Non Involuntary Servitude Debate

[ole]

Not bad, Neil,

made it through #45. Anyway you look at it, that has to be a first.

Ole

[CChartreux]

Originally Posted by ole

Well done, CChartreux.

No comments yet -- I'm still awestruck.

Ole

Thanks, Ole. Long-winded little sucker there, isn't it!

I guess I got kind of carried away....I just thought that both Bill and Dawna's questions were really interesting. Well, and the more I tried to explain myself the worse it got....I mean, fundamentally, outside of all this 'liberty' and 'freedom' crap....group self-interest and self-preservation (even as a group; especially as a group) is a pretty strong motivating force....and the further I went back with it....well, there we were drawing pictures on caves in France!

Anyway...I see you changed your tagline there....did I give you permission to do that? (The other one is funnier; but, that's just my opinion!)

[samgrant]

Yikes,

Well, looks like Bill get the prize for the first post to violate the 's' rule in #20, if I'm not mistaken.

Neil,

# 24, It appears Mr's Jackson, Washington, and Lincoln, had similar devotion to preservation of the Union.

Might I add Mr. Jefferson to the club?:

"I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the Union into two or more parts." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792.

Bill,

#28 Have you not seen the "Godfather Trilogy" (coudn't help myself, tho it may draw the absurd corellations).

#40 How can you equate Dan Sickles with Abraham Lincoln? (tho Mary L. was apparently a big friend).

#43 Lincoln was devoted to preservation of the Union, at all costs:

"As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views"

( I don't believe I have violated the 's' rule as this was a quotation of another's words.)


ewc #46 's' word! (even if in neutal context)

CChartreux #47 Gross violations of the 's' rule! Curious how you made it throught #48 with no violations!

Last thought: Interesting to compare the words of THE Declaration of Independence (that's from your folks, Bill) with those of the 'Declarations of Secession' of the you know who! ( I believe you'll find the 's' in some of these and not in another.)

[unionblue]

Fellow boardmembers,

Please try and remember, this thread was started with the intention of discussing other aspects of the war, other causes and reasons and we all were going to do our best at not mentioning involuntary servitude in our posts, arguments and presentations. Please adhere to that one request when you post here.

I consider it very important that we try our best to remain within the ballpark we are now endevoring to play in. Please try your best to do so.

To Bill and Admiral Porter, please tone down the nationalist implications and short verbal displays (i.e. 'England did it too' or 'Braveheart' jabs). You are both much smarter and skilled to have to resort to such tactics. Please present your posts with the idea that we are trying to explore another approach to the causes of the war.

I would appreciate it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Dear Bill,

In reference to your post#28, you make the statement:

"Personally, I can't see how the words you have quoted are synonymous with "once in, you cannot leave". But that's very much a matter of personal opinion."

No Bill, it is not a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of historical record that once a state voluntarily joined the Union, she surrendered her ability to leave by her own accord, and did so knowingly. So it it not just for the 'sake of argument' that the majority have the right to say if a state may leave or be required to stay.

I remember Hal saying that the States would have never joined the Union if they had known there was a 'Hotel California' clause in the Constitution. I never really knew how to answer Hal on that one in particular until recently. All the states KNEW there was a 'Hotel California' situation when they were deciding to join the Union. The options they had was to join or not to join. PERIOD. All knew that once they joined, they would have to have the majority of the people to release them from the Union.

Why would anyone wish to exercise such a right? I again refer to Andrew Jackson's little speech for some of the reasoning. But it is not a matter of opinion, friend Bill, it was the way it was. You may consider it right or wrong in your own opinion, but that is the way it was when the states decided to join the union.

I don't understand the idea of warm beer either, but I know that warm beer exists. Now if warm beer is right or wrong might be a matter of debate between you and myself is one thing, but I am forced to admit that warm beer exists and that it is an established fact, much like the idea that every state that joined the Union knew it was giving up the right to leave on its own accord, that it must submit that request to the rest of the nation and get its approval before separating from the rest of the nation.

I concur with your belief that Dawna would be prepared to see Quebec leave the rest of Canada, but Dawna is not the entire electorate of her nation and her entire nation will have to decide if it wishes to let Quebec go or not, don't you agree?

You may not fully understand what makes us Americans so different in our backyard, but you must accept the fact that when we layed out the boundry of our backyard, we did so with the understanding once you became part of it, you had to ask the rest of us if you could leave or not.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Milhistbuff1,

You mention that the Nullification Crisis was a source of contention between the North and the South. May I direct your attention to the following:

From the resolutions passed by the Democratic party of Mississippi, June 9, 1834.

"The doctrines of nullification, as declared in South Carolina, and industriously attempted to be propagated in this and other States, are repugnant to the vital principles of our policital system, equally absurd in theory and dangerous in practice; the extension, adoption and enforcement of which must inevitably terminate in anarchy or civil war,***that the constitutional right of secession from the Union, on the part of a single State, as asserted by the nullifying leaders in South Carolina, is utterly unsanctioned by the federal constitution, which was framed to 'establish' and not to destroy the Union of States; and that no secession can in fact take place without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount in the effects and consequences, to a civil revolution.***The people of the United States are the sole depositories of the sovereign authority of the Republic and all government, whether State or Federal, is a mere emanation therefrom."

Remember, NO state joined with South Carolina during the nullification crisis and after reading the above, all seemed to think it wrong to do so.

Here's Jackson's reply to South Carolina's nullification ordinance.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/pr...ons/jack01.htm

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[cash]

Originally Posted by unionblue

I remember Hal saying that the States would have never joined the Union if they had known there was a 'Hotel California' clause in the Constitution. I never really knew how to answer Hal on that one in particular until recently. All the states KNEW there was a 'Hotel California' situation when they were deciding to join the Union. The options they had was to join or not to join. PERIOD. All knew that once they joined, they would have to have the majority of the people to release them from the Union.

Indeed, Neil. As Prof. Amar highlights, the Anti-Federalists told everyone they wouldn't be able to get out of the Constitution once it was ratified. The Federalists never contradicted them.

Regards,
Cash

[milhistbuff1]

Would that have changed if the federal government went through with drawing its sword against SC?

[unionblue]

milhistbuff1,

Its only my personal belief, but I am dead certain South Carolina would have been all alone on this one and that it would have been a very, very long time before any other state would have pushed for such an action.

As it was, with the threat of military action against South Carolina, it took until 1861 before South Carolina attempted the theory of secession once again. Close to 20 years before they got their nerve up again and managed to drag other Southern States with them. Not too shabby on Jackson's part.

Unionblue

[milhistbuff1]

Not shabby at all. Pierce and Buchanan getting the presidency was key though. Had Winfield Scott won the presidency the odds of a confrontation go sky high.

Matt