Restricted The Lost Cause IS History!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Well, Andrew Jackson had this to say about it:

On December 10, 1832, Pres. Andrew Jackson issued his “Proclamation to the People of South Carolina,” asserting the supremacy of the federal government and warning that “disunion by armed force is treason.” Congress then (March 1, 1833) passed both the Force Bill—authorizing Jackson to use the military if necessary to collect tariff duties—and a compromise tariff that reduced those duties. The South Carolina convention responded on March 15 by rescinding the Ordinance of Nullification but three days later maintained its principles by nullifying the Force Bill.

The nullification crisis made President Jackson a hero to nationalists. But Southerners were made more conscious of their minority position and more aware of their vulnerability to a Northern majority as long as they remained in the union.

I guess I have to ask, what is it about South Carolina that made it such a hot head sort of state so early on after the peace of 1784?
I can't answer your question but I do know there was more negotiating going on after what Jackson said and South Carolina ended up getting what the wanted.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
Well, Andrew Jackson had this to say about it:

On December 10, 1832, Pres. Andrew Jackson issued his “Proclamation to the People of South Carolina,” asserting the supremacy of the federal government and warning that “disunion by armed force is treason.” Congress then (March 1, 1833) passed both the Force Bill—authorizing Jackson to use the military if necessary to collect tariff duties—and a compromise tariff that reduced those duties. The South Carolina convention responded on March 15 by rescinding the Ordinance of Nullification but three days later maintained its principles by nullifying the Force Bill.

The nullification crisis made President Jackson a hero to nationalists. But Southerners were made more conscious of their minority position and more aware of their vulnerability to a Northern majority as long as they remained in the union.

I guess I have to ask, what is it about South Carolina that made it such a hot head sort of state so early on after the peace of 1784?
South Carolina, along with North Carolina and Georgia almost made the constitution not happen. Many of the framers wanted to end the slave trade immediately in the constitution but these three states threatened to walk if it was. So a compromise was made that it would be outlawed in 20 years.
 

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
“When the cause was lost, what cause was it? Not that of the South only, but the cause of constitutional government, of the supremacy of law, of the natural rights of man.” - Jefferson Davis

In this one simple sentence, Davis describes the ruinous destruction Lincoln brought upon the American constitutional system of free government. Between 1861 and 1865 the United States was reduced from an inspiring example of free government, government by consent, to a thuggish Soviet style Gulag of political slaves suffering under the yoke of brutish tyranny. The Confederates were fighting to preserve free government and political independence. That was their Cause. That was their Lost Cause.
 

JRH48

Cadet
Joined
Mar 14, 2020
Location
Texas
Do you recognize two different classifications of "state", some with a "possibly legitimate claim" to more rights than the others? Jefferson Davis, who I was quoting, did not think so. And probably more important, do you recognize, and are you ok with a national government powerful enough to invade said sovereign states and make war, not just on the men of militia age but also the citizenry? What becomes of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? Was "consent of the governed" a once only option, after that, vassals for eternity, if you try to leave we'll kill you?

Complicated stuff, eh?
Definitely complicated. I recognize that despite Davis' opinion, only 5 of the states of the CSA had ever existed as a sovereign, independent state so it is hard to see how they could have granted some of the sovereign powers that they never had or exercised to the federal government. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union created a perpetual union. Because perpetual means permanent and everlasting, there was no procedure specified for breaking that union. The Constitutional Convention was convened under the authority of the Confederation to find a way to strengthen the government of the perpetual union. It did so by devising a new form and structure of government under a Constitution. The actions of the convention and the did not address or touch upon the perpetuity of the union of states governed under the Constitution. Indeed, the new government and the states treated the acts of the old government as laws not needed reinactment or ratification--further evidence that the perpetual union did not change, only the structure of its government.

As stated in the Preamble, the new Constitution was an act of the People of the United States--that is, the People of the union, not the people of the individual states. The "consent of the governed" is consent of the People as a whole, not as small contingents inside state borders. As a result, neither the state government, nor the people of a state have the unilateral authority to take a state out of the union. Under the Constitution, states have internal sovereignty, but that sovereignty stops at the state border. A state's relation with other states, including its status as part of the perpetual union is not a matter of internal sovereignty. Though not stated clearly, peaceful secession of any state can only be achieved by consent of the People of the United States. If the majority (how much majority is required?) consents, secession is allowed. If not, and secession is still demanded by the state or its people, another way must be found to settle the question.

It might be theoretically possible for the people of a state to dissolve the bonds of perpetual union by, acting in convention to repudiate the state's constitution and dissolve the state. A state that does not exist, cannot be bound in union. The people could then, theoretically, form a new sovereign, independent nation under any form of government they choose. But the can of worms this opens is, what is the status of the land occupied by the people and the previous state? The land occupied by most states was US territory before the states was formed withing it. With the dissolution of the state would the land revert to US territorial status? Even if the state has once been sovereign and independent, the land lies withing borders still claimed by the USA. Do the people who are citizens of no state have claim to that land or right to form a new independent state to occupy it?

Yes, it's complicated. But rebellion is rebellion and a nation has the rightful authority to put down rebellion within its borders. Both 1776 and 1861 were violent rebellions. Violent rebellions are, by there very nature, acts of treason. Failed rebellions remain acts of treason, but successful ones are called revolutions and the treasonous actions are moot. "Treason doth never prosper, and what's the reason? If it prosper, none dare call it treason."
 

JRH48

Cadet
Joined
Mar 14, 2020
Location
Texas
The Constitution says new states come in are equal as the others. Texas v White is after the war and I think has already been addressed.
Yes, but equal to the current status of the others, it doesn't alter their historical status. I said the original 13 plus two other might have status to claim that as sovereign states, the granted some of their sovereign powers to the federal govt. But this does not mean that once they had joined the other states in perpetual union, they could revoke the grant and revert to their previous independent condition. They surrendered that right forever when the formed or joined the perpetual union. And all state joining that union are equal to the others. None have or ever had the unilateral authority to withdraw from that union.
 

Poorville

Corporal
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Your wording, tone and syntax plainly depict that you believe the south was on par to be its own nation, but the reality revealed it was merely a Banana Republic. You do know what a Banana Republic is right? One crop nation that relies on foreign investments to survive.

If the Civil War proved anything, it proved that the south was incapable of independence nor autonomy, which is evident because they could not protect their civilians from an outside force nor provide the necessities for mere survival. My argument is plausible to the core and periphery country theory and your argument is hypothetical backed by some strange nostalgia that you been romanticizing.

We are talking about two groups of 19th century people: one who industrialized and one who vaguely tried to industrialize, and the Civil War proved the south didn't industrialize much. The south was not industrial worthy, it could not buffet the waves of the war nor could they make their way under difficult conditions. The south's entire economy crashed by 1863, so if it was stout like you claim it was it never would have crashed and burned that fast.

The south was never recognized by any foreign country, so their so-called investments must have been a default risk. Anytime a source has a major investment in another source each one will protect its investment with extreme prejudice, it's called multi-nationalism. No foreign country backed the south in the long haul.

The south had resources the north would not let go? No, like I said in the previous posts that it was a matter of National Security via the Monroe Doctrine that north held onto the south. Convincingly, the north knew if they didn't take the south's resources someone else would. It is called: "the tragedy of the commons."

Again, nobody is said the south was worthless, but it has been proven that it did not deserve independence because it never developed into a core society. The north was not going to let the south jeopardize the continental U.S. National Security because of its delusions of grandeur of establishing an arcadia. Secession would have equated to New World regressing back to the Old World, with neo-colonialism looming from the Europeans.

Why did the Confederates agree to trade with the Union, which is the more appropriate question? IMO, the north traded with the south out of the love of humanity, they saw they were wasted. The north controlled 92% of the USA GDP and the south held 7-8%, so it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to decode who was in dire need to trade.

James Polk was a southerner who annexed Texas and signed it into statehood. And his predecessor who set it all up was John Tyler another southerner, so get your facts straight.

Lurid, in my opinion, if the Confederacy had ever been able to reach a situation where a negotiated settlement with the Union was possible this would most likely be the result of some form of European involvement. This could have put a Confederate state into a form of dependence the Revolution of 1776 had eliminated.

What the south had to offer in terms of cotton, tobacco &c. could have led to a fast track move towards industrialization underpinned by Europe. For example Britain’s dependence on imported grain grew from 2% in the 1830s, 24% in the 1860s and 45% in 1880s. At some stage thereafter the Confederacy may have achieved independence.

But this is simply speculation because surely any involvement with Europe would have required similar legislation to end slavery in the Confederate state as Britain had ended slavery throughout its Empire in 1833/4 and France finally ended slavery in her colonies in 1848.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
A fundamental precept of the original founding fathers, the right of self-determination.
Yes, but governments “should not be changed for light and transient causes” ;only “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”.

Can’t think of anything more light and transient then losing an election in a constitutional republic with a robust system of checks and balances.

When you add the fact that the primary concern of the rebels was that the Republican Party was a threat to slavery it makes their reason for rebelling even more horrible.
 

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
A fundamental precept of the original founding fathers, the right of self-determination.

Excellent point. The Slave-owners Rebellion of 1776 provided a model for secession and political independence that the Confederates also rightfully invoked and closely followed. And like King George before him, Lincoln violently and ruthlessly opposed the idea of government by consent. To make matters worse, Lincoln was fighting to make political slaves of a free people while simultaneously acting as the President of a slave republic.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
Excellent point. The Slave-owners Rebellion of 1776 provided a model for secession and political independence that the Confederates also rightfully invoked and closely followed. And like King George before him, Lincoln violently and ruthlessly opposed the idea of government by consent. To make matters worse, Lincoln was fighting to make political slaves of a free people while simultaneously acting as the President of a slave republic.
Except for the fact that all Lincoln did was follow the precedents set by every previous President when faces with rebellion/secession. See this thread for evidence - https://civilwartalk.com/threads/di...n-of-the-southern-states.169547/#post-2205805
 

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Except for the fact that all Lincoln did was follow the precedents set by every previous President when faces with rebellion/secession. See this thread for evidence - https://civilwartalk.com/threads/di...n-of-the-southern-states.169547/#post-2205805


Except there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits secession. Oh, and the word "perpetual" is not in the Constitution either. And there is also no constitutional authority to either declare war or use the United States Army to make war against a State.

See this website for evidence. It's all in there: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Lurid, in my opinion, if the Confederacy had ever been able to reach a situation where a negotiated settlement with the Union was possible this would most likely be the result of some form of European involvement. This could have put a Confederate state into a form of dependence the Revolution of 1776 had eliminated.

What the south had to offer in terms of cotton, tobacco &c. could have led to a fast track move towards industrialization underpinned by Europe. For example Britain’s dependence on imported grain grew from 2% in the 1830s, 24% in the 1860s and 45% in 1880s. At some stage thereafter the Confederacy may have achieved independence.

But this is simply speculation because surely any involvement with Europe would have required similar legislation to end slavery in the Confederate state as Britain had ended slavery throughout its Empire in 1833/4 and France finally ended slavery in her colonies in 1848.

That was never the question, the question was it would have never been that easy like some these posters state in nonchalant way, and it would have took a long time, probably a lot longer than what some people believe, barring no interference.

First, in your second paragraph you answered your question to why the south never would have lasted. The only reason why cotton was so profitable the 4 decades prior to the war is because the Brits created a raw cotton boom because of the need to supply their country and colonies with cotton cloth. However, the British had an agriculture depression because of reasons not necessary to discuss in this thread but their demand for raw cotton shifted to grain.

In laymen terms, instead of spending boatloads of money on raw cotton they spent boatloads on grain to feed their people starting in 1862. Therefore, the cotton demand lowered by 4% per year the 4 decades that followed the Civil War. Hence, cotton was nowhere near as profitable post war as it was pre war. Moreover, the slave's value increased and decreased on the amount of cotton it picked. Consequently, the slave's value decreased along with the decrease of cotton demand therefore lowering the profit. Insert tobacco and sugar and you'll also see that both were steadily on the decline. I do believe the south could have industrialized pre-Civil War, but chose not to because of its internal problems of trying to keep the slave a slave.

Second, I have the theory that whether or not secession was legal or not it was never an issue because it jeopardized continental USA border security. The Monroe Doctrine was the defining moment in United States of America's foreign policy and longstanding tenants.
The doctrine asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence. The separation intended to avoid situations that could make the New World a battleground for the Old War powers so that the U.S. could exert its influence undisturbed. The south leaving the Union would have weakened the continental U.S.A., opening the door for Old World colonists to establish neo-colonialism. So, your theory of European involvement to get the Confederacy put on the map is precisely one my points to why secession was not going to happen.

Last, I don't think the south could have fought a Cold War with the north in terms of competition. The north was just building a fierce economy that was at least 80 years ahead of the south in terms technology advancements and a large influx of immigrants, which keep in mind those immigrants are not like the one's we have today, a lot of them came over here with a skill and a trade that helped build the economy. Whereas, the south economy was limited to agriculture with all its bust and boom cycles, and it had an unskilled labor pool. Let's delve into the south's unskilled labor pool that consisted of slaves and farmers.

Back to paragraph #1 in this post, the South seceded in hopes of solving what they saw as pressing social— or rather financial — problems: slavery needed to expand in order to maintain the value of slaves and thus the wealth of the ruling planter class. The need to prevent slaves from ‘depreciating themselves’ — by running way. It is necessary to remember that the slaves themselves did not accept the role the planter elites had inflicted upon them as human capital with gross view their value increased and decreased, that could depreciate and could be traded as chattel. To slaves, seeking freedom certainly did not seem a form of "auto-depreciation." The Southern elites promulgated for themselves the comforting idea that slaves ran away (or rebelled) as a result of insanity. They termed the "malady" “drapetomania.” Slavery itself was beset with ‘internal contradictions,’ particularly in the presence of an adjacent economy hungry for labor and less rapacious about exploiting the people who would provide it. I'm quite sure the south's primary issue was trying to keep the slave a slave and trying to increase its value by spreading it to virgin soil, not industrializing.

In conclusion, I do believe the Confederacy was a Kleptocracy that would have needed walls to keep its labors in, perhaps even its poor white people in. Definitely would have needed walls to keep old colonialists out. Didn't have the wherewithal to get into a Cold War with the north. Never would have lasted.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Yes, but equal to the current status of the others, it doesn't alter their historical status. I said the original 13 plus two other might have status to claim that as sovereign states, the granted some of their sovereign powers to the federal govt. But this does not mean that once they had joined the other states in perpetual union, they could revoke the grant and revert to their previous independent condition. They surrendered that right forever when the formed or joined the perpetual union. And all state joining that union are equal to the others. None have or ever had the unilateral authority to withdraw from that union.
There is no thing as perpetual Union. You folks have to get off of that.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Yes, but governments “should not be changed for light and transient causes” ;only “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”.

Can’t think of anything more light and transient then losing an election in a constitutional republic with a robust system of checks and balances.

When you add the fact that the primary concern of the rebels was that the Republican Party was a threat to slavery it makes their reason for rebelling even more horrible.

The primary concern of the Southern secessionists was the prospect that the regional Republican Party hypocritical so- call free-soil platform that if carried out would lead to permanent political domination by the North. Slavery was no more threatened in 1860 than it had been in 1850, 1820, or at any earlier time in the country's history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top