Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
As volunteers....yes. As conscripts...not so much.
Supplemental answer for 1-3: They all supported their adopted state & region.
The German immigrants in Missouri did not.
Yes.
Then, battalion, your objections in the previous post are not credible. If you want to be a fair and honest judge, you need to apply the same standard to both sides. You have just said you will not be fair and impartial. That makes your posts dismissible.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Then, battalion, your objections in the previous post are not credible. If you want to be a fair and honest judge, you need to apply the same standard to both sides. You have just said you will not be fair and impartial. That makes your posts dismissible.
Tim
Let's see...
The German immigrants formed secret military companies in conspiracy against the state they were living in. This happened before the Confederacy was even formed. Later the companies were mustered into the Federal service...and during May and June, 1861, they killed and wounded about 200 civilians (men, women and children).
No, I don't think these qualify as Southerners.
You see...it all depends on which way the gun is pointed.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
The German immigrants formed secret military companies in conspiracy against the state they were living in. This happened before the Confederacy was even formed. Later the companies were mustered into the Federal service...and during May and June, 1861, they killed and wounded about 200 civilians (men, women and children).
I would like to see the source of your quote above, please.
No, I don't think these qualify as Southerners.
Do you object because these were German immigrants living in a Southern state or do you object to the idea that even though one lives in a Southern state and opposes secession you feel he does not qualify as a 'Southerner?'
You see...it all depends on which way the gun is pointed.
I tend to agree.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
This is not a fun part of the mod-job. This thread has survived some over 3,000 posts and, lately, has detriorated into a smeary smudge of sludge. Tomorrow, after I've had my coffee, I will take the time to "unaprove" a number of posts and hope that the webmasters do not decide to delete a fool or two.
This thread has survived because it may very well be the number one subject of discussion. And if we don't have a number one, can there be a number two?
So,today, I've spent 11 hours on the road. Tomorrow, at or about after my coffee, an egg, a handful of hashbrowns and a piece of toast (with real butter and grape jelly. No, I don't eat grits.), I'll have thought about the value of this thread and the buttheads who use it as if all of the previous 3,020 posts are negligible twaddle.
Write this down: This thread is about "Slavery, THE Cause?". It WILL remain so. Tomorrow morning, before I wash the bug juice off the car, it will be back on topic and all the crap will go missing.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
(with real butter and grape jelly. No, I don't eat grits.), ole
After the midnight deadline. Deleted with prejudice.
Quote:
Write this down: This thread is about "Slavery, THE Cause?". It WILL remain so. Tomorrow morning, before I wash the bug juice off the car, it will be back on topic and all the crap will go missing.
What part of "shape up" did you misunderstand?
Last edited by ole; 07-07-2008 at 02:44 AM.
Reason: Just because.
Perhaps Hanny could point out the factual errors? Like others on this board have done to the likes of DiLorenzo et al? Leave the personal stuff off board
To what end?, ive already posted many of these points on other threads and had no rebutal that stand up, so whats in it for me to again do so?, what good does it do for me to continual post that Jefferson, Madison, Adams expaline dthe right of secesion to exist while holding POTUS?.
Fact, the USA todays pratcices the right of secesion in international law, example China and Taiwan, and the UN that only allows you in if you acept the right of secesion. Secesion has added 17 nations from the former SU. It acepted the LA purchase and alaskian purchase, when both left one Union to become members in the new Union, and west Va is secesion that the federal government acepted and wanted.
the only place you can read that secesion is not contitional correct is in us history. Both constitions the US was based on have it.
" It soon dissolves into a hash of selective evidence and sleight of hand whereby the natural right to revolution embodied in the Declaration of Independence is transformed into a constitutional right to destroy the Constitution."
This is an example of the dishonesty inherent in the article, instead of showing the legal case for non secesion, he rants on about his view of what another view thought the legal case was.
The right of revolution existed since mgna cartar, whering the Sov agrees to rule acording to law and be bound by it, so the UK constition allows any member of the Union to seccede from it, so the American revolution was a act of secesion acording to UK fundamental law, on which the US constition, and French constitions, were founded, both containing the right of secesion, peacfully and by force if restrained.
The DOI sets out that all government derive their authority from the consent to be governed, and when that consent is no longer to be found, it can be removed, remodeled or withdrawn from, there is no destruction of the constition, only a change in membership of the Union. Just as when the states ended the AoC and erected a new Union in its place by peacfull secesion from the AoC and entered into a new Union.
"The first problem is that the meaning of federalism changed during the Founding Era. Calhoun and Stephens used "federal" in the pre-American founding sense of a loose compact among separate and sovereign political entities. But the American constitutional experience had transformed the meaning of federal. As James Madison observed, the Americans had created a system of government "without precedent ancient or modern," one that although "wholly republican" was "partly federal, partly national." So complete was this transformation that even the opponents of the Constitution, the so-called Anti-Federalists, embraced the new meaning. Thus they as much as the Federalists recognized that the Union was far more than a league. It was a nation that could not be torn asunder at the pleasure of its component parts.
Incorrect constitional law, the
compact cannot change in law because some thing the term federal has changed over time, murder does not turn into justifiable homicide over time. He writes about Madison stated view, but forgets that madison explaied that no one had createda nation and that the seperate sov states had created a compact to which they could secede from, and would threaten to do so himself.
"That the American Republic was both federal and national was the dominant view among statesmen of the antebellum period. For instance, in his reply to Calhoun on Feb. 16, 1833, Daniel Webster observed that the state conventions, including that of South Carolina, did not accede to a league or association when they approved the Constitution, but ratified and confirmed that Constitution as a form of government."
Webster would also explain that the compact when broken by any state allowed the others to legally secede from that compact, and that the Union was not a nation.
"Andrew Jackson made the same point in his "Proclamation to the People of South Carolina" during the nullification crisis. The Constitution, said Jackson, derives its whole authority from the people, not the States. The States "retained all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation…."
Madison expalined who the people were, not in the agregate, but 13 seperate sov peoples, which was why jackson got defeated when he wnated to call up the militia without congreess agreeing he could do so.
"And Madison, who presumably knew something about the constitutional theory of the American Founding, was horrified by the idea that the coordinate sovereignty retained by the States, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, implied the power of nullification, interposition, or secession."
Madison actually set in motion secesion and pratcised nullification in his lifetime, he was against nullification over paying tax, but not against nullification or secesion.
"Lincoln argued that the Union created the States, not the other way around and that the States had no other legal status than that which held in the Union"
Thats the whole crux of lincolns argument, that the Union creates the states and therfore if true, they do not have any sov but derive it all from membership of the Union, this is the worst kind of history, every state in its constition asserts its sov status, and every single one pre dates the Union, even if only one did ,it makes a nonsense of lincolns legal argument of where sov existed, lastly lincoln argument states that the Union of 1774 created the states and its from that Union that they derive sovreignty from, clearly Lincoln argument is bad history, but that because he was a former trial lawyer pleading hsi case and hoping no one objected to a re write of history.
"ccording to Jefferson and Madison in 1825, the Declaration of Independence constituted an "act of Union of the States."
he Articles of Confederation (a document that begins and ends with the assertion that the Union is perpetual) was an unsuccessful attempt to govern the Union created by the Declaration of Independence"
Perpetual Unions exist untill disolved by those with authority/power so, the Union between crown (sov) and colonies (citizen) was changed in the GR when sov passed from one crown to another, and the 13 seperate colonies acepted or rejected this, and again in the AWI when it nded when the Crown recognised 13 new seperate sovreigntys, the states, not that the colonies sov, but that the peoples of the those states were sov. The AOC was ended by the same method, but without a use of force.
Thats will suffice for now, but lastly if your going to claim a right of secesion does not exist, you would expect the argument to include some law, this article avoids doing so for the good and suffiecnt reason that there is no law that prohibts secesion, and that Us hiustory shows that the coloines seceded in the GR from one monarch to another, and then again from crown to states, and again from conferderation of states to a newer union of states.
the history of the US is history of secesion.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Hanny,
Maybe you would be so kind as to post in detail your thoughts on Mr. Owens' article and tell us why his statements are twaddle. And please back up your arguments with references to published works (preferably not those of DiLorenzo, who has been systematically discounted as a reputable historian) so that those of us who tend to believe that the right to secession was pure (pardon me for borrowing your word) twaddle might also enjoy a rollicking good laugh.
I aware that you new here, so will have missed my doing so already on other threads, and dont feel like rehashing it so soon, but ill cut to the chase, for something to be unconstional, it was be prohibated in the constition, flying a kite on a weds is not itemised, so its not unconstional. If as the article suggest, secesion is not constional, you can point out where the constition makes or implies that to be the case, instead of makeing or implying that is is by what the constition actually contains.
Read Madison, he shows that the article is bad history, and worse constional law.
Try j R grahem A Constitionl history of secesion, and F McDonald State rights and the Union, and A Comparative reading of Constitional Theory.
From a non US citizen pov, Dino and Claremont are held in the same disrepute the world over, being as they both show the appaling state of US histography, as you feel about Dino as how Europe feels about him and Claremont, not helping history but hindering it.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
The German immigrants formed secret military companies in conspiracy against the state they were living in. This happened before the Confederacy was even formed. Later the companies were mustered into the Federal service...and during May and June, 1861, they killed and wounded about 200 civilians (men, women and children).
No, I don't think these qualify as Southerners.
You see...it all depends on which way the gun is pointed.
Actually, they formed normal militia companies -- and the pro-secessionist legislature passed a law to get rid of them.
It was a militia law very much like the one Louisiana passed in January of 1862. It dissolved all the militia organizations except for the ones the Governor chose to accept. The Governor, of course, was pro-secessionist. He accepted the pro-secessionist militia companies in St. Louis -- and rejected the ones the Unionist side in St. Louis formed.
As to "which way the gun was pointed", the Governor was in correspondence with Jefferson Davis at this point. He had sent some representatives (carefully selected from those pro-secessionist militia in St. Louis) to get weapons to use to attack the United States. Davis sent him weapons (heavy artillery and infantry arms) seized from the US arsenal in Baton Rouge, and advice on how to use the artillery to seize the arsenal in St. Louis. These weapons were brought in under false papers (described as crates of marble) and had been delivered to the pro-secessionist militia when the US side moved. Most of the weapons were seized that day, but some of the small arms had already been dispatched to other secessionist militia away from St. Louis.
What you have here is a Governor acting illegally. No matter how you describe it, Jeff Davis is either a) the leader of a rebellion against the US (if there is no "right of secession") or b) the leader of a foreign nation at war with the US (if there is a "right of secession"). The actions of the Governor at this point are clearly Treason under the US Constitution.
In order to further this treasonous behavior, the Governor wanted his supporters in the militia, and so he accepted them. In order to prevent resistance, the Governor did not want Union supporters in the militia, and so he rejected them. That is the sole reason those militia were not accepted: the politics of treason, nothing else.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
A privately formed company in conspiracy against the governor and government of the State of Missouri cannot be considered 'normal.' They started these companies before the Confederacy was formed.
Quote:
-- and the pro-secessionist legislature passed a law to get rid of them.
Actually, the 'pro-secessionist' legislature had voted against secession.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
A privately formed company in conspiracy against the governor and government of the State of Missouri cannot be considered 'normal.' They started these companies before the Confederacy was formed.
They were not in any "conspiracy" against the governor and government of the State of Missouri. That is simply your imagination. However, we do know that the Governor was conspiring to seize the Federal arsenal in St. Louis as far back as January of 1861.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Actually, the 'pro-secessionist' legislature had voted against secession.
Well, I don't think so. The state secession convention had voted 98-1 against it March 21, saying there was "no adequate cause to impel Missouri to dissolve her connections with the Federal Union."
But, as Ole asks, this thread is about slavery. If you want to talk about all this again, either reactivate the old thread where we went through it, or start a new one please.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
