Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

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

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Does anyone, have handy, that particular excerpt from Virginia's original acceptance of the Constitution in 1788? I believe that they were disregarding a comma or two, in 1861.

As most of us know, the placement of commas are quite important to legal types, such as lawyers and say ...a court authority, like a judge, when evaluating the "meaning" of a legal document or interpretation of a law.
Lots they disagreed with. That is the nature of politics.

Disagree with legislation such as the militia acts which they agreed to but are about a consolidated nation and not a compact and SCOTUS decisions against a compact theory.

Even amendment 11 which VA ratified says in effect that States are not sovereignties in a Compact because they have to have an amendment giving them a sovereign right.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​
VA did not have a problem suppressing the sovereign rights of the Free States.

It is politics.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,833
Louisiana State University
LSU Digital Commons
LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School
1997

The Sugar Masters: Slavery, Economic Development, and Modernization on Louisiana Sugar Plantations, 1820-1860.
by Richard J. Follett

Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact gradetd@lsu.edu.

ABSTRACT
In this dissertation, I contend that sugar planters in the antebellum South managed their estates progressively, efficiently, and with a capitalist political economy and ideology. By embracing slavery, technology, and a host of improvements, sugar planters strove to create integrated units producing, manufacturing, and marketing sugar on an agro-industrial scale.

Despite a century of historiographical debate, historians remain divided over the incompatibility of slavery with industrial and agricultural innovation. Whether they look to Adam Smith or Karl Marx, most historians deem free labor a necessity for technology and
growth. This, however, appears inaccurate, as antebellum sugar planters confidently advocated improvement and saw no contradiction between capitalism and slavery. The quantitative and qualitative growth of the antebellum sugar industry remains testament to that fact.


In the past twenty years, a group of scholars challenged the notion that slavery and the antebellum South were pre-capitalist. Their work, while underpinning my own study, failed to satisfactorily prove that antebellum planters operated as entrepreneurial capitalists. My dissertation hopefully fills this void as few scholars have systematically analyzed the growth of a single planter class that was so reliant on the synchronization of agriculture and industry as the Louisiana sugar masters. These agricultural magnates responded to a burgeoning market for sugar by spatially expanding their cane crops, adopting modern agricultural techniques, embracing technological
improvement, practicing innovative management and shaping the dynamics of slavery to maximize labor productivity. Progressive and entrepreneurial, the sugar planters brought south Louisiana into an age of capitalist modernity.


Southern progress, however, differed fundamentally from that of the North because the laborers who transformed the sugar industry and manned the steam engines were African-American slaves who materially advanced the process of modernization. By imposing order and discipline in the work-place, the planters hoped to transform their laborers into industrial workers who toiled at the mechanical pace of the steam age. To a large extent, they were successful, but to obtain the labor they required, the planters adopted
both the lash and a complex system of rewards to motivate their workers during the harvest season.


https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7539&context=gradschool_disstheses

File too large to attach - please see above link.
476

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
There was no rebellion, it was secession.
"Marshal Law against Rebels"
It was marshal Law against the Union!! He purposely violate the 1st Amendment. And others.

add-
1st Amendment
4th Amendment
9th Amendment
10th Amendment

Basically, he shunned the US Constitution all together.
Yes, he did suspend all those amendment in the North and South.
But the Constitutional question is "was it necessary in a time of rebellion for the more important aim of Preserving the Union?"
And the Constitution does give him the right to do so in time of rebellion.
Edited.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Louisiana State University
LSU Digital Commons
LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School
1997

The Sugar Masters: Slavery, Economic Development, and Modernization on Louisiana Sugar Plantations, 1820-1860.
by Richard J. Follett

Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact gradetd@lsu.edu.

ABSTRACT
In this dissertation, I contend that sugar planters in the antebellum South managed their estates progressively, efficiently, and with a capitalist political economy and ideology. By embracing slavery, technology, and a host of improvements, sugar planters strove to create integrated units producing, manufacturing, and marketing sugar on an agro-industrial scale.

Despite a century of historiographical debate, historians remain divided over the incompatibility of slavery with industrial and agricultural innovation. Whether they look to Adam Smith or Karl Marx, most historians deem free labor a necessity for technology and
growth. This, however, appears inaccurate, as antebellum sugar planters confidently advocated improvement and saw no contradiction between capitalism and slavery. The quantitative and qualitative growth of the antebellum sugar industry remains testament to that fact.


In the past twenty years, a group of scholars challenged the notion that slavery and the antebellum South were pre-capitalist. Their work, while underpinning my own study, failed to satisfactorily prove that antebellum planters operated as entrepreneurial capitalists. My dissertation hopefully fills this void as few scholars have systematically analyzed the growth of a single planter class that was so reliant on the synchronization of agriculture and industry as the Louisiana sugar masters. These agricultural magnates responded to a burgeoning market for sugar by spatially expanding their cane crops, adopting modern agricultural techniques, embracing technological
improvement, practicing innovative management and shaping the dynamics of slavery to maximize labor productivity. Progressive and entrepreneurial, the sugar planters brought south Louisiana into an age of capitalist modernity.


Southern progress, however, differed fundamentally from that of the North because the laborers who transformed the sugar industry and manned the steam engines were African-American slaves who materially advanced the process of modernization. By imposing order and discipline in the work-place, the planters hoped to transform their laborers into industrial workers who toiled at the mechanical pace of the steam age. To a large extent, they were successful, but to obtain the labor they required, the planters adopted
both the lash and a complex system of rewards to motivate their workers during the harvest season.


https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7539&context=gradschool_disstheses

File too large to attach - please see above link.
476

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Interesting one for sure.
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,590
Location
Georgia
If you want to understand why Virginia seceded, you only have to examine the comments of VA Governor John Letcher to the request from Lincoln calling for troops to suppress the other southern states. Gov. Letcher stated: "In reply to this communication, I have only to say, that the Militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington, for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate our Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such object---an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution, or the act of 1795---- will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it, in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South."

Gov. Letcher's reply was presented to the Secession Convention and the delegates voted the next day to secede from the Union by a sizeable majority. They were opposed to any type of federal coercion against the southern states because this was considered to be an unconstitutional abuse of power.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,950
Lots they disagreed with. That is the nature of politics.

Disagree with legislation such as the militia acts which they agreed to but are about a consolidated nation and not a compact and SCOTUS decisions against a compact theory.

Even amendment 11 which VA ratified says in effect that States are not sovereignties in a Compact because they have to have an amendment giving them a sovereign right.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​
VA did not have a problem suppressing the sovereign rights of the Free States.

It is politics.
Since you opened up Politics. Here is Lincoln in 1848; Speech attacking Polk:

Any people any when, 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. . .Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln Vol I.,p. 369SE

So yes it was all Politics. Lincoln portraying the Union as Perpetual, would allow him to attack the South, and get his Cotton and Tax Payment. Sounds like a Confederate in the above quote.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
How many of those hits related to the argument that Slavery was better Protected in the Union? That was the prevailing Argument. Prevailing reason that VA didn’t secede when MS did!
Good point and also true of the Upper South States that did secede. However, slaveholder loyalty to the CSA also seemed to be based on it better protecting slavery.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Since you opened up Politics. Here is Lincoln in 1848; Speech attacking Polk:

Any people any when, 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. . .Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln Vol I.,p. 369SE

So yes it was all Politics. Lincoln portraying the Union as Perpetual, would allow him to attack the South, and get his Cotton and Tax Payment. Sounds like a Confederate in the above quote.
Sounds interesting, but suggests that the secessionists did not secede from a compact but rebelled as Lincoln claimed.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,026
Since you opened up Politics. Here is Lincoln in 1848; Speech attacking Polk:

Any people any when, 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. . .Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln Vol I.,p. 369SE

So yes it was all Politics. Lincoln portraying the Union as Perpetual, would allow him to attack the South, and get his Cotton and Tax Payment. Sounds like a Confederate in the above quote.
You might want to read the entire speech, rather than depending upon an excerpt. It is available at http://teachingamericanhistory.org/...n-the-united-states-house-of-representatives/
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,026
Does anyone, have handy, that particular excerpt from Virginia's original acceptance of the Constitution in 1788?
https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html
The actual Declaration of Ratification states:
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: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.​
With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction, that, whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by a delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratification:​
We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following: [A copy of our Constitution was included]​
On motion, Ordered, That the Secretary of this Convention cause to be engrossed, forthwith, two fair copies of the form of ratification, and of the proposed Constitution of Government, as recommended by the Federal Convention on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven.​
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
2,994
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
All three branches have equal power to interpret the constitution as to what should
be the "law of the land."

President Lincoln having equal power to interpret the constitution did not have to explain himself
to Supreme Court Justice Taney.
And, in my view, with Congress concurring with Lincoln, any argument was over, for the duration of "the rebellion."

2 co-equal powers against 1; check-mate.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,929
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The ability to ignore slavery per the notes of it's secession convention still astounds me. Further, the ability to simply quote a source out-of-context, simply causes me to shake my head at the same, old, tired tactics to put slavery in the background or the effort to try and ignore it completely.

Trouble is, for every, single, out-of-text quote, there usually are hundreds, if not thousands of words that will draw that single quote into very sharp historical focus, almost always standing the intent to distract and disguise it's actual intent on it's head.

Virginia seceded over the issue of slavery, as has been shown, repeatedly on other threads and in @jgoodguy's recent post on this forum. The objective, full context of the historical evidence he posts here should be carefully considered and checked by all who view his posts and the full sources he provides.

History, all of it, should be made available, without the rush to defend a favorite view or long-held belief.

Faith proves nothing when it comes to actual history, especially Virginia's choice to secede. One point-of-view will not do. History, factual history, must be the standard, not the constant cheering from the sidelines of a personal belief.

I apologize if I cause offense, but the dance has been done before, the music never changing and the steps never improve and I grow weary of it being constantly repeated.

Unionblue
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
2,994
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
Good to see you UB. But, your reluctant and always most welcome entrance has reminded me of an of an old post where I took up a "challenge" of a sort, that you posed a while back, I will c/paste for readability:

Out of curiosity UB I took up your challenge.
The search for the word slavery finds 512 matches.
The word slave: 642 hits​
This gentleman seems to believe the whole of the North hates slavery, and thus the threat to its existence. I merely picked this one at random and started to read it.​
Is it true that the North hates slavery? My next proposition is that in the past the North has invariably exerted against slavery, all the power which it had at the time. The question merely was what was the amount of power it had to exert against it. They abolished slavery in that magnificent empire which you presented to the North ; they abolished slavery in every Northern State, one after another;
they abolished slavery in all the territory above the line of 36 30, which comprised about one million square miles. They have endeavored to put the Wilmot Proviso upon all the other territories of the Union, and they succeeded in putting it upon the territories of Oregon and Washington. They have taken from slavery all the conquests of the Mexican war, and appropriated it all to anti-slavery purposes ; and if one of our fugitives escapes into the territories, they do all they can to make a free man of him; they maltreat his pursuers, and sometimes murder them. They make raids into your territory with a view to raise insurrection, with a view to destroy and murder indiscriminately all classes, ages and sexes, and when the base perpetrators are caught and brought to punishment, condign punishment, half the north go into mourning. If some of the perpetrators escape, they are shielded by the authorities of these Northern States—not by an irresponsible mob, but by the regularly organized authorities of the States.
My next proposition is, that we have a right to argue from the past to the future and to say, that if in the past the North has done this, in the future, if it shall acquire the power to abolish slavery, it will do it.

And on and on he goes. Quite an eloquent fellow in his defense, the convention must have been mesmerized.​

Then I thought, let me be fair. What about states rights, surely that will get alotta hits? Considering their importance, as we are told they were, many more than slavery, right? 51 mentions.​
How about those despicable tariffs that always come up? 12​
You are right UB, it is odd, isn't it?:smile:

Original post:
EDITED: For clarity and view-ability
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




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