Happy Birthday, Jefferson Davis

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But that all comes back to the idea that they have a legal right to break off in the first place.

Correct, and that is obviously my assumption. I doubt we're going to find much common ground there, however.

 

[Polk]

But that all comes back to the idea that they have a legal right to break off in the first place.

Correct, and that is obviously my assumption. I doubt we're going to find much common ground there, however.

Of course not, but that's what makes the debate a fun exercise.

 

[MuadDib]

Both Davis and Lincoln were born in KY.
The only state to have both a north and south state capitol at the same time.

Not really. Kentucky was a Union state. But Frankfort was taken by the Confederates for a brief time and was the only Union state capitol ever occupied by the Confederates.

 

[MuadDib]

He argued against secession as a Senator from Mississippi, but believed that the right to secession was natural and constitutional so he went along with his state. As to being a traitor, well, I suppose he was a traitor in the same sense that Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson were traitors to King George. As to the war leading to 600,000+ deaths, I suppose you should look at who actually wanted the war. That would be Lincoln, not Davis. Davis wanted to secede peacefully, whereas Lincoln was intent on forcing them back into the Union.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm no historian, but I'm almost certain that the the South wouldn’t have seceded from the Union if the Northern states were pro-slavery, and didn’t present a threat to their “right” to work millions of Africans to their deaths on their plantations. I can care less if Lincoln was a racist, or whether or not he had ulterior motives for freeing the slaves; what instead is relevant to me is that he supported the abolition of slavery, plain and simple.

I don’t know about you, but I simply can’t support the South in any way when their #1 REASON or leaving the United States was because they wanted to uphold the institution of slavery. Obviously, I can see why it'd be harder for southerners to let go of this disgusting practice, but I don't think they're deserving of any sort of special sympathy. It's slavery, and it's wrong.

Where do you find justification for supporting the Southern cause?

Pretty much everything you said there is politically correct, but historically incorrect.

The troubles between North and South were over tariffs, not slavery. By 1860, the South was funding 85-87% of the Federal government's total revenue through tariffs that were increasing their cost of living. Almost 9 out of 10 Southerners owned no slaves at all.

American agriculture was booming in the mid-1850's as Southern farms were feeding Europe during the Crimean War. That boom slowed dowed down when the war ended in '56. In 1857, the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company had to close its New York office because of embezzlement, which almost caused a run on the banks. That, the economic slowdown, and the Dred Scott Decision caused an economic depression, the Panic of 1857.

Strangely enough, Congress actually did the right thing that year and lowered the tariff rates, and the economy stabilized and began to recover in two years. Just as the economy was beginning to recover, Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont proposed the Morrill Tariff, threatening to raise the tariff rates through the roof with the Southern states bearing the brunt of it..

Lincoln campaigned in 1860 in favor of the Morrill Tariff. That was why he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states, not slavery. After his election and before his inauguration, he gave a speech in Philadelphia promising to sign the tariff bill if Congress passed it. They did pass it and President James Buchanan signed it into law as one of his final acts.

Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He did not consider himself one, nor did the abolitionists consider him an abolitionist. Read his First Inaugural Address.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them...

 

[Sallow]

Jefferson Davis was born June 3, 1808, and he was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America. He believed in peace, free trade, and the American idea of self-government.

"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis

Davis was engaged in treason and insurrection.

If he really wanted to be "left alone"..he should have left the borders of the United States..found some uninhabited place..and started a new country.

That's not what he did. And he was damned lucky not to be hung.

The same could then be said of Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers. If they didn't want to be under the tyranny of King George they should have left the borders and formed their own country somewhere else.

If one were British..that absolutely would be the case.

It also puts the heroism of the founders into perspective as they were really risking their fortunes, reputations, and lives.

 

[Sallow]

He argued against secession as a Senator from Mississippi, but believed that the right to secession was natural and constitutional so he went along with his state. As to being a traitor, well, I suppose he was a traitor in the same sense that Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson were traitors to King George. As to the war leading to 600,000+ deaths, I suppose you should look at who actually wanted the war. That would be Lincoln, not Davis. Davis wanted to secede peacefully, whereas Lincoln was intent on forcing them back into the Union.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm no historian, but I'm almost certain that the the South wouldn’t have seceded from the Union if the Northern states were pro-slavery, and didn’t present a threat to their “right” to work millions of Africans to their deaths on their plantations. I can care less if Lincoln was a racist, or whether or not he had ulterior motives for freeing the slaves; what instead is relevant to me is that he supported the abolition of slavery, plain and simple.

I don’t know about you, but I simply can’t support the South in any way when their #1 REASON or leaving the United States was because they wanted to uphold the institution of slavery. Obviously, I can see why it'd be harder for southerners to let go of this disgusting practice, but I don't think they're deserving of any sort of special sympathy. It's slavery, and it's wrong.

Where do you find justification for supporting the Southern cause?

Pretty much everything you said there is politically correct, but historically incorrect.

The troubles between North and South were over tariffs, not slavery. By 1860, the South was funding 85-87% of the Federal government's total revenue through tariffs that were increasing their cost of living. Almost 9 out of 10 Southerners owned no slaves at all.

American agriculture was booming in the mid-1850's as Southern farms were feeding Europe during the Crimean War. That boom slowed dowed down when the war ended in '56. In 1857, the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company had to close its New York office because of embezzlement, which almost caused a run on the banks. That, the economic slowdown, and the Dred Scott Decision caused an economic depression, the Panic of 1857.

Strangely enough, Congress actually did the right thing that year and lowered the tariff rates, and the economy stabilized and began to recover in two years. Just as the economy was beginning to recover, Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont proposed the Morrill Tariff, threatening to raise the tariff rates through the roof with the Southern states bearing the brunt of it..

Lincoln campaigned in 1860 in favor of the Morrill Tariff. That was why he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states, not slavery. After his election and before his inauguration, he gave a speech in Philadelphia promising to sign the tariff bill if Congress passed it. They did pass it and President James Buchanan signed it into law as one of his final acts.

Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He did not consider himself one, nor did the abolitionists consider him an abolitionist. Read his First Inaugural Address.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them...

Eyeah..this old chestnut.

No..the troubles between the North and the South were very much about slavery. Aside from the moral implications of the practice, there were numerous slave revolts and the courts were being larded with indefensible cases about the rights of slaves.

Initially Lincoln hadn't thought blacks equal to whites, but thought the institution of slavery was wrong. He had no taste to go to war over it either. That changed..along Lincoln's other opinion, that if the American Blacks were liberated, they would be sent back to Africa.

 

[MuadDib]

Now, you may argue that the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter and you would be correct. That was exactly what Lincoln wanted them to do.

Charleston was the South's most major port on the Atlantic coast and the garrison at the fort would be able to stop any ships entering or leaving the harbor and charge a tariff. Do you think that it would be a sound policy to allow a foreign nation to have a fort in the harbor of one of your most significant ports?

Lincoln had promised the South in good faith that he would not try to reinforce the garrison at Fort Sumter, that he would only supply the men there with food and essentials, then changed his mind and broke his promise within a matter of days.

Two weeks after the battle, he wrote a letter to Gustavus Fox, his naval commander on that expedition:

WASHINGTON, May 1st, 1861.

Capt. G.V. Fox:

My Dear Sir, I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.

Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN.

In essence, he was saying, "Our plan worked".

He left the South no choice but to fire the first shot.

 

[MuadDib]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm no historian, but I'm almost certain that the the South wouldn’t have seceded from the Union if the Northern states were pro-slavery, and didn’t present a threat to their “right” to work millions of Africans to their deaths on their plantations. I can care less if Lincoln was a racist, or whether or not he had ulterior motives for freeing the slaves; what instead is relevant to me is that he supported the abolition of slavery, plain and simple.

I don’t know about you, but I simply can’t support the South in any way when their #1 REASON or leaving the United States was because they wanted to uphold the institution of slavery. Obviously, I can see why it'd be harder for southerners to let go of this disgusting practice, but I don't think they're deserving of any sort of special sympathy. It's slavery, and it's wrong.

Where do you find justification for supporting the Southern cause?

Pretty much everything you said there is politically correct, but historically incorrect.

The troubles between North and South were over tariffs, not slavery. By 1860, the South was funding 85-87% of the Federal government's total revenue through tariffs that were increasing their cost of living. Almost 9 out of 10 Southerners owned no slaves at all.

American agriculture was booming in the mid-1850's as Southern farms were feeding Europe during the Crimean War. That boom slowed dowed down when the war ended in '56. In 1857, the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company had to close its New York office because of embezzlement, which almost caused a run on the banks. That, the economic slowdown, and the Dred Scott Decision caused an economic depression, the Panic of 1857.

Strangely enough, Congress actually did the right thing that year and lowered the tariff rates, and the economy stabilized and began to recover in two years. Just as the economy was beginning to recover, Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont proposed the Morrill Tariff, threatening to raise the tariff rates through the roof with the Southern states bearing the brunt of it..

Lincoln campaigned in 1860 in favor of the Morrill Tariff. That was why he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states, not slavery. After his election and before his inauguration, he gave a speech in Philadelphia promising to sign the tariff bill if Congress passed it. They did pass it and President James Buchanan signed it into law as one of his final acts.

Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He did not consider himself one, nor did the abolitionists consider him an abolitionist. Read his First Inaugural Address.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them...

Eyeah..this old chestnut.

No..the troubles between the North and the South were very much about slavery. Aside from the moral implications of the practice, there were numerous slave revolts and the courts were being larded with indefensible cases about the rights of slaves.

Initially Lincoln hadn't thought blacks equal to whites, but thought the institution of slavery was wrong. He had no taste to go to war over it either. That changed..along Lincoln's other opinion, that if the American Blacks were liberated, they would be sent back to Africa.

It's not an old chestnut. It's the truth and was pretty much known by all until the Progressives started rewriting history around 1910. Lincoln didn't start a war to free the slaves; he started it to get the Federal government's revenue back. He is recorded as ranting, "What about my tariff?"

The myth that Lincoln changed his mind about blacks and his ideas about repatriating them back to Africa has been pretty thoroughly debunked. He maintained those ideas right up to the day he died.

 

[Sallow]

Pretty much everything you said there is politically correct, but historically incorrect.

The troubles between North and South were over tariffs, not slavery. By 1860, the South was funding 85-87% of the Federal government's total revenue through tariffs that were increasing their cost of living. Almost 9 out of 10 Southerners owned no slaves at all.

American agriculture was booming in the mid-1850's as Southern farms were feeding Europe during the Crimean War. That boom slowed dowed down when the war ended in '56. In 1857, the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company had to close its New York office because of embezzlement, which almost caused a run on the banks. That, the economic slowdown, and the Dred Scott Decision caused an economic depression, the Panic of 1857.

Strangely enough, Congress actually did the right thing that year and lowered the tariff rates, and the economy stabilized and began to recover in two years. Just as the economy was beginning to recover, Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont proposed the Morrill Tariff, threatening to raise the tariff rates through the roof with the Southern states bearing the brunt of it..

Lincoln campaigned in 1860 in favor of the Morrill Tariff. That was why he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states, not slavery. After his election and before his inauguration, he gave a speech in Philadelphia promising to sign the tariff bill if Congress passed it. They did pass it and President James Buchanan signed it into law as one of his final acts.

Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He did not consider himself one, nor did the abolitionists consider him an abolitionist. Read his First Inaugural Address.

Eyeah..this old chestnut.

No..the troubles between the North and the South were very much about slavery. Aside from the moral implications of the practice, there were numerous slave revolts and the courts were being larded with indefensible cases about the rights of slaves.

Initially Lincoln hadn't thought blacks equal to whites, but thought the institution of slavery was wrong. He had no taste to go to war over it either. That changed..along Lincoln's other opinion, that if the American Blacks were liberated, they would be sent back to Africa.

It's not an old chestnut. It's the truth and was pretty much known by all until the Progressives started rewriting history around 1910. Lincoln didn't start a war to free the slaves; he started it to get the Federal government's revenue back. He is recorded as ranting, "What about my tariff?"

The myth that Lincoln changed his mind about blacks and his ideas about repatriating them back to Africa has been pretty thoroughly debunked. He maintained those ideas right up to the day he died.

First off..Lincoln didn't start the war..neither did the North. Secondly, there are 2 reasons in the US constitution to go to war, invasion..and insurrection. The South was engaged in insurrection and had no moral or legal leg to stand on. There is "no myth" about Lincoln changing his mind about Blacks..that's history. It has not been "debunked". The fact that "Liberia" never really saw an influx of American Blacks, as well as the fact that they remained in the country as well as the fact the Constitution was changed to accomodate them is a testament to that.

 

[Sallow]

Now, you may argue that the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter and you would be correct. That was exactly what Lincoln wanted them to do.

Charleston was the South's most major port on the Atlantic coast and the garrison at the fort would be able to stop any ships entering or leaving the harbor and charge a tariff. Do you think that it would be a sound policy to allow a foreign nation to have a fort in the harbor of one of your most significant ports?

Lincoln had promised the South in good faith that he would not try to reinforce the garrison at Fort Sumter, that he would only supply the men there with food and essentials, then changed his mind and broke his promise within a matter of days.

Two weeks after the battle, he wrote a letter to Gustavus Fox, his naval commander on that expedition:

WASHINGTON, May 1st, 1861.

Capt. G.V. Fox:

My Dear Sir, I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.

Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN.

In essence, he was saying, "Our plan worked".

He left the South no choice but to fire the first shot.

The South started the war well before Fort Sumter by starting their own government, coining their own money and engaging in insurrection. They were in absolute breach of the US Constitution.

Firing the first shot basically made it an open and shut case.

 

[MuadDib]

Eyeah..this old chestnut.

No..the troubles between the North and the South were very much about slavery. Aside from the moral implications of the practice, there were numerous slave revolts and the courts were being larded with indefensible cases about the rights of slaves.

Initially Lincoln hadn't thought blacks equal to whites, but thought the institution of slavery was wrong. He had no taste to go to war over it either. That changed..along Lincoln's other opinion, that if the American Blacks were liberated, they would be sent back to Africa.

It's not an old chestnut. It's the truth and was pretty much known by all until the Progressives started rewriting history around 1910. Lincoln didn't start a war to free the slaves; he started it to get the Federal government's revenue back. He is recorded as ranting, "What about my tariff?"

The myth that Lincoln changed his mind about blacks and his ideas about repatriating them back to Africa has been pretty thoroughly debunked. He maintained those ideas right up to the day he died.

First off..Lincoln didn't start the war..neither did the North. Secondly, there are 2 reasons in the US constitution to go to war, invasion..and insurrection. The South was engaged in insurrection and had no moral or legal leg to stand on. There is "no myth" about Lincoln changing his mind about Blacks..that's history. It has not been "debunked". The fact that "Liberia" never really saw an influx of American Blacks, as well as the fact that they remained in the country as well as the fact the Constitution was changed to accomodate them is a testament to that.

Wrong again!

It was not an insurrection: it was a secession. Those are two very different things. The South was never out to conquer the US government. They simply wanted to go their separate way much as the 13 Colonies did from England.

Liberia never saw its influx of American blacks because the US was busy fighting the war from 1861-1865. Lincoln's plan for colonization died with him right after the war's end in 1865.

The Radical Republicans amended the Constitution to free the slaves and grant them citizenship to dump them on the Southern states as punishment for the war. The Black Codes and state constitutions of the Northern states prohibited them from moving to the North.

 

[MuadDib]

Now, you may argue that the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter and you would be correct. That was exactly what Lincoln wanted them to do.

Charleston was the South's most major port on the Atlantic coast and the garrison at the fort would be able to stop any ships entering or leaving the harbor and charge a tariff. Do you think that it would be a sound policy to allow a foreign nation to have a fort in the harbor of one of your most significant ports?

Lincoln had promised the South in good faith that he would not try to reinforce the garrison at Fort Sumter, that he would only supply the men there with food and essentials, then changed his mind and broke his promise within a matter of days.

Two weeks after the battle, he wrote a letter to Gustavus Fox, his naval commander on that expedition:

WASHINGTON, May 1st, 1861.

Capt. G.V. Fox:

My Dear Sir, I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.

Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN.

In essence, he was saying, "Our plan worked".

He left the South no choice but to fire the first shot.

The South started the war well before Fort Sumter by starting their own government, coining their own money and engaging in insurrection. They were in absolute breach of the US Constitution.

Firing the first shot basically made it an open and shut case.

Really? Show me where the US Constitution prohibits states from seceding.

 

[Sallow]

It's not an old chestnut. It's the truth and was pretty much known by all until the Progressives started rewriting history around 1910. Lincoln didn't start a war to free the slaves; he started it to get the Federal government's revenue back. He is recorded as ranting, "What about my tariff?"

The myth that Lincoln changed his mind about blacks and his ideas about repatriating them back to Africa has been pretty thoroughly debunked. He maintained those ideas right up to the day he died.

First off..Lincoln didn't start the war..neither did the North. Secondly, there are 2 reasons in the US constitution to go to war, invasion..and insurrection. The South was engaged in insurrection and had no moral or legal leg to stand on. There is "no myth" about Lincoln changing his mind about Blacks..that's history. It has not been "debunked". The fact that "Liberia" never really saw an influx of American Blacks, as well as the fact that they remained in the country as well as the fact the Constitution was changed to accomodate them is a testament to that.

Wrong again!

It was not an insurrection: it was a secession. Those are two very different things. The South was never out to conquer the US government. They simply wanted to go their separate way much as the 13 Colonies did from England.

Liberia never saw its influx of American blacks because the US was busy fighting the war from 1861-1865. Lincoln's plan for colonization died with him right after the war's end in 1865.

The Radical Republicans amended the Constitution to free the slaves and grant them citizenship to dump them on the Southern states as punishment for the war. The Black Codes and state constitutions of the Northern states prohibited them from moving to the North.

This is laughable.

The South was US terroritory..so the Southerns absolutely sought to take it.

Secession isn't legal in the US constitution..either. They were in breach.

And the South wasn't "punished". Far from it..it was rebuilt.

 

[MuadDib]

First off..Lincoln didn't start the war..neither did the North. Secondly, there are 2 reasons in the US constitution to go to war, invasion..and insurrection. The South was engaged in insurrection and had no moral or legal leg to stand on. There is "no myth" about Lincoln changing his mind about Blacks..that's history. It has not been "debunked". The fact that "Liberia" never really saw an influx of American Blacks, as well as the fact that they remained in the country as well as the fact the Constitution was changed to accomodate them is a testament to that.

Wrong again!

It was not an insurrection: it was a secession. Those are two very different things. The South was never out to conquer the US government. They simply wanted to go their separate way much as the 13 Colonies did from England.

Liberia never saw its influx of American blacks because the US was busy fighting the war from 1861-1865. Lincoln's plan for colonization died with him right after the war's end in 1865.

The Radical Republicans amended the Constitution to free the slaves and grant them citizenship to dump them on the Southern states as punishment for the war. The Black Codes and state constitutions of the Northern states prohibited them from moving to the North.

This is laughable.

The South was US terroritory..so the Southerns absolutely sought to take it.

Secession isn't legal in the US constitution..either. They were in breach.

And the South wasn't "punished". Far from it..it was rebuilt.

The South was not US territory after secession any more than the US was British territory after the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution.

Seriously, cite me an article, paragraph, clause, or amendment in the US Constitution that says secession is a breach. I have my copy of the US Constitution right here in my briefcase and can verify it if you tell me where it says that.

 

[MuadDib]

No answer?

I'll help you:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Oh, wait, that didn't help you. It just proved my point.

Sorry! My bad!

 

[Greenbeard]

The troubles between North and South were over tariffs, not slavery. [...]

Lincoln campaigned in 1860 in favor of the Morrill Tariff. That was why he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states, not slavery. After his election and before his inauguration, he gave a speech in Philadelphia promising to sign the tariff bill if Congress passed it. They did pass it and President James Buchanan signed it into law as one of his final acts.

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Damn revisionist 1860 South Carolinians! Toeing the progressive line again that slavery was their motivation.

 

[Sallow]

No answer?

I'll help you:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Oh, wait, that didn't help you. It just proved my point.

Sorry! My bad!

That absolutely does not give states rights to leave the Union..

And there are several clauses that keep them from doing so as well..

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

You really should read this thing before you start your bullshit.

 

[MuadDib]

No answer?

I'll help you:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Oh, wait, that didn't help you. It just proved my point.

Sorry! My bad!

That absolutely does not give states rights to leave the Union..

And there are several clauses that keep them from doing so as well..

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

You really should read this thing before you start your bullshit.

No, you should. There's absolutely nothing there that forbids a state from seceding. In fact, many of the Founders and Framers predicted that it would eventually happen.

Take Jefferson for example:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

 

[MuadDib]

The troubles between North and South were over tariffs, not slavery. [...]

Lincoln campaigned in 1860 in favor of the Morrill Tariff. That was why he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states, not slavery. After his election and before his inauguration, he gave a speech in Philadelphia promising to sign the tariff bill if Congress passed it. They did pass it and President James Buchanan signed it into law as one of his final acts.

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Damn revisionist 1860 South Carolinians! Toeing the progressive line again that slavery was their motivation.

You might note that there were 5 Union states that all had chattel slavery throughout the war: Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. The Federal capitol in Washington City had slavery when the war began, but abolished it in 1862...and appropriated $600,000 to repatriate their slaves back to Africa. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $60,000,000 in today's money.

Practically every officer in the Union army had servants. Grant was a slave owner through his wife, Julia Dent Grant. When Richmond fell, Julia was the only person allowed to be escorted through the streets of Richmond by her slaves and it was said that she openly flaunted it. The Grants did not emancipate their slaves until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.

Early in the war, Grant gave a newspaper interview in which he said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side." Some Progressive historians try to claim that his enemies made that up, but that's false. It is a documented quote.

Union Gen. J.G. Foster was quite noted for his harem filled with "sable beauty".

The North was so desperate to keep their Southern tariff money coming in that they offered the Corwin Amendment, which would have allowed the slave states to keep their slaves and promised that the Federal government would never bother slavery again if they would just return to the Union. It was not ratified only because the representatives of the Southern states were no longer present in Congress to vote on it. The Corwin Amendment was not sunsetted and technically remains open for ratification to this day, although it's been pretty much superseded by the 13th Amendment. The Corwin Amendment was supported by...Abraham Lincoln!

Some of the most ardent Unionists in loyalist East Tennessee were the largest slaveholders in that region. When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he exempted certain areas of Louisiana because one of his close friends owned a big sugar cane plantation there.

What made slavery such an issue was the fact that when an emancipation amendment to the Constitution was proposed, there had never been a constitutional amendment or provision that had ever granted the government the power to take away anyone's private property. If that power was granted, the concern was over further abuse of it and one only has to look at the problems that we have today over eminent domain.

If the Federal government was given the power to seize private property, where would it end? To see what the people of that time were thinking and what they were concerned about, you only have to look as far as the 14th Amendment.

The 14 Amendment granted citizenship to the former slaves. Nothing wrong with that and certainly the right thing to do. Right? Except that the way it was written, it created the problems that we have today with "anchor babies" and illegal immigration.

The people of that time knew something that we have forgotten today: laws can have unintended consequences, so you need to be very careful when you pass them.

Sorry, but your argument falls flat in the face of facts. There is revisionist history, but it's neither Southerners nor conservatives who revised it. All of these things were well known until the Progressive movement emerged in the early 20th century and started rewriting it, and the people who lived during the war and knew these facts gradually died off, allowing it to be forgotten.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Davis was engaged in treason and insurrection.

If he really wanted to be "left alone"..he should have left the borders of the United States..found some uninhabited place..and started a new country.

That's not what he did. And he was damned lucky not to be hung.

The same could then be said of Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers. If they didn't want to be under the tyranny of King George they should have left the borders and formed their own country somewhere else.

If one were British..that absolutely would be the case.

It also puts the heroism of the founders into perspective as they were really risking their fortunes, reputations, and lives.

Completely irrelevant. Either they were traitors, or they weren't. Either they had the right to secede from the British Empire, or they didn't. Whether you're British or American doesn't change that fact.