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.
I removed all the irrelevant comments so that I could respond to your relevant, substantive comments left intact above.
But I don't know how to respond to nothing.
Regards,
Cash
Even the Lincoln quote? (No wait! He never said that, I'll bet! Or he was misunderstood... or he was misquoted... or he was not talking about the South... or what???)
Resolutions: Use of Force Against a "Delinquent" State Not Adopted
"The last clause of the sixth resolution, authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent state, came next into consideration.
Mr. Madison, observed, that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it, when applied to people collectively and not individually. A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to, nem. con. [without dissent]"
Debates in the Federal Convention, p.140
As usual, another incompetent posting.
No use of force against a state that refused, for example, to provide a quota of militia. But a government always has the right to put down rebellion, even when a state is in rebellion.
"Mr. KING, wished as every thing depended on this proposition, that no objections might be improperly indulged agst. the phraseology of it. He conceived that the import of the terms 'States' 'Sovereignty' 'national' 'federal,' had been often used & applied in the discussions inaccurately & delusively. The States were not "Sovereigns" in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty, they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances nor treaties. Considering them as political Beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign Sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such Sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war. On the other side, if the Union of the States comprizes the idea of a confederation, it comprizes that also of consolidation. A Union of the States is a Union of the men composing them, from whence a national character results to the whole. Congs. can act alone without the States-they can act & their acts will be binding agst. the Instructions of the States. If they declare war: war is de jure declared--captures made in pursuance of it are lawful--No acts of the States can vary the situation, or prevent the judicial consequences. If the States therefore retained some portion of their sovereignty, they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it. If they formed a confederacy in some respects-they formed a Nation in others--The Convention could clearly deliberate on & propose any alterations that Congs. could have done under ye. federal articles, and could not Congs. propose by virtue of the last article, a change in any article whatever: and as well that relating to the equality of suffrage, as any other. He made these remarks to obviate some scruples which had been expressed. He doubted much the practicability of annihilating the States; but thought that much of their power ought to be taken from them." [James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, 19 June 1787]
"Mr. KING was for preserving the States in a subordinate degree, and as far as they could be necessary for the purposes stated by Mr. Elsewth. He did not think a full answer had been given to those who apprehended a dangerous encroachment on their jurisdictions. Expedients might be devised as he conceived that would give them all the security the nature of things would admit of. In the establishmt. of Societies the Constitution was to the Legislature what the laws were to individuals. As the fundamental rights of individuals are secured by express provisions in the State Constitutions; why may not a like security be provided for the Rights of States in the National Constitution. The articles of Union between Engld. & Scotland furnish an example of such a provision in favor of sundry rights of Scotland. When that Union was in agitation, the same language of apprehension which has been heard from the smaller States, was in the mouths of the Scotch patriots. The articles however have not been violated and the Scotch have found an increase of prosperity & happiness. He was aware that this will be called a mere paper security. He thought it a sufficient answer to say that if fundamental articles of compact, are no sufficient defence against physical power, neither will there be any safety agst. it if there be no compact. He could not sit down, without taking some notice of the language of the honorable gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Bedford]. It was not he that had uttered a dictatorial language. This intemperance had marked the honorabl gentleman himself. It was not he who with a vehemence unprecedented in that House, had declared himself ready to turn his hopes from our common Country, and court the protection of some foreign hand. This too was the language of the Honbl member himself. He was grieved that such a thought had entered into his heart. He was more grieved that such an expression had dropped from his lips. The gentleman cd. only excuse it to himself on the score of passion. For himself whatever might be his distress, he wd. never court relief from a foreign power." [James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, 30 June 1787]
"Mr. MADISON agreed with Docr. Johnson, that the mixed nature of the Govt. ought to be kept in view; but thought too much stress was laid on the rank of the States as political societies. There was a gradation, he observed from the smallest corporation, with the most limited powers, to the largest empire with the most perfect sovereignty. He pointed out the limitations on the sovereignty of the States, as now confederated their laws in relation to the paramount law of the Confederacy were analogous to that of bye laws to the supreme law within a State. Under the proposed Govt. the powers of the States will be much ****her reduced. According to the views of every member, the Genl. Govt. will have powers far beyond those exercised by the British Parliament, when the States were part of the British Empire. It will in particular have the power, without the consent of the State Legislatures, to levy money directly on the people themselves; and therefore not to divest such unequal portions of the people as composed the several States, of an equal voice, would subject the system to the reproaches & evils which have resulted from the vicious representation in G. B.
"He entreated the gentlemen representing the small States to renounce a principle wch. was confessedly unjust, which cd. never be admitted, & if admitted must infuse mortality into a Constitution which we wished to last forever. He prayed them to ponder well the consequences of suffering the Confederacy to go to pieces. It had been sd. that the want of energy in the large states wd. be a security to the small. It was forgotten that this want of energy proceeded from the supposed security of the States agst. all external danger. Let each state depend on itself for its security, & let apprehensions arise arise of danger, from distant powers or from neighbouring States, & the languishing condition of all the States, large as well as small, wd. soon be transformed into vigorous & high toned Govts. His great fear was that their Govts. wd. then have too much energy, that these might not only be formidable in the large to the small States, but fatal to the internal liberty of all. The same causes which have rendered the old world the Theatre of incessant wars, & have banished liberty from the face of it, wd. soon produce the same effects here. The weakness & jealousy of the small States wd. quickly introduce some regular military force agst. sudden danger from their powerful neighbours. The example wd. be followed by others, and wd. soon become universal. In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of war, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe cd. maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger cd. tame the people to the domestic yoke. The insular situation of G. Britain was the principal cause of her being an exception to the general fate of Europe. It has rendered less defence necessary, and admitted a kind of defence wch. cd. not be used for the purpose of oppression. -These consequences he conceived ought to be apprehended whether the States should run into a total separation from each other, or shd. enter into partial confederacies. Either event wd. be truly deplorable; & those who might be accessary to either, could never be forgiven by their Country, nor by themselves." [James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, 29 June 1787]
"Mr. MADISON. As the greatest danger is that of disunion of the States, it is necessary to guard agat. it by sufficient powers to the Common Govt." [James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, 23 August 1787]
empire |ˈemˌpī(ə)r|
noun
1 an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly esp. an emperor or empress
empire (adj.)
: [in names ] the Roman Empire.
The ponderous tome of arguments presented by Cash seem to bend our founding fathers to the left, in their
views, at certain times...
You have demonstrated no understanding of the founding fathers thus far.
"In point of right, no state can withdraw itself from the Union." ["Plain Truth: Addressed to the People of Virginia," 1799. The authorship is attributed to Henry Lee, aka "Light Horse Harry" Lee, Robert E. Lee's father.
In his reply to Patrick Henry in the Virginia Ratification Debate, Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee said, "In the course of Saturday, and some previous harangues, from the terms in which some of the Northern States were spoken of, one would have thought that the love of an American was in some degree criminal; as being incompatible with a proper degree of affection for a Virginian. The people of America, Sir, are one people. I love the people of the North, not because they have adopted the Constitution; but, because I fought with them as my countrymen, and because I consider them as such.--Does it follow from hence, that I have forgotten my attachment to my native State? In all local matters I shall be a Virginian; In those of a general nature, I shall not forget that I am an American." [9 June 1788]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Yet, the best men in our country at the time of Lincoln's
effect on the nation all went South,
Do you not agree that what Jefferson did was right for the country? From my understanding of things, the Northern
states were complaining that this purchase would bring Slave states (their word for Conservatives)
I'm beginning to think you are less than dedicated to the truth. Slave states was their word for slave states. There were conservatives in the Northern States as well as in the southern states. I suggest that if you want to be taken seriously, then perhaps you should lay off the third-grade silliness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
The same as with the South and the Westward expansion, later... a threat to secede.
There was no threat by the "Northern states" to secede.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
But to the Blue Staters, Jefferson said, "Depart as friends and brothers"...
Please show me the document where he said that.
It is rapidly becoming clear you have little serious discussion in you.
We didn't secede from Britain. It was a revolution, not a secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
If I recall, the New England states requested the SLAVE TRADE be allowed to continue, so their economy would not collapse, for another 20 or so years? Early 1800's?
As usual, you're wrong.
"The result is seen in the Constitution. S. Carolina & Georgia were inflexible on the point of the slaves." [James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 24 Oct 1787]
"The southern states would not have entered into the union of America, without the temporary permission of that trade [the slave trade]." [James Madison, "Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention on the Slave Trade Clause," 17 Jun 1788]
"The Petitions on the subject of Slavery have employed more than a week, and are still before a Committee of the whole. The Gentlemen from S. Carolina & Georgia are intemperate beyond all example and even all decorum. They are not content with palliating slavery as a deep-rooted abuse, but plead for the lawfulness of the African trade itself--nor with protesting agst. the object of the Memorials, but lavish the most virulent language on the authors of them." [James Madison to Benjamin Rush, 20 Mar 1790]
I fail to see, as clinical as you guys are in some respects, how you can pack all this off on SLAVERY. An institution whose trade the North basically started, in the Golden Triangle, and whose denouncement of, right now, borders the completely hypocritical. Pot calling the kettle black.
False claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
There is so much more we have over which to disagree! So many more bones of contention!
60,000 freed negroes were said to be living in the South at the time of the Civil War, and one estimate from an historian at Cedar Creek says that 4,400 of these freed men were masters on their own plantations.
Wrong on both numbers. There were 132,760 free blacks in the confederate states in 1860. Those who were large property owners were overwhelmingly mulattoes who were descended from white slaveowners who gave them property and slaves. They didn't consider themselves to be "Negroes." They identified with whites, not with blacks. If you're interested in actually learning the truth about this instead of the pack of lies you're regurgitating, see Ira Berlin, _Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South._
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Slavery caused Secession? Secession caused a War?
Slavery caused secession and secession led to war, not necessarily caused it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Lincoln was just, what? There?
Lincoln didn't fire on Fort Sumter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
The Slavery excuse is "exceeding thin and airy", as I see it.
Not to those who actually know history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
There could have been no slaves without Yankee traders.
Rubbish. Southerners were just as involved in the slave trade as anyone else. And they were the ones who were hungering for more and more slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
If Secession is the root of all evil, please allow me to quote a "flip-flopping" Whig Liberal of the period for you!
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit".
(speech: 12 January 1848 House of Reps)
Abraham Lincoln
The natural right to revolution, not a right to secede.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
It is clear from the available historical facts that the Constitution would have never been ratified if it had been understood that, in doing so, the States would surrender their sovereignty, as well as their right of secession should the experiment fail.
Lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.
The people of the United States can resume their powers if the government perverts those powers to the oppression of the people of the United States.
None of these ratification statements reserves a right to secede. One has to purposely mischaracterize what was said.
Where do you think Virginia got the wording for this part of the ratification, which was the basis for New York and Rhode Island?
This wording came from Edmund Pendleton in the Virginia Ratification Convention on 5 June 1788: "We, the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self-interest. What then? We will resist, did my friend say? conveying an idea of force. Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument. We ought to be extremely cautious not to be drawn into dispute with regular government, by faction and turbulence, its natural enemies. Here, then, sir, there is no cause of alarm on this side; but on the other side, rejecting of government, and dissolving of the Union, produce confusion and despotism."
The wording refers to holding a Constitutional Convention as outlined in Article V to reform the government. "The same plan" refers to the Constitution which was the subject of the discussion. The Constitution, he says, provides a method of recalling their delegated powers and reforming the government. By amendment. That's how honorable men would do it.
We didn't secede from Britain. It was a revolution, not a secession.
As usual, you're wrong.
"The result is seen in the Constitution. S. Carolina & Georgia were inflexible on the point of the slaves." [James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 24 Oct 1787]
"The southern states would not have entered into the union of America, without the temporary permission of that trade [the slave trade]." [James Madison, "Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention on the Slave Trade Clause," 17 Jun 1788]
"The Petitions on the subject of Slavery have employed more than a week, and are still before a Committee of the whole. The Gentlemen from S. Carolina & Georgia are intemperate beyond all example and even all decorum. They are not content with palliating slavery as a deep-rooted abuse, but plead for the lawfulness of the African trade itself--nor with protesting agst. the object of the Memorials, but lavish the most virulent language on the authors of them." [James Madison to Benjamin Rush, 20 Mar 1790]
Regards,
Cash
According to the British, it was outright Treason. According to the Yankees, so was what the South did...
I really am at a loss, here, with you. You don't think that anything that casts any aspersion at all upon your Mr. Lincoln or his noble army is true, or right, or grounded in any form of reality...
You see my problem here. You are in the minority on a number of these points. Yet, you know for a fact that all these people are wrong.
(Did your guys do anything wrong?)
So, with this knowledge, kept safe by you, and held as the
real truth in these matters... is to be held here, locked in these forums, forever?
Where is the book, THE REALLY REAL LINCOLN, by CASH?
Where is the book, "ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOCUMENTS WHICH PROVE THE NORTH WAS RIGHT!"
Where is the first edition of HE NEVER SAID THAT... A COLLECTION OF MYTHS ABOUT FAMOUS PEOPLE.
I am serious, here. If you are right, then the world needs to know this stuff.
But before I come on board with you, and your quotes from important-sounding sources, you are going to have to
do more than tell me I am wrong, or he never said that.
You are going to have to show me the correction from which you learned it. Not just something that seems to
negate the premise, but outright destroys it.
You are pretty good at slamming the South, but are you any good at glorifying the North?
To hear you tell it, you all have been infinitely patient with a group of fellow countrymen who have no real idea about anything...
I said when I first came here that you could not offend me, and you can't. I am looking for the Third Line, the truth.
But for me to rush about proclaiming your message, as I have done here, with the Southern side of things, would be even more foolish and dangerous, (outside these forums) than being a... what is it? Lost Causer?
Why is none of what you have said herein common knowledge outside of here? At least to the Great Unwashed Masses?
We have been deluded once with history, in school. We learned that we needed to know more truths, and learned them. Now, at this thirty-third level of historical relevance,
it all changes again?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
