by the pro-force union apologists. While on this vein, Maryland's State Anthem is interesting too.

And other such documents on the topic of secession such as the resolution passed by the Maryland legislature on 16 May 1861 and the Tennessee governor's letter of 20 April 1861 to Sec. of War Simeon Carter explaining in detail why they will refuse to furnish troops to Lincoln. These are all in the OR's but can be conveniently located on this board in the Jan. 19, 2004 archive of the "newspaper articles etc of the day" thread. There is other pertinent documentation there as well.

Hal

(Message edited by hawglips on September 28, 2004)

[dave_kelly]

>"Final" schism? Even if your statement was true (which I do not believe to be the case), does a "final" issue mean all the other ones did not exist? And why try to limit the discussion to documentation in the year 1860? Is this because the 4 most popular declarations among advocates of forcing union are of that particular vintage?

I'd like to broaden the view, rather than try to force a narrow, blindered focus on any particular corner of the picture. <

Hal:

Broadening the view? Or perhaps throwing up an inadequate smokescreen.
I have stated before that the Constitutional Union does not recognize a "South" or a "North". Federalists, George Washington himself, fought mightily to discourage such factionalism that acted against Constitutional interest.

In that light John C Calhoun's scribblings are anathama to what he claims to defend. And Arizona's attempt to independently overrule the fundamental laws of the land related to the Constitution to form a bond with rebelling states is compoundedly illegal.

The real issue for america was how to develop a strong, equitable and just system of law and government. Quitting wasn't the answer. War was the end result. You want to "blame" the United States for validating the Constitution, and excuse the Confederacy for the free exercise of its right to be wrong. For its right to have a government conservatively shortsighted in its political views, and ruthless in its desire to repress "democratic principles".

Obviously I would, from an historical perspective, consider any statement of position or law post dating the war to be biased by the outcome of the war itself. Prosecessionists get their heads spinning in their necks when findings by Chief Justice Chase against secession are brought up. I tend to agree. So, the vintage is relative to effect on the future. It's about legitimate perspective, Hal.

(PS I agree with Andy Jackson; he should have hanged Calhoun. But then ole Hickory thought Clay was a drunken fool also.... Jackson wanted the sectional problem resolved with a restoration of the primacy of the Union. Period. Clay wanted compromise by buying consensus. Calhoun wanted submission of the majority to the "southern" definition of the compact. The 1850 compromise reasserted the spoilage of the Missouri Compromise and everybody put down their guns, But then the new Democratic lion, Stephen Douglas waved the BS banner for each state deciding for itself, and Kansas became the ersatz battleground for the war to come. The failure of the 1850 truce killed the Whig party and gave birth to the Republicans; a party with no representation in the South. When the Republicans took the election, given to them by a militantly unpolitical southern democratic wing, the fat was in the fire.)

[hawglips]

David: You want to "blame" the United States for validating the Constitution, and excuse the Confederacy for the free exercise of its right to be wrong.

Now that is a good one - destroying the Constitution under the guise of territorial union is "validating" it!

As for Calhoun, I love his toast to Jackson, "... union, next to liberty most dear." I bet that burned Jackson up. I see you are taking the same tact with him as you did with Stephens -- dismiss all he said because he believed in slavery. Too bad. One misses so much of the historical picture when those blinders are put on.

David: Obviously I would, from an historical perspective, consider any statement of position or law post dating the war to be biased by the outcome of the war itself.

Then you have no problem with the vintage of the documents I posted links to. I trust the broader view I have attempted to open up will not be found offensive by any fair minded folk.

That being said, it is often foolish to totally trust the language of someone in the heat of a crisis, as opposed to a time after the crisis is passed and a calmer, more objective frame of mind is in charge. In potentially inflammatory situations at home with my wife, I try to bite my tongue and count to ten.

In answer to Dawna's original question, I take issue with those folks ignoring the bulk of what the speech was about, or misconstrue it, in order to emphasize his racist views as validation of their own biased position.

Hal

David,
You are able to expound all that with a straight face? Amazing. Truly amazing. Your needless calling Calhoun a drunken fool is a hoot. Very droll. Especially in light who you side with. An equally drunken, mercury crazed, slave abusing, adulterous Indian murdering fascist. Good choice. But you also admire Lincoln so the precedent is set, so no real surprise. Very amusing. Insults needless, but amusing.



(Message edited by aphillbilly on September 28, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

David,

In your post 46 you state that “The United States was here first. It established a hegemony based on a Republican system freer than anything else in the world. As a nation it felt that a democratically principled Republic deserved to be a great nation emminent among the others.”

A couple of questions.

Firstly, what exactly do you mean by the phrase “deserved to be a great nation eminent among the others” ? Does this mean that the United States deserved a certain amount of recognition from its peers, or does it mean that the United States deserved a certain amount of raw power?

Secondly, I am intrigued that you refer to the U.S.A. having a political system “freer than anything else in the world”, while on the Secession thread you stated in your post 43 that:

“Somewhere you will find the US Senates letter of congratulations to G Washington at the end of his presidency. This proclamation thanks GW for setting the course for the "American Empire". Is this the philosophy of "states rights"? It is indicative of the call to manifest destiny which impelled our leaders even in the revolutionary war.”

I am confused. On the one hand you describe the freest society on earth, but on the other you describe an Imperialist juggernaut, fuelled by the poisonous hubris of Manifest Destiny (“Give us your territory. God tells us we deserve it.”) It can’t be both things, because it is clear to any civilised human being that these two visions are mutually exclusive. For the sake of clarity, which is it to be?

Regards,

Bill

[dave_kelly]

>I am confused. On the one hand you describe the freest society on earth, but on the other you describe an Imperialist juggernaut, fuelled by the poisonous hubris of Manifest Destiny (“Give us your territory. God tells us we deserve it.”) It can’t be both things, because it is clear to any civilised human being that these two visions are mutually exclusive. For the sake of clarity, which is it to be?

Regards,

Bill <

No confusion. Remember my nere do well musing on the nature of american political schizophrenia. Libertarian and Republican zealotry dwell in the same padded cell together. The Constitution seeks to check both thru parlimentarianism and the use of the vote to modify the worst tendencies (ie. voting Bush out of office is a lovely idea).

The Union as warden of the Constitution is heir to what the founders wrought. Secessionists were escapees from their institutionalisation who had to be brought back under control for their own protection

[johan_steele]

Bill, you mention one of the great what if's of US history, what if there had been a peaceful Seccesion... A pleasant dream... though I think the planned invasions of Kentucky, Missouri to encourage their joining of the CSA might have limited the peaceful part of that. Santa... don't tell my three year old ok.

Aphillbilly, I'm suprised; Andrew Jackson, Ol Hickory... a fine Southerner don't you think; kind of set the tone of Southern Politics some might say... and I do believe he considered Secession treason. Actually calling Calhoun a drunk is an understatement, IIRC his drinking binges make Ted Kennedy look like a sober man. I must have missed ever hearing that Lincoln was a facist, drunkard, Indian murdering (IIRC he pardoned quite a few after the Sioux Uprising preventing their hanging)and unless I'm way off base I don't believe Mr Lincoln could ever be accused of abusing slaves, unless you consider granting their freedom an abuse, which some do. Sorry I just don't see Lincoln as the Anti-christ... for Gods sake he was a politician and a lawyer... that's bad enough.

[dave_kelly]

>David,
You are able to expound all that with a straight face? Amazing. Truly amazing. Your needless calling Calhoun a drunken fool is a hoot. Very droll. Especially in light who you side with. An equally drunken, mercury crazed, slave abusing, adulterous Indian murdering fascist. Good choice. But you also admire Lincoln so the precedent is set, so no real surprise. Very amusing. Insults needless, but amusing. <

Actually I'm paraphrasing a comment of Andrew Jackson who said that if Clay lived long enough he'd wind up in a gutter (a hopeless drunk), and Calhoun in an insane asylum.

Gee Tommy I thought you'd be a fan of ole hickory seeing as he was the first american leader to espouse democratic representation for the people against the institutional interests of the privileged classes.

[dave_kelly]

>Now that is a good one - destroying the Constitution under the guise of territorial union is "validating" it! <

Reread your Constitution, your Jefferson, Madison and public law before you accuse the United States and it's representatives of destroying itself. I say again; the Union is as much a principle of the american system as states sovereignty and the bill of rights. They operate together or they don't operate at all. By seceding the Confederacy compromised that system and threatened all our future.

>Then you have no problem with the vintage of the documents I posted links to. I trust the broader view I have attempted to open up will not be found offensive by any fair minded folk. <

I'm hardly offened by the documents. Calhoun is his own worst enemy. The statements of Indian nations don't have any weight or bearing in an American political discussion as their unfortunate situation was exclusion anyway. And Arizona as a territory was subject to the Congress so the hell with their opinions: they could become a state of the Union and have true representation or they could become a national park.

Gee David. You thought wrong.