Was it worth it?

[JerryD]

What are you suggesting the north wasn't being vindictive?

That certainly doesn't pass the laugh test.

I never said that. I was responding to your assertion that the southerners were all happy and content and imbued with racial harmony and good will until Reconstruction made them react vindictively.

 

[archieclement]

I never said that. I was responding to your assertion that the southerners were all happy and content and imbued with racial harmony and good will until Reconstruction made them react vindictively.

Again I never said that either. However using them as political pawns to displace the majority, certainly if anything would likely increased vindictivness to them, not decreased it...........

 

[JerryD]

Again I never said that either. However using them as political pawns to displace the majority, certainly if anything would likely increased vindictivness to them, not decreased it...........

Their history provides ample evidence they did not need any incentive to conduct their decades long reign of terror. And its laughable you think so.

 

[archieclement]

Their history provides ample evidence they did not need any incentive to conduct their decades long reign of terror. And its laughable you think so.

History shows indeed how they reacted after such laughable reconstruction policy for sure. That's actually history.

One could note northern states such as Pennsylvania who initially had black voting, later voted to disenfranchise them 1838 to 1870. So such attitudes were indeed somehow not just southern. Indeed that was rather the point, how or why would northerners not expect southerners to have they same concerns they themselves had with far more insignificant populations? It's crazy to think they wouldn't have.

 

[genbeau]

Hold on.

The south. That kept millions of people in bondage. That sacrificed god knows how many lives. To maintain the institution of slavery for a measly four more years.

…was in a morally superior position?

Glad you finally put it in plain English, at least, for everyone to see. You're joining the others on ignore.

Let me explain. I am not saying the holding of slaves was in anyway a morally good thing. It was despicable. But keep in mind, the founders defined slavery as legal in the constitution.
I am strictly talking about the act of separting from the union. The person I was speaking to indicated he saw the separation as a rebellion, not a secession. Well, The Declaration of Independence approves of separating from an oppressive tyrant as being the natural rights of the people. The Declaration itself is saying the south had a right to rebel, so therefore in this instance the south was morally superior to the oppresser.
The oppression was due to the fact that the South felt the Union and some Northern states were not obeying the terms of the constitution. In this case, the part concerning the return of the fugutive slaves.

 

[genbeau]

Except even Southners called themselves es rebels. Fighting to keep humans as livestock is a rather dubious moral position.
Leftyhunter

The south didn't fight to keep slaves, they seceeded or as you say rebelled (your words) to keep slaves. The union and lincoln insisted on fighting a war. That was why we fought a war. (simple proof: if the south had stayed in the union there would have been no war).
When I say the rebellion was moral, I am just repeating what I have learned from many of the unionists on this board. According to the Declaration oppressed people have the right to rebel. Do you disagree with that. If so, then you disagree with the american revolution.

Finally, my actual opinion is the south's separation was a legal secession. You insisted it was a rebellion. You may want to switch your opinion to secession as it may be an easier argument to claim it was illegal and thus immoral.

 

[leftyhunter]

The south didn't fight to keep slaves, they seceeded or as you say rebelled (your words) to keep slaves. The union and lincoln insisted on fighting a war. That was why we fought a war. (simple proof: if the south had stayed in the union there would have been no war).
When I say the rebellion was moral, I am just repeating what I have learned from many of the unionists on this board. According to the Declaration oppressed people have the right to rebel. Do you disagree with that. If so, then you disagree with the american revolution.

Finally, my actual opinion is the south's separation was a legal secession. You insisted it was a rebellion. You may want to switch your opinion to secession as it may be an easier argument to claim it was illegal and thus immoral.

Have you ever read the various Southern state Ordinances of Secession? Absolutely the South fought to keep and expand slavery. Oppressed people don't own other people.
The American Revolution had nothing to do with slavery as the British didn't outlaw slavery until 1837. If Secession was legal there would of been no war to begin with. The morality of Secession is in the eye of the beholder . One can of course disagree with Texas v White and a like minded group of people can certainly try to get the US Supreme Court to reconsider Texas v White but for now that is the law.
Leftyhunter

 

[JerryD]

The Declaration itself is saying the south had a right to rebel, so therefore in this instance the south was morally superior to the oppresser.
The oppression was due to the fact that the South felt the Union and some Northern states were not obeying the terms of the constitution. In this case, the part concerning the return of the fugutive slaves.

This right here is where your logic took a hard left, crashed through the logic guardrails, and careened over the cliff of nonsense (which is right next to the Cliffs of Insanity).

Think about what you are saying. First off, not every rebellion is morally superior to the government it is rebelling against. I could name any number of rebellions where the rebels are far worse than the existing government.

But then you take the wild leap that the south was morally superior because northerners would not return escaped slaves? And you say this in the same post where you claim to think slavery is despicable. Can you see the failure in your logic? You seem to be equating legality with morality, which are two completely different things. It might have been legal to own slaves, but that does not make it moral. And it may have been illegal to help a slave escape slavery, but that does not make it immoral.

 

[JerryD]

Have you ever read the various Southern state Ordinances of Secession? Absolutely the South fought to keep and expand slavery. Oppressed people don't own other people.
The American Revolution had nothing to do with slavery as the British didn't outlaw slavery until 1837. If Secession was legal there would of been no war to begin with. The morality of Secession is in the eye of the beholder . One can of course disagree with Texas v White and a like minded group of people can certainly try to get the US Supreme Court to reconsider Texas v White but for now that is the law.
Leftyhunter

As we have seen, yes, Texas v. White is the definitive statement on the legality of secession. That is an incontrovertible fact. But some people prefer to ignore facts and live in a world where their opinion is their preferred reality. Why let facts get in the way of their preferred world view?

 

[Belfoured]

Have you ever read the various Southern state Ordinances of Secession? Absolutely the South fought to keep and expand slavery. Oppressed people don't own other people.
The American Revolution had nothing to do with slavery as the British didn't outlaw slavery until 1837. If Secession was legal there would of been no war to begin with. The morality of Secession is in the eye of the beholder . One can of course disagree with Texas v White and a like minded group of people can certainly try to get the US Supreme Court to reconsider Texas v White but for now that is the law.
Leftyhunter

In other words, one can twist themselves into a pretzel trying to "explain" the inherent contradictions in their "reasoning". According to the poster, secession is as unconnected to slavery and/or to the Civil War as is the Panic of 1857 or Morse's invention of the single-wire telegraph. Paying lip service to the "evil" of slavery and at the same time claiming moral superiority for secession flunks the laugh test.

 

[genbeau]

Have you ever read the various Southern state Ordinances of Secession? Absolutely the South fought to keep and expand slavery. Oppressed people don't own other people.
The American Revolution had nothing to do with slavery as the British didn't outlaw slavery until 1837. If Secession was legal there would of been no war to begin with. The morality of Secession is in the eye of the beholder . One can of course disagree with Texas v White and a like minded group of people can certainly try to get the US Supreme Court to reconsider Texas v White but for now that is the law.
Leftyhunter

You have sidetracked my point completely. My comment to you involved your reference to the separation of the south as a rebellion. A number of folks on this site have commented that a rebellion could be recognized as moral in the context that the Declaration defines it. i.e. thorowing of tyranical rule. My comment was to alert you to the fact that some would see a secession as immoral whereas they would see a rebellion is moral.
It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. I think it was a legal secession.

 

[leftyhunter]

You have sidetracked my point completely. My comment to you involved your reference to the separation of the south as a rebellion. A number of folks on this site have commented that a rebellion could be recognized as moral in the context that the Declaration defines it. i.e. thorowing of tyranical rule. My comment was to alert you to the fact that some would see a secession as immoral whereas they would see a rebellion is moral.
It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. I think it was a legal secession.

Please cite the exact federal statutory or case law that defines a " legal secession ".
Leftyhunter

 

[genbeau]

Please cite the exact federal statutory or case law that defines a " legal secession ".
Leftyhunter

This has become stream of conciousness and has wandered far from my original point about what you called a rebellion.

 

[leftyhunter]

This has become stream of conciousness and has wandered far from my original point about what you called a rebellion.

No it's a very simple request. If you use the term legal in terms of US law you should be able to backup your position citing relevant statutory or case law.
Leftyhunter

 

[Belfoured]

No it's a very simple request. If you use the term legal in terms of US law you should be able to backup your position citing relevant statutory or case law.
Leftyhunter

There's a reason you're not getting a response. And it has nothing to do with anything "wandering far" from the point made about a rebellion.

 

[genbeau]

No it's a very simple request. If you use the term legal in terms of US law you should be able to backup your position citing relevant statutory or case law.
Leftyhunter

There are two possible routes to the illegality of secession.
White v Texas
The result of the civil war.
Both happened after secession.

Remember, when the south seceeded, the federal government decided to not go to court asking for an injunction. In my personal opinion, from what I have read about Jefferson Davis, he would have answered the injunction. He believed that if it were placed before a court that secession would be judged legal. That was the great fear of the union all along.


We can chase this if you want, but this is an infinite loop that this site has been having as long as it has existed, judging by the archives. I have had it before, feel free to look at my past posts.

 

[leftyhunter]

There are two possible routes to the illegality of secession.
White v Texas
The result of the civil war.
Both happened after secession.

We can chase this if you want, but this is an infinite loop that this site has been having as long as it has existed, judging by the archives. I have had it before, feel free to look at my past posts.

Again to assert a legal point one has to cite actual statutory or case law. Texas v White was based on Antebellum law and at least one poster cited Antebellum era court decisions that addressed the issue of federal supremacy. Yes Jefferson Davis in 1881 did wrote a book justifying secession but it had no legal weight. If secession was truly legal then there would of been no ACW.
L

 

[JerryD]

Again to assert a legal point one has to cite actual statutory or case law. Texas v White was based on Antebellum law and at least one poster cited Antebellum era court decisions that addressed the issue of federal supremacy. Yes Jefferson Davis in 1881 did wrote a book justifying secession but it had no legal weight. If secession was truly legal then there would of been no ACW.
L

My advice is, leave him to his fantasies.

 

[genbeau]

Again to assert a legal point one has to cite actual statutory or case law. Texas v White was based on Antebellum law and at least one poster cited Antebellum era court decisions that addressed the issue of federal supremacy. Yes Jefferson Davis in 1881 did wrote a book justifying secession but it had no legal weight. If secession was truly legal then there would of been no ACW.
L

There was no court ruling to that effect prior to the civil war. It is quite possible had if it gone before the supreme court pre civil war secession would have been ruled legal. Your argument is that it was illegal because of the after the fact ruling in white v white?

 

[genbeau]

When the south seceeded from the union, the union should have gone to the supreme court for an injunction to sort it all out. The didn't and thus conceded that secession was legal in the sense they never challenged it. Even 4 years after the war with the ruling of a unionist supreme court justice not withstanding.