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

[CSA Today]

Thanks for your response.
Yet they were very open in explaining their rationale in the various letters, speeches and the secession documents. It was only after their defeat that they 'revised' their reasons.

If several of the posters here are believed so did the first set of Founders.

 

[randy596]

The founders wanted to deal with slavery along with every other minute subject that is involved with building a government from
scratch. 12 States (RI didn't attend) and 39 signers from the 70 invited with different opinions on everything. Slavery was legal in all states except MA in 1780. Some founders thought slavery to be dying on it's own, some were deeply invested..I'm actually amazed
at what was accomplished. What it boils down to is they punted on the slavery to build a Union.

 

[BigTex]

The states are subject to the people of the United States who enacted the constitution. “We the people of the United States,” not “we the citizens of the various states” or “We the several states”... the constitution is the product of the whole people of the United States, not of subdivisions thereof.

A State is not a subdivision. You did take civics 101, right?
These United STATES are coequal in a federation... but not in a National government.

 

[Rïmer]

It was as States and through the States that the constitution was enacted. The people didn't come together and impose from the top down the Union. So I fail to understand, in this context, what purpose there is in trying to discern meaning here in the phrases ' “We the people of the United States” ' vs ' we the citizens of the various states” or “We the several states” '

 

[Andersonh1]

It was as States and through the States that the constitution was enacted. The people didn't come together and impose from the top down the Union. So I fail to understand, in this context, what purpose there is in trying to discern meaning here in the phrases ' “We the people of the United States” ' vs ' we the citizens of the various states” or “We the several states” '

The purpose is of course to push the nationalist narrative of US history.

 

[BigTex]

The founders wanted to deal with slavery along with every other minute subject that is involved with building a government from
scratch. 12 States (RI didn't attend) and 39 signers from the 70 invited with different opinions on everything. Slavery was legal in all states except MA in 1780. Some founders thought slavery to be dying on it's own, some were deeply invested..I'm actually amazed
at what was accomplished. What it boils down to is they punted on the slavery to build a Union.

They had a union. In it (AOC) the issue of slavery was not a concern.
It ( convention of 1787) was about power. And who was to exercise it. Sectional faction--- the greatest danger. Ultimately it won out in 1860.
Slavery was the issue of the North. The South was good with slavery. So who was it that precipitated the secession of States? I think we know who were the parties that dealt treacherously.

 

[wbull1]

Whoa! Hey! What happened to all the words devoted to how tariffs caused the Civil War? We showed that the Confederates did not believe it did, but we have not heard from the tariff-claimers since then. What about it TCs?

 

[BigTex]

Whoa! Hey! What happened to all the words devoted to how tariffs caused the Civil War? We showed that the Confederates did not believe it did, but we have not heard from the tariff-claimers since then. What about it TCs?

That's a subject on another thread. It gets referred to here from time to time. My premise is this:
Since the Southern States were good with slavery and it's legality under the compact, why secede? Obviously, the Northern States were not willing to abide by the compact and claimed ' States Rights ' disregarding SCOTUS ruling the constitutionality of duly enacted law. Who was it that violated the compact? It wasn't the Southern States.

 

[GwilymT]

That was the point I wanted to make when I said ridiculous, neither watermelons nor is secession mentioned in the constitution. Neither are illegal simply because they aren't mentioned.

Secession, unlike watermelon, has legal and constitutional implications. It is a political act.

 

[GwilymT]

That's a subject on another thread. It gets referred to here from time to time. My premise is this:
Since the Southern States were good with slavery and it's legality under the compact, why secede? Obviously, the Northern States were not willing to abide by the compact and claimed ' States Rights ' disregarding SCOTUS ruling the constitutionality of duly enacted law. Who was it that violated the compact? It wasn't the Southern States.

It puts the lie to the claim that southern states seceded to protect some theoretical idea of “states rights”.

 

[BigTex]

It puts the lie to the claim that southern states seceded to protect some theoretical idea of “states rights”.

No, rather it shows that the idea of 'States Rights ' was understood and prevalent in the politics of the day, even back to the AOC when States jealous ly guarded their natural rights.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Lots of posts, although not much in the way of history.
.
Secession was to protect slavery. I can't see how we can overlook that. The secessionists felt slavery was under threat. Read The Scorpion's Sting by John Oakes. They used the threat against slavery to try to persuade the other slave states to secede. Read The Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew. That's history. Today, to create a republic based on a master race owning another race defined as subhuman seems....unAmerican. Thusly we endure various theories about the Constitution, what it means and what it doesn't mean.

The effort seemed to be "we shoulda been able to, if it wasn't for those mean Yankees." I'll let the self appoint Constitutional experts debate that.
But the real question "Should we have?" has an answer that's got strong with every year since 1861. "No." The cause was not worthy.

 

[Rïmer]

Lots of posts, although not much in the way of history.
.
Secession was to protect slavery. I can't see how we can overlook that. The secessionists felt slavery was under threat. Read The Scorpion's Sting by John Oakes. They used the threat against slavery to try to persuade the other slave states to secede. Read The Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew. That's history. Today, to create a republic based on a master race owning another race defined as subhuman seems....unAmerican. Thusly we endure various theories about the Constitution, what it means and what it doesn't mean.

The effort seemed to be "we shoulda been able to, if it wasn't for those mean Yankees." I'll let the self appoint Constitutional experts debate that.
But the real question "Should we have?" has an answer that's got strong with every year since 1861. "No." The cause was not worthy.

I don't think its good to trivialize the events as merely a way to save slavery; unless your aim is to dehumanize the South (which was no doubt the aim of her enemies). What was under attack and worthy of preservation (among other things) was the whole social order.. Destroy a nations social order and you threaten to destroy a nation.

 

[Scooter_B]

Rather than bewail this vacuum, why not provide some sources where we all can learn "real history"?

No real need, the sources, for the most part, are part of this blog all one needs is to search. For example, a rebuttal to the idea that the FSL 1850 was just about slaves, which I am led to believe is the received wisdom here can be found by searching for "The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850: Symbolic Gesture or Gesture or Rational Guarantee?" using the forum search feature. Obviously inspired by Abbeville Institute research, this article notes that if we assume that the FSL1850 was about slaves, then there are several logical inconsistencies but if we look at it as a measure of if the Northern guarantee to the South of equality in the Union. then and only thing does everything falls into a logical order.

 

[Scooter_B]

I don't think its good to trivialize the events as merely a way to save slavery; unless your aim is to dehumanize the South (which was no doubt the aim of her enemies). What was under attack and worthy of preservation (among other things) was the whole social order.. Destroy a nations social order and you threaten to destroy a nation.

One other way to view secession is like the North breaking the compact with the South, under which the South joined the Union and the South seceded as a remedy. Because SCOTUS. would have sided with the South, Lincoln had no choice but to invade the Southern States

 

[Scooter_B]

Lots of posts, although not much in the way of history.
.
Secession was to protect slavery. I can't see how we can overlook that. The secessionists felt slavery was under threat. Read The Scorpion's Sting by John Oakes. They used the threat against slavery to try to persuade the other slave states to secede. Read The Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew. That's history. Today, to create a republic based on a master race owning another race defined as subhuman seems....unAmerican. Thusly we endure various theories about the Constitution, what it means and what it doesn't mean.

The effort seemed to be "we shoulda been able to, if it wasn't for those mean Yankees." I'll let the self appoint Constitutional experts debate that.
But the real question "Should we have?" has an answer that's got strong with every year since 1861. "No." The cause was not worthy.

Only by losing the war does this become true, enforced by the sword.
Isn't using modern sentiment enforced by the North's victory and elimination of any competing philosophy not very historic and more of a victor's conceit.

 

[Scooter_B]

A Nation is defined in Black's law dictionary 6th edition as “A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.”

Its not really honest to say that the slaves and servants of the South formed us into a Nation -- they might, you could argue anyway, formed us into a country, or an empire but certainly not into a Nation. The vast majority of the Southern slaves and servants belong either to different Nations or are just members of tribes and bands of people who don't constitute a Nation of their own. The way people throw around State, Country and Nation so appalling and misleading.

If you wish country or empire, so be it.

 

[Scooter_B]

Is often in the "eye" of the beholder, of out-dated sources. And, the few that you have provided proves such, so far.

Or that some rush to embrace the latest fad simply because it is a more interesting revision.

 

[Scooter_B]

Threatened and divided, Rhode Island finally ratified the Constitution on May 29, 1790, by a vote of 34 to 32.

Thanks for this detail of coercion. I hope the author of the quoted post will show up here to explain this coercion.

 

[Scooter_B]

"Southern Servents"? Seriously. Talk about lipstick on a pig.

The Southerners were nearly 2 centuries closer in time mentioned than this post. Do I believe the assertions of this post or those living at the time?