Was it worth it?

[archieclement]

I would think the war was indirectly about slavery, was more about the failure of the union and federal authority.

No one was talking of ending slavery, least no one remotely who had power.

Lincoln was bandying about curtailing it's expansion, but the Supreme Court had allready shown its hand to there was no authority to do so it was unlikely going anywhere soon.

What had occurred for a decade or so and was upsetting southerners was northern states defying Federal law and authority over the FSL. The existing "union" was showing itself a failure in asserting Federal law and supremacy.

Certainly remove the years of FSL defiance and states openly defying it and its enforcement, I don't see there ever having been secession or ACW. A strong federal enforcement agency to enforce FSL might have avoided the eventual ACW.

Certainly many overreinforced have stressed and advocated need for Federal supremacy, was it not failing and falling short in years before the war, on laws itself had passed with Constitution and latter reenforced?

 

[leftyhunter]

The motivation for secession WAS slavery, obviously. The motivation for war, which came from the Union was secession, not slavery. This is where people get confused. Jim Crow was motivated by racism and bitterness at the defeat. You ask why the south did not secede again. I don't see the material means or even the reason to do that.

btw, there was a lot of racial discrimination in the northern states up to the 1964 civil rights act.

The motivation for the Union was to prevent secession and has previously noted almost three hundred thousand Southerners plus Unionist milita and guerrillas fought against secession as well. The reason for secession was to expand slavery as if slavery can not expand it dies.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I would think the war was indirectly about slavery, was more about the failure of the union and federal authority.

No one was talking of ending slavery, least no one remotely who had power.

Lincoln was bandying about curtailing it's expansion, but the Supreme Court had allready shown its hand to there was no authority to, so it was unlikely going anywhere soon.

What had occurred for a decade or so and was upsetting southerners was northern states defying Federal law and authority over the FSL. The existing "union" was showing itself a failure in asserting Federal law and supremacy.

Certainly remove the years of FSL defiance and states openly defying it and its enforcement, I don't see there ever having been secession or ACW. A strong federal enforcement agency to enforce FSL might have avoided the eventual ACW.

Who would fund such a law enforcement effort? Americans back then supported limited government and taxation. Why would US taxpayers who opposed slavery vote for representatives to tax themselves so they could protect what they perceived as an immoral practice of owning human beings.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Who would fund such a law enforcement effort? Americans back then supported limited government and taxation. Why would US taxpayers who opposed slavery vote for representatives to tax themselves so they could protect what they perceived as an immoral practice of owning human beings.
Leftyhunter

Who knows, but certainly the lack of federal enforcement and ability showed federal law and policy a failure, which is in effect a failure of the Union certainly to federal supremacy.....or as you said previously instead of federal authority and law, it was merely supposed to be suggestion? Suggestion would indicate federal law is not supreme..........

As well it was also northern representation who had voted to strengthen FSL. 27-12 senate, and 109-76 house.

Perhaps send some lowly army captain to a state defying FSL, and say instead of letting the state of "x" dictate to federal government in any matter, however unimportant, they would see every man and woman of that state dead. Was done later, was it not. Let's be consistent in applying federal authority.

Then it's not just suggestion as you say without enforcement. Certainly the failure in FSL enforcement seems a significant part of southern grievance or dissatisfaction with the prewar "union"

 

[genbeau]

Who would fund such a law enforcement effort? Americans back then supported limited government and taxation. Why would US taxpayers who opposed slavery vote for representatives to tax themselves so they could protect what they perceived as an immoral practice of owning human beings.
Leftyhunter

The founders were the bad guys when they enshrined slavery in the constitution. They did it for the short term gain of having all the colonies sign up. Perceptive people could have forecast that this would eventually lead to major problems. But if they had not done it, they would not have had a country

 

[leftyhunter]

The founders were the bad guys when they enshrined slavery in the constitution. They did it for the short term gain of having all the colonies sign up. Perceptive people could have forecast that this would eventually lead to major problems. But if they had not done it, they would not have had a country

Not sure about good or bad guys because in the late 18th Century overt slavery was not universal but it was more common then today.
Yes there would not be an independent US unless slave owners were supporting it with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson being the two most famous examples.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Who knows, but certainly the lack of federal enforcement and ability showed federal law and policy a failure, which is in effect a failure of the Union certainly to federal supremacy.....or as you said previously instead of federal authority and law, it was merely supposed to be suggestion? Suggestion would indicate federal law is not supreme..........

As well it was also northern representation who had voted to strengthen FSL. 27-12 senate, and 109-76 house.

Perhaps send some lowly army captain to a state defying FSL, and say instead of letting the state of "x" dictate to federal government in any matter, however unimportant, they would see every man and woman of that state dead. Was done later, was it not. Let's be consistent in applying federal authority.

Then it's not just suggestion as you say without enforcement. Certainly the failure in FSL enforcement seems a significant part of southern grievance or dissatisfaction with the prewar "union"

Certainly slave owners weren't happy with lax federal law enforcement efforts on behalf of the FSL then again they weren't up in arms on limited enforcement at best with illegal slave importation into the US with most slave smugglers ( except the one executed under the Lincoln Administration) if caught paying token fines or being acquitted. The US never had consistent federal or local law enforcement.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Certainly slave owners weren't happy with lax federal law enforcement efforts on behalf of the FSL then again they weren't up in arms on limited enforcement at best with illegal slave importation into the US with most slave smugglers ( except the one executed under the Lincoln Administration) if caught paying token fines or being acquitted. The US never had consistent federal or local law enforcement.
Leftyhunter

As far as I've read no southern states were trying to pass state laws defying or nullifing Federal law on foreign importation. So isn't really the same in regards to defiance of federal law such as FSL.

I agree the US didn't, or has had consistent federal enforcement, or holds state agencies accountable for violating oaths to uphold US law. Why federal supremacy isn't much an actual principle, or certainly been a result of the ACW postwar. If it was indeed a real principle, it would be rather consistent..........

 

[archieclement]

Not sure the founders or slavery are to blame for failures of federal law, particularly in regards to federal law and authority being supreme, as seems to have applied to host of eras and issues.

 

[genbeau]

Not sure about good or bad guys because in the late 18th Century overt slavery was not universal but it was more common then today.
Yes there would not be an independent US unless slave owners were supporting it with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson being the two most famous examples.
Leftyhunter

exactly correct. And its a good reminder that we often judge 19th century behaviors by 21st century principles.

 

[genbeau]

The 18th amendment was overturned inside 20 years, and the case law made by Roe V. Wade lasted almost half a century.

okay. But on average would it not be much more effort to withdraw an amendment that to reverse a judicial judgement. On the later, you just need the correct political make up of the court. To reverse an amendment you need three fourths of the congress and three fourths of the states. To reverse a judicial judgement you only need a simple majority of a few judges.
Anyway, i stand by my statement and do not think it is ridiculous at all.

 

[JerryD]

I am not disputing things you never said. I am making statements which you are disputing, but instead of using facts you are using insults. If you don't actually wish to dispute what I said, then go ahead and leave.

Seriously, you are engaging in a conversation with yourself. Just about everything you claimed to dispute I never said. If you really think I did then you seriously have a comprehension problem. That is not an insult, but an observation. I made one comment that Lincoln, like everyone else, thought the war would be short, and you went off on a bizarre tangent that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said about Fort Sumter and other topics that had nothing to do with what I said. And interestingly enough, you never once addressed what I DID say.

So either you are engaging in the old game of refusing of putting words in someone's mouth so you can "look" smart by refuting the statement that was never made, when in fact you aren't fooling anyone at all. And if its not that, then you seriously have some kind of comprehension problem.

 

[RebelWeber]

okay. But on average would it not be much more effort to withdraw an amendment that to reverse a judicial judgement. On the later, you just need the correct political make up of the court. To reverse an amendment you need three fourths of the congress and three fourths of the states. To reverse a judicial judgement you only need a simple majority of a few judges.
Anyway, i stand by my statement and do not think it is ridiculous at all.

Correct you need the right political makeup ... and look at what the Chase Court did compared to the Tawney Court ... Chief Justice Tawney told Lincoln that he had overstepped his constitutional bounds and it made no difference, the way Lincoln "read" the Constitution an insurrection basically made him a king and he was free to ignore the court at his leisure. I do think people could go back and forth on this for decades which we already have. It is my thinking, and I have a very radical Jeffersonian view of the world, slavery was the original sin of the 13 colonies, there were many ways to let It go but it had to either be killed, as the Civil War did, or it had to die naturally as it certainly would have done. My bigger issue here has always been the Federalist point of view you can probably tell I'm a staunch Anti-Federalist I believe in Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Tyler, John Breckenridge, and even James Buchanan to a degree .After studying this war for well over two decades I can safely say that the South acted rashly they should have done it through the courts. Much to your point the court was stacked in the South's favor I think they could have done it without a single drop of blood. The question is would Lincoln have let the South go or do as he did and assert himself by Force of arms? If you consider the way the states put the personal Liberty laws into place ... I can't answer the question. I stand by my original point the United States should have let the South go, but of course people with a Federalist attitude simply cannot ever do that.

 

[genbeau]

Correct you need the right political makeup ... and look at what the Chase Court did compared to the Tawney Court ... Chief Justice Tawney told Lincoln that he had overstepped his constitutional bounds and it made no difference, the way Lincoln "read" the Constitution an insurrection basically made him a king and he was free to ignore the court at his leisure. I do think people could go back and forth on this for decades which we already have. It is my thinking, and I have a very radical Jeffersonian view of the world, slavery was the original sin of the 13 colonies, there were many ways to let It go but it had to either be killed, as the Civil War did, or it had to die naturally as it certainly would have done. My bigger issue here has always been the Federalist point of view you can probably tell I'm a staunch Anti-Federalist I believe in Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Tyler, John Breckenridge, and even James Buchanan to a degree .After studying this war for well over two decades I can safely say that the South acted rashly they should have done it through the courts. Much to your point the court was stacked in the South's favor I think they could have done it without a single drop of blood. The question is would Lincoln have let the South go or do as he did and assert himself by Force of arms? If you consider the way the states put the personal Liberty laws into place ... I can't answer the question. I stand by my original point the United States should have let the South go, but of course people with a Federalist attitude simply cannot ever do that.

I have read that Jefferson Davis delayed his exit from Washington DC after his farewell speech in the senate in hopes of being arrested and having the topic settled in court. I don't know if that is accurate or not. Also, I am not sure why Lincoln couldn't have taken the case to court on his own. Sue the South for breach of contract or some such. We will never know what was going through his mind and what his motives were if other than ones he publically stated.

 

[JerryD]

I would think the war was indirectly about slavery, was more about the failure of the union and federal authority.

No one was talking of ending slavery, least no one remotely who had power.

Lincoln was bandying about curtailing it's expansion, but the Supreme Court had allready shown its hand to there was no authority to do so it was unlikely going anywhere soon.

What had occurred for a decade or so and was upsetting southerners was northern states defying Federal law and authority over the FSL. The existing "union" was showing itself a failure in asserting Federal law and supremacy.

Certainly remove the years of FSL defiance and states openly defying it and its enforcement, I don't see there ever having been secession or ACW. A strong federal enforcement agency to enforce FSL might have avoided the eventual ACW.

Certainly many overreinforced have stressed and advocated need for Federal supremacy, was it not failing and falling short in years before the war, on laws itself had passed with Constitution and latter reenforced?

Well, actually lots of folks were talking about ending slavery, but it was mostly the southern slaveowners who were scared poopless about it. But they were talking about the fear of ending slavery all the time. But you are right, no one in power was talking about ending slavery, which is all the more reason why secession was an irrational act. No can read the documents put out explaining why the states seceded and not quickly come to the conclusion that it was foremost and almost exclusively about the fear of losing the right to own slaves. A few other things were mentioned, but none of them were sufficient to prompt secession. These few issues had existed for decades and nothing in the election had materially changed the risk of them. But the south was quaking in fear over the election of the "abolitionist" Lincoln, who in fact was not an abolitionist. They were just delusional.

 

[archieclement]

Well, actually lots of folks were talking about ending slavery, but it was mostly the southern slaveowners who were scared poopless about it. But they were talking about the fear of ending slavery all the time. But you are right, no one in power was talking about ending slavery, which is all the more reason why secession was an irrational act. No can read the documents put out explaining why the states seceded and not quickly come to the conclusion that it was foremost and almost exclusively about the fear of losing the right to own slaves. A few other things were mentioned, but none of them were sufficient to prompt secession. These few issues had existed for decades and nothing in the election had materially changed the risk of them. But the south was quaking in fear over the election of the "abolitionist" Lincoln, who in fact was not an abolitionist. They were just delusional.

Indeed why I've always felt it was pattern of lawlessness by the north to federal law that led to eventual wanting separation, rather then any legal threat to slavery as was none, Lincoln was even reiterating there was none.

There was no delusion as to failure of federal supremacy prewar, as states were defying it. Which rather makes a Union rather pointless. If federal government has no power or ability to enforce federal law, why be party to it, states do whatever anyway lol

If the "union" isn't to be a higher unifying authority, and instead states allowed to defy, what's point? Mutual defense? There doesn't appear to been much an outside threat in the era.

Its always seemed odd "federal supremacy" is often touted bout, but never in our history has it seemed a very important principle, instead much of our history it appears state or even municipality authority is put above federal without consquence to federal supremacy, other then to justify military coercion and the ACW.

 

[uaskme]

If Slavery or the FSL don't make much sense for secession. Maybe it was something else?

 

[leftyhunter]

exactly correct. And its a good reminder that we often judge 19th century behaviors by 21st century principles.

True but by the 1860s many certainly not all Americans opposed slavery. Some slave owners correctly opposed secession because they knew it would absolutely end slavery. At least two Union generals actually owned slaves one being Major General Thomas and Brig. General Oden Guitar of the Missouri State Milita which was a misnomer as the MSM was actually a full time force.
Leftyhunter

 

[JerryD]

Indeed why I've always felt it was pattern of lawlessness by the north to federal law that led to eventual wanting separation, rather then any legal threat to slavery as was none, Lincoln was even reiterating there was none.

There was no delusion as to failure of federal supremacy prewar, as states were defying it. Which rather makes a Union rather pointless. If federal government has no power or ability to enforce federal law, why be party to it, states do whatever anyway lol

If the "union" isn't to be a higher unifying authority, and instead states allowed to defy, what's point? Mutual defense? There doesn't appear to been much an outside threat in the era.

Its always seemed odd "federal supremacy" is often touted bout, but never in our history has it seemed a very important principle, instead much of our history it appears state or even municipality authority is put above federal without consquence to federal supremacy, other then to justify military coercion and the ACW.

I can see why you would think that, but to be fair, the "lawlessness" was really all around protecting slavery. No one was worried about northern bank robbers. It was violations of fugitive slave act, or support for John Brown. Or, just as often, what they viewed as lawlessness was really about deny states rights, as the wanted northern states to abolish free speech rights of abolitionists, or to prevent blacks from voting, or other infringements on states rights of northern states.

So I can see why you would think like this. Its a way to say it was all about slavery, without having to admit it was all about slavery.

 

[archieclement]

I can see why you would think that, but to be fair, the "lawlessness" was really all around protecting slavery. No one was worried about northern bank robbers. It was violations of fugitive slave act, or support for John Brown. Or, just as often, what they viewed as lawlessness was really about deny states rights, as the wanted northern states to abolish free speech rights of abolitionists, or to prevent blacks from voting, or other infringements on states rights of northern states.

So I can see why you would think like this. Its a way to say it was all about slavery, without having to admit it was all about slavery.

Because in the end Federal law is that, Federal law. If we have or are to have federal supremacy it's rather that simple.

As I've pointed out in regards to federal supremacy it's not somehow exclusive to slavery, one can still see federal laws being defied today outside slavery. So i don't see it somehow just about slavery, as it's always gone far beyond just one aspect or issue. That's why I find assertion of Federal supremacy as a principle odd, as it's rather often not followed or enforced........