Southern history and the truth

[Rogue 9]

Most of the declarations of secession state something concering slavery. It still was not "the" reason the Civil War was fought. Most Southerners couldn't afford slaves.

Power and control in the Federal government was "the" reason, if there was "a" reason.

The fact is, the proposed 13th Amendment that passed the House just prior to SC's secession originally guaranteed slavery in Southern states where it existed. What it didn't do was guarantee an equal amount of slave states for every free state that entered the union.

That created an imbalance in Congress the Southern states were unwilling to accept. The North wanted high tariffs to force the South to deal only with them, while the South wanted low tariffs because it made most of its money from England and Europe.

Then there's the fact Abraham Lincoln would have allowed slavery in all Southern states, some Southern states and not others, or whatever it took to preserve the Union, and made a statement to that effect.

The cold hard fact is, NOBODY fought a war because they gave a damn about the black man. The black man was a political pawn in the power game.

I didn't say they fought a war because they gave a damn about the black man; I said the southern states seceded in order to preserve slavery. In their own Constitution, they mandated that all member states must be slave states.

Regardless, the four states that issued Declarations of Causes (South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi) all cited threats to slavery as their primary motivation. The seceding states themselves stated outright that their motivation in secession was the preservation of slavery. The CSA's vice president, Alexander Stephens, said the same thing in a speech at the outset of the Confederacy. This makes it quite difficult to argue that slavery was not the motivating factor; unless you contend that there was a massive conspiracy on the part of the CSA state and confederate governments to lie about their motivations, then I see no evidence that we should not take their stated reasons at face value.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay, explain this. If one state can summarily secede from the whole, why can the whole not remove one state by the same logic, i.e. seceding from it?

Well...
Secession by self is not the same as forced removal by others.

 

[Rogue 9]

How is it different? Forcing the removal of one from the whole and the whole removing itself from the one is only a difference of semantics.

Assuming the union consisted of only four states (just to make this easier), it would go like so:

State 1: I'm seceding.
State 2: Wait a minute...
State 3: Yeah, me too.
State 4: You know, I'm with them.
State 2: Well crap.
State 1: Hey states 3 and 4, want to form a union with the same rules as the last one, only without that loser over there?
State 3: Yes.
State 4: Yeah, sure.
State 2: ...

And there you have it. The forced ejection of one from the whole, brought to you by the secession mechanism.

 

[AllieBaba]

The north and south were fighting for different things.

The north wanted to abolish slavery. When they tried to force that on the south, the South rebelled. Not "because" of slavery, but because they didn't like being told what to do.

If it was a non-issue, they would have just done it and nobody would have cared because everybody would have been of the same mind. The south's justification for seceding was "state's rights" but it came down to "state's rights to continue slavery."

 

[manifold]

I think I can sum it up as follows:

1. In the absence of the USSC 1869 ruling, it is pretty clear that it's not clear at all whether secession was allowable, once a state ratified the Constitution and joined the union. There have been several good arguments made on both sides.

2. It is my opinion that secession SHOULD have been allowed and was even understood to be allowed by the colonists that ratified the Constitution. Because as I've already opined, I can't imagine they would have ever joined the union if they believed they were surrendering their sovereignty.

3. The reality is that it is now settled law and secession is not allowed. Period. And...state sovereignty is a dead concept.

4. Rogue9 didn't make one single valid point and seemingly did not really understand what was actually being discussed.

 

[Ravi]

One point number two, what makes you so certain that states didn't realize they were giving up their sovereignty? I imagine they realized they'd have to abide by the constitution and Congressional law, etc., to enjoy whatever benefits they received by becoming part of the USA.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How is it different? Forcing the removal of one from the whole and the whole removing itself from the one is only a difference of semantics.

My leaving a group of my own free will is, obviously and on its face, very different than that goup kicking you out when you don't want to leave.

 

[manifold]

One point number two, what makes you so certain that states didn't realize they were giving up their sovereignty? I imagine they realized they'd have to abide by the constitution and Congressional law, etc., to enjoy whatever benefits they received by becoming part of the USA.

I wouldn't say I'm 100% certain. How could anyone be 100% certain?

However, it's by far the most logical conclusion, IMO. So I'd give it about a 99.9% probability.

 

[Ravi]

I wouldn't say I'm 100% certain. How could anyone be 100% certain?

However, it's by far the most logical conclusion, IMO. So I'd give it about a 99.9% probability.

Why is it the most logical conclusion? IMO, they'd have to be pretty stupid to think they could join a group and not have to abide by the group's rules.

Unless you mean that they thought they could back out at any time, I supposed that would make a shortsighted kind of sense.

 

[jillian]

What I find interesting about the whole seccession debate is that even under the articles of confederation, states could not enter into any treaties or agreements with other states that weren't approved by the full congress. I doubt that anyone would attempt to argue that the states had greater rights under the Constitution. So, if they couldn't enter into alterntive treaties under the confederation, the certainly couldn't under the US Constitution. That would have made the confederacy illegal even under the

It was never intended for anyone to be able to withdraw or states could have withdrawn just to avoid their share of debt.

I know that there are old wounds with this issue, but it's really a non-issue, IMO.

Sorry... maybe I'm being a bit simplistic aobut it, but that's what I see.

 

[Ravi]

That makes perfect sense, Jillian. I get the feeling the South wants to reverse the SCOTUS decision for some reason to assuage their pride.

 

[Rogue 9]

4. Rogue9 didn't make one single valid point and seemingly did not really understand what was actually being discussed.

I didn't see you coming up with any counters.

If I don't understand what's being discussed, then please enlighten me. If it is not the constitutionality of secession, then what is it?

That makes perfect sense, Jillian. I get the feeling the South wants to reverse the SCOTUS decision for some reason to assuage their pride.

If so, then they're not very bright. If Texas v. White were reversed, it would dissolve the state governments of every former member of the Confederacy.

 

[manifold]

Why is it the most logical conclusion? IMO, they'd have to be pretty stupid to think they could join a group and not have to abide by the group's rules.

Unless you mean that they thought they could back out at any time, I supposed that would make a shortsighted kind of sense.

I don't see anything shortsighted about it. The whole concept of preserving state sovereignty was to prevent the central government from growing too powerful and ultimately tyrannical. As long as the states could opt-out, it would keep the central government in check. And I'd take it one step further and say that history has proven my point. The remaining vestiges of states rights are largely symbolic. The federal government rules the land. Period.

Thank you "honest" Abe!

 

[Ravi]

I don't see anything shortsighted about it. The whole concept of preserving state sovereignty was to prevent the central government from growing too powerful and ultimately tyrannical. As long as the states could opt-out, it would keep the central government in check. And I'd take it one step further and say that history has proven my point. The remaining vestiges of states rights are largely symbolic. The federal government rules the land. Period.

Thank you "honest" Abe!

Historically, how often have countries ever willingly given up territory? Truly, they weren't playing with a full deck if they thought they'd be able to back out easily.

I'm only guessing of course and I don't know much about this subject. But what is written that leads you to believe they thought they had the ability to opt out at will?

 

[manifold]

But what is written that leads you to believe they thought they had the ability to opt out at will?

Pretty much any and every text written about the American Revolution, what they faught against, and what they hoped could be prevented from ever happening again...an oppressive, tyrannical government in which they had little or no material representation.

 

[jillian]

That makes perfect sense, Jillian. I get the feeling the South wants to reverse the SCOTUS decision for some reason to assuage their pride.

Well, I think Gunny articulates their feelings pretty well when he says that southerners believe that they were kept from exercising a right because of the superior military might of the north. But I agree with you that there wasn't any way that the US was going to give up territory

 

[Ravi]

Pretty much any and every text written about the American Revolution, what they faught against, and what they hoped could be prevented from ever happening again...an oppressive, tyrannical government in which they had little or no material representation.

But we don't exactly have an oppressive, tyrannical government...

Is there anything in particular that any of the founders said that leads you to believe states could opt out on a whim?

 

[Ravi]

Well, I think Gunny articulates their feelings pretty well when he says that southerners believe that they were kept from exercising a right because of the superior military might of the north. But I agree with you that there wasn't any way that the US was going to give up territory

He could be right but at this point, does it matter? Are there any states that seriously wish to opt out?

 

[jillian]

Pretty much any and every text written about the American Revolution, what they faught against, and what they hoped could be prevented from ever happening again...an oppressive, tyrannical government in which they had little or no material representation.

Notwithstanding the American Revolution, the one crime the founders saw fit to include in the constitution was treason.

Why do you think that would be?

 

[manifold]

But I agree with you that there wasn't any way that the US was going to give up territory

No argument here.

As I've already stated, I have a hard time justifying the North's decision to invade and conquer the South at the time. However, I also acknowledge that noboby has any clue about how history would have unfolded had they not. And I think a pretty good argument could be made that we are better off today because they did. In a way, it's similar to the genocide of the American Indians. Sure, it wasn't justified at the time, but since I probably wouldn't be here today if it hadn't happened, I can't really condemn it either.