Restricted Debate More silly guys who worried that slavery would tear the country apart

Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
627
Location
Pittsburgh
As for a contract, you are correct. A compact is not the same species. The AOC had a perpetual clause, yet each State seceded from it and one by one joined in with the compact, known as the Constitution, as Sovereign States, evidenced by their representatives' signatures. How is it that they could secede from a "perpetual union" to form a government different from what had existed prior to 1787? Who gave them permission to violate the contract and dissolve the government? I know this line of questions is not on the subject of tariffs, however shortly after this event, tariffs became a point of contention to the extent that secession was threatened.
I agree that this thread shouldn’t devolve into an argument of the legality of secession.

As to tariffs, we’ve had several posts showing secessionists themselves saying that tariffs were not the issue. Do you have any examples of actual secessionists saying that they were seceding due to tariffs?
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
627
Location
Pittsburgh
Ridiculous, there is no mechanism in the constitution on the proper way to eat watermelon, does that mean eating watermelon is unconstitutional?
How on earth does eating watermelon or not have anything to do with the Constitution? Whether or not one eats watermelon has no bearing on the nation, the constitution, or its constituent states. What a silly comparison. Likening the break up of a nation of constituent states whose people had all ratified the constitution as the supreme law on the land to eating a popular picnic food is quite foolish, yet expected, along with the poster’s chioce of food to use in the failed analogy.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
627
Location
Pittsburgh
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
627
Location
Pittsburgh
The North exercised federal power to the detriment of the South from 1789 onward. Secession happened not because of the election but rather the South's realization that justice, under the compact, would not be forthcoming, regardless of who was elected. Sectional legislation, benefitting the North over the South would continue unabated, now by the hand of a radical faction avowed to destroy the South's economy.
Please cite examples of the north using federal power to the detriment of the south since 1789 onwards. You have been given the example of the federal government enforcing the FSA against the wishes of the northern states and how still the south wasn’t satisfied. The election was the catalyst for secession. The secessionists said so, read what they said and published. Many of the secessionists conventions came out and literally said they were seceding because, due to the election, slavery wouldn’t be safe. Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the secessionists.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
627
Location
Pittsburgh
I'm not trying to justify the sins of the fathers
What was practiced was legal, both the institution of slavery and secession. As far as I'm concerned, both North and South were equally guilty of sin and it is rediculous to call it a rebellion. Either a State was Sovereign or it wasn't. They were sovereign when they met to abolish the AOC and establish a new government. Today, they are not.
You are correct. Today they are not sovereign as they are under the exact same constitution enforce in 1860. The exact same constitution that the forces of the United States fought to uphold from 1861-1865, and the exact same constitution you and I live under now.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
627
Location
Pittsburgh
He was right. And the secession of States from the AOC also was a revolution. Peaceable tho it was.
The formation of the Confederacy was no different.
The formation of the confederacy was decidedly not peaceable. It also did not include participation of ALL of the states, as the constitutional convention did... not a good analogy.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
627
Location
Pittsburgh
Slavery wasn't an easy issue to solve. The issue still hasn't been solved today. The Civil War far from solving the problem only created more even worse problems. The Civil War robbed an entire Nation of its property, and rights -- taking the very States that belonged to her.
Would you be in favor of the south maintaining those same rights to “property”?
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
627
Location
Pittsburgh
I concur "its hard to believe we would need to discuss whether or not keeping other humans beings as slaves was good" but here we are. Slavery was a good and necessary thing; and the founders knew it. There were some traitors in their midst; who tried to accomplish the things you mentioned, like giving them a 3/5th right to vote.
You win the confederate apologia award for today with this one.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
207
If you can produce data that shows this is "inaccurate" that would be helpful. This would be specific data on wealth in 1860, not a link to 20 page article that does address these issues, as we have seen earlier in this thread. Thanking you in advance.

As you note, the census data is self-reported, meaning it was the southerners themselves claiming to be, white man for white man, the richest in the nation.

In most cases, people take on debt with the idea that this an investment (ie your home, an education, a business, leveraging an investment,etc ) that will enrich them in the long run. Clearly, in 1860, Southerners self reported data which showed their investments were paying off, rather completely disproving the hypothesis that they were being impoverished. On the other hand, purposefully impoverishing the 4 million slaves (who were the major source of this wealth) was the "cornerstone" of their economic system, and indeed, of the CSA itself.
Really, lots of words trying to obscure the neglect of providing complete data. So I am supposed to look in the archives to prove myself wrong? The Abbeville armor of truth will shield me. In any case, if we accept the testimony of Southerners as suggested, then we have to accept the whole testimony, not just revisionist picking and choosing of a fragment to support their theories.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
627
Location
Pittsburgh
Really, lots of words trying to obscure the neglect of providing complete data. So I am supposed to look in the archives to prove myself wrong? The Abbeville armor of truth will shield me. In any case, if we accept the testimony of Southerners as suggested, then we have to accept the whole testimony, not just revisionist picking and choosing of a fragment to support their theories.
Then accept their testimony. They did not secede over tariffs. They told us why they seceded, why not accept the testimony of the southern secessionists themselves?
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,655
I see where you liked (post235) a poster's depiction of Southerners/ex-Confederates as failed human beings. Given Yankee moral failures in the Past, present, and likely in the future you can hardly be holier than thou than that.
Thanks for your response.
I am flattered that you find my mundane comments and the 'likes' I award so interesting.
Although I might quibble with some of his choice of words, @matthew mckeon stated his case well. It was a clear and- I believe largely accurate- reference to those rebels of another generation, not of anyone still living.
Since you are intent on tracking my 'likes', a word on 'likes' is in order. You will notice that I often 'like' posts that I disagree with, including yours, when they are well stated and provide food for thought. Perhaps the easiest way to get a like from me is to provide sourced information: that shows the poster put some effort into the post. I don't require that every post has to be in lock-step with my views, but for me to like it, it has to contribute to the discussion.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
627
Location
Pittsburgh
I'll accept that as a complement; even though I don't exactly agree with you.
You are correct, you are not a confederate apologist. Forgive me for likening you to those who argue that the confederacy was right while ignoring, denying, and lying about what the confederacy stood for. I’ve read several of your posts. You have the integrity to truly embrace the southern cause and don’t seem to have the need to white wash it with Lost Cause platitudes like so many here do. You are true to the confederate heritage.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
3,076
Location
Austin Texas
Really, lots of words trying to obscure the neglect of providing complete data. So I am supposed to look in the archives to prove myself wrong? The Abbeville armor of truth will shield me. In any case, if we accept the testimony of Southerners as suggested, then we have to accept the whole testimony, not just revisionist picking and choosing of a fragment to support their theories.

The data presented above does prove you wrong. If you can provide "the whole testimony" that would great.
 
Joined
May 19, 2019
Messages
197
The formation of the confederacy was decidedly not peaceable. It also did not include participation of ALL of the states, as the constitutional convention did... not a good analogy.
It is a perfectly good analogy, you just won't admit it. The Confederacy formed in the absence of war. All the States that wanted to participate did so. Not all were invited.
But for just a moment consider a 'what if ';
If the Northern States had decided that they no longer wanted to be associated with an immoral society and seceded from the Union, would the Southern States have attacked, conquered and subjugated the North? No. The Northern States decided that they were the arbitrators of good and exercised power not granted them by the Constitution.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top