The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Equat]

Not to mention Lincoln's revisionist history. It was not a majority that ratified the Constitution and then it applied to everyone, but every state individually ratified it. Meaning that any state could individually choose to leave the compact just as freely as they entered.[/QUOTE]

The legal question of secession is not very relevant since certain states were already granted their independence as Cuba was in later years, without re-occupation (disregarding Kennedy's Pay of Pigs Invasion). The Civil War was consequential to Sumpter as a re-occupation of Cuba would have been if they attacked Guantanamo.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Bullshit. Show me in his address where he said that.

The beliefs of Jefferson and Lee are in contrast to actual numbers. In 1860 the average slave was worth $878 and the institution of slavery was worth $3.5 billion. That is real money and in no way supports your thesis that slavery was dying. The domestic slave trade was booming.

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

The fact that the south's economy was indeed industrializing means that slavery would no longer be economical. You can point to the price of slaves but the fact is that slavery is really only viable in an agrarian economy, and, as we saw in the north, as an economy industrializes slavery is no longer economical as opposed to paid educated workers.

That quote does nothng to support what you say it does. And there may be like three people in the acdemic world that agree with you on the use of slaves in agrarian society vs. slaves in an industrial society. You think slaves couldn't run a sawmill or foundry? Slavery was its own economy and its own society. You really should stop regurgitating everything some Community College history professor says and use you fucking head. God knows you ar esmart enough to do so.

But I leave you to it. Good night.

Apparently you're done with this discussion, but let's look at the facts. Slavery ended peacefully in the north as they became more industrialized. It wasn't because northerners were just better people than southerners, it's because it was no longer beneficial to them as a system. Why shouldn't the same have happened in the south as they became more industrialized?

Good night, or, more accurately, good morning to you as well.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not to mention Lincoln's revisionist history. It was not a majority that ratified the Constitution and then it applied to everyone, but every state individually ratified it. Meaning that any state could individually choose to leave the compact just as freely as they entered.

The legal question of secession is not very relevant since certain states were already granted their independence as Cuba was in later years, without re-occupation (disregarding Kennedy's Pay of Pigs Invasion). The Civil War was consequential to Sumpter as a re-occupation of Cuba would have been if they attacked Guantanamo.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

 

[Equat]

I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.

The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.

Your right about the causation being slavery. The states' declaration of secession clearly state their reason and their right to deny the free states their rights to assembly, speach, and sovereignty (e.g. not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law).

What was unconstitutional? The US responding with force to occupation of Sumter or a slave state attacking a US installation?

The loosers have been arguing the war's righteousness and the righteousness to enslave humans since before the war. Slavery was instituted, and maintained in the name of Christ. Furthermore, Post-war blacks were kept in a defacto quasi form of slavery until the 1960's Civil Rights movement. This evil along with racial segregation was all performed in the name of righteousness for Christ sake. Many southern theologians in their double-talk still argue for the righteousness of their society's racism.

 

[Equat]

It's true that their agrarian economy made it so that tariffs hurt them while it helped the industrial north, and that their agrarian economy made slavery a viable system as well. However, slave owners were a minority in the south, so it's not entirely correct to say that the economic reasons for secession all fall back to slavery.

Also, the Civil War was not fought to grant human beings freedom. Lincoln's only goal was to bring the southern states back into the Union. Freeing the slaves was simply an afterthought that he used to try to further hurt the south, and to make it so that other nations, such as Great Britain, would not aid a slave nation such as the Confederacy.

As for arguing it's righteousness, I can certainly argue that. Every other civilized nation ended slavery peacefully during that period, why is it that we supposedly needed to destroy the south for that to happen?

Try again. Slavery was the basis for the Southern economy. Cotton was merely a bi-product of it. Your argument is based on the assumption that Lincoln started the war, when the opposite is the case. Remember that Casus Belli lies in the firing on Fort Sumter by the South. The South brought the war. They brought it to create a nation in which slavery would be protected.(See seccessionst commisioners speeches and Alexander Stephens' inaugural address.) Also, slavery was growing at an exponential rate, so the argue that slavery would die out peacefully is naive at best.

As I've said before, Lincoln gave the south no other choice but to fire on Fort Sumter because he wanted to invade the south. He said as much in his inaugural address, and he simply needed northern sympathy on his side which he didn't have until Fort Sumter.

I don't deny that they seceded partly to protect slavery. Though I don't feel that slavery was ever threatened by Lincoln, because of his support for the Corwin Amendment.

Their agrarian economy was also becoming more industrialized, which meant that slavery was becoming less economical. Because of this, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both believed that slavery would simply fade on its own in the south the way it did in the north.

Lincoln gave the South as much choice to fire on Sumter as Castro has had in firing on Guantanamo. The difference is that Castro is wiser than the slave states many of whom judged the South Carolinians as being "fools" and "hotheads" for doing so. The South judged the South. It was only until Lincoln responded as predictable that the South lifted its judgment upon South Carolina.

"I don't deny that they seceded partly to protect slavery," you say. Do you admit that the South seceded to protect slavery? Speak straight talk. If Lincoln didn't threaten slavery, then why did some of the slave-states secede because of slavery according to their "Declaration of Causes of Seceding States" at sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html?
Lincoln was a politician and like all politicians he spoke double-talk in order not to alienate his opponents (among who were racists). Lincoln, like all politicians use incrementalism to advance their policies. Radicalism doesn’t work well with politicians.

 

[paperview]

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

The fact that the south's economy was indeed industrializing means that slavery would no longer be economical. You can point to the price of slaves but the fact is that slavery is really only viable in an agrarian economy, and, as we saw in the north, as an economy industrializes slavery is no longer economical as opposed to paid educated workers.

That quote does nothng to support what you say it does. And there may be like three people in the acdemic world that agree with you on the use of slaves in agrarian society vs. slaves in an industrial society. You think slaves couldn't run a sawmill or foundry? Slavery was its own economy and its own society. You really should stop regurgitating everything some Community College history professor says and use you fucking head. God knows you ar esmart enough to do so.

But I leave you to it. Good night.

Apparently you're done with this discussion, but let's look at the facts. Slavery ended peacefully in the north as they became more industrialized. It wasn't because northerners were just better people than southerners, it's because it was no longer beneficial to them as a system. Why shouldn't the same have happened in the south as they became more industrialized?

Good night, or, more accurately, good morning to you as well.

Most Northern states abolished slavery in the 18th century, the majority even before the Constitution was written. Vermont abolished it a year after the Declaration of Independence.

We weren't more industrialized in the 1780's.
We abolished slavery there because it was wrong. The south did not see it as being wrong, slavery was the heart and near literally, the blood in the engine of the south.

Slavery would not have died on it's own in the South Circa 1860's. Maybe out of shame several generations later it would cease to be an effective business, and wither slowly, but not before.

It was simply too big a part of their economy.

 

[paperview]

I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.

The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.

Your right about the causation being slavery. The states' declaration of secession clearly state their reason and their right to deny the free states their rights to assembly, speach, and sovereignty (e.g. not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law).

What was unconstitutional? The US responding with force to occupation of Sumter or a slave state attacking a US installation?

The loosers have been arguing the war's righteousness and the righteousness to enslave humans since before the war. Slavery was instituted, and maintained in the name of Christ. Furthermore, Post-war blacks were kept in a defacto quasi form of slavery until the 1960's Civil Rights movement. This evil along with racial segregation was all performed in the name of righteousness for Christ sake. Many southern theologians in their double-talk still argue for the righteousness of their society's racism.

I think some of the suffering bastards of the old Southern Aristocracy today would have slaves - if they could.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

An excellent article that goes into more detail about the points I've been making.

Gunderson’s (and Fogel and Engerman’s) reliance on this one statistic – the price of slaves – as "evidence" that slavery could not have been ended peacefully is poor economics as well. For one thing, the Fugitive Slave Act socialized the enforcement costs of slavery, thereby artificially inflating slave prices. Abolition of the Act, as would have been the reality had the Southern states been allowed to leave in peace would have caused slave prices to plummet and quickened the institution’s demise. That, coupled with a serious effort to do what every nation on the face of the earth did to end slavery during the nineteenth century – compensated emancipation – could have ended slavery peacefully. Great Britain did it in just six years time, and Americans could have followed their lead.

...

Gunderson ignores the simple economic fact that the high price of slaves that did exist in 1860 created strong incentives for Southern farmers to find substitutes in the form of free labor and mechanized agriculture. It also increased the expected profitability of mechanized agriculture, so that the producers of that equipment were motivated to develop and market it in the South. This is what happens in any industry where there are rapidly-rising prices of factors of production of any kind. As Mark Thornton wrote in "Slavery, Profitability, and the Market Process" (Review of Austrian Economics, vol. 7, No. 2, 1994), by 1860 "slavery was fleeing from both the competition of free labor and urbanization towards the isolated virgin lands of the Southwest."

The Economics of Slavery

 

[Equat]

I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.

The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.

Your right about the causation being slavery. The states' declaration of secession clearly state their reason and their right to deny the free states their rights to assembly, speach, and sovereignty (e.g. not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law). Note: sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html.

What was unconstitutional? The US responding with force to South Carolina's occupation of Sumter or a slave state attacking a US installation?

The loosers have been arguing the war's righteousness and the righteousness to enslave humans since before the war. Slavery was instituted, and maintained in the name of Christ. Furthermore, Post-war blacks were kept in a defacto quasi form of slavery until the 1960's Civil Rights movement. This evil along with racial segregation was all performed in the name of righteousness for Christ sake. Many southern theologians in their double-talk still argue for the righteousness of their society's racism.

I think some of the suffering bastards of the old Southern Aristocracy today would have slaves - if they could.

Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists wolves try to hide. The reason that the US Civil War is in such hot dispute is because of those suffering from white guilt who who claim Christianity, yet refuse to practice it.

 

[Equat]

An excellent article that goes into more detail about the points I've been making.

Gunderson’s (and Fogel and Engerman’s) reliance on this one statistic – the price of slaves – as "evidence" that slavery could not have been ended peacefully is poor economics as well. For one thing, the Fugitive Slave Act socialized the enforcement costs of slavery, thereby artificially inflating slave prices. Abolition of the Act, as would have been the reality had the Southern states been allowed to leave in peace would have caused slave prices to plummet and quickened the institution’s demise. That, coupled with a serious effort to do what every nation on the face of the earth did to end slavery during the nineteenth century – compensated emancipation – could have ended slavery peacefully. Great Britain did it in just six years time, and Americans could have followed their lead.

...

Gunderson ignores the simple economic fact that the high price of slaves that did exist in 1860 created strong incentives for Southern farmers to find substitutes in the form of free labor and mechanized agriculture. It also increased the expected profitability of mechanized agriculture, so that the producers of that equipment were motivated to develop and market it in the South. This is what happens in any industry where there are rapidly-rising prices of factors of production of any kind. As Mark Thornton wrote in "Slavery, Profitability, and the Market Process" (Review of Austrian Economics, vol. 7, No. 2, 1994), by 1860 "slavery was fleeing from both the competition of free labor and urbanization towards the isolated virgin lands of the Southwest."

The South proved what it would have done with blacks after slavery was abolished by denying the civil rights, segregation, and denying them civil justice. In either case the South, the Confederacy, or whatever it claims to be is defined by its racism.

 

[paperview]

An excellent article that goes into more detail about the points I've been making.

...The Economics of Slavery

Is Lew Rockwell your bible?

I swear, you quote from that site constantly.

The American South mid 19th century was a particular culture.
They had no intention of abolishing slavery. That was clear.

I ask - for people who say it would have 'died out' - somebody please tell me how the deep south, with slave populations being IN THE MAJORITY in some states...how it would have just 'died out, faded away...'

It's absurd to think numbers and human agricultural wealth like that would simply be set free and just dissolve into eventual paid labor...or even sharecroppers.

 

[Equat]

Also, the Civil War was not fought to grant human beings freedom. Lincoln's only goal was to bring the southern states back into the Union. Freeing the slaves was simply an afterthought that he used to try to further hurt the south, and to make it so that other nations, such as Great Britain, would not aid a slave nation such as the Confederacy.

As for arguing it's righteousness, I can certainly argue that. Every other civilized nation ended slavery peacefully during that period, why is it that we supposedly needed to destroy the south for that to happen?

After the Emancipation Proclamation, many fought to free human beings from slavery. Abolitionists tried to pursuade Lincoln to do this earlier. There is never only one reason for war. There are central and tertiary reasons. The South didn't need to be "destroy[ed]" to free slaves if it didn't destroy itself by secession and by attacking Sumter. Victimology enables irresponsible beings the social pseudo-appearance (at lease before themselves) of self-righteousness.

 

[paperview]

The South lost and the Union prevailed, further they cemented their win with Court rulings. Congress would have to establish a procedure for the States to ever be able to legally leave the Union. They have done no such thing so no State can leave the Union.

The Southern States had no right to leave the Union in 1860 either. Only by WINNING the Civil War would they have been able to justify their leaving, they lost, they had no right to leave in the manner they attempted to leave.

Pretty simple concept really.

"Might makes right" is a simple concept, you're right about that. However, the Constitution is what matters, and the Constitution does not forbid the states from seceding. But we all know Lincoln didn't really care about the Constitution.

Here's a fun little fact about the how the Southern congressmen & sympathizers showed their love for constitution.

They placed a gag rule in congress. That's right.

Even though citizens by way of the Constitution guaranteed citizens the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances"
- the southern lawmakers saw to it that anytime anyone petitioned the government to address slavery, it could not be discussed.

They gagged people. This happened in the 1830's & 40's.

Just imagine that. Take the issue of abortion today. What if pro-choice legislators had said NO. The issue may not even be discussed! No one is allowed to even bring it to the table. No petitions are allowed.
The issue WILL NOT be discussed in Congress.

Imagine that.

That's what the pro-slavery people did. For people that spoke of their love of the Constitution, they sure had a funny way of showing it.

 

[Samson]

Your right about the causation being slavery. The states' declaration of secession clearly state their reason and their right to deny the free states their rights to assembly, speach, and sovereignty (e.g. not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law). Note: sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html.

What was unconstitutional? The US responding with force to South Carolina's occupation of Sumter or a slave state attacking a US installation?

The loosers have been arguing the war's righteousness and the righteousness to enslave humans since before the war. Slavery was instituted, and maintained in the name of Christ. Furthermore, Post-war blacks were kept in a defacto quasi form of slavery until the 1960's Civil Rights movement. This evil along with racial segregation was all performed in the name of righteousness for Christ sake. Many southern theologians in their double-talk still argue for the righteousness of their society's racism.

I think some of the suffering bastards of the old Southern Aristocracy today would have slaves - if they could.

Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists wolves try to hide. The reason that the US Civil War is in such hot dispute is because of those suffering from white guilt who who claim Christianity, yet refuse to practice it.

From what I've been able to gleen from the OP and only several pages of reading, KK's affirmative debate position is :

That the Federal Government under the Lincoln Presidency used the slavery issue as leverage to impose the will of central government over the rights of states.

The questions of slavery's morality weren't completely immaterial. The use of the slavery issue is obvious, (but really not a point of arguement).

During the decades leading to the civil war, congress had danced around abolishing slavery by Federal Statute, the only way to Constitutionally trump the Rights of States. As it became clear that this dance was ending (Lincoln, a Republican, was elected), the Southern states tried an "end-around." They separated themselves from the United States before the they lost majority in the Senate, and any Federal Statute Prohibiting Slavery could be passed.

I'm not aware there's been any evidence offered that succession was either directly or indirectly addressed in the Constitution. But it would seem to me, that in becomming a member of the United States, a state accepted the Rule of Federal Law over State Law, and that succession was "cheating" this system.

In other words, had the southern states been allowed to succeed, then any state could avoid being held to Federal Statute by succeeding, and the entire Nation would be at risk, a prospect that Linclon was sworn to prevent.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think some of the suffering bastards of the old Southern Aristocracy today would have slaves - if they could.

Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists wolves try to hide. The reason that the US Civil War is in such hot dispute is because of those suffering from white guilt who who claim Christianity, yet refuse to practice it.

From what I've been able to gleen from the OP and only several pages of reading, KK's affirmative debate position is :

That the Federal Government under the Lincoln Presidency used the slavery issue as leverage to impose the will of central government over the rights of states.

The questions of slavery's morality weren't completely immaterial. The use of the slavery issue is obvious, (but really not a point of arguement).

During the decades leading to the civil war, congress had danced around abolishing slavery by Federal Statute, the only way to Constitutionally trump the Rights of States. As it became clear that this dance was ending (Lincoln, a Republican, was elected), the Southern states tried an "end-around." They separated themselves from the United States before the they lost majority in the Senate, and any Federal Statute Prohibiting Slavery could be passed.

I'm not aware there's been any evidence offered that succession was either directly or indirectly addressed in the Constitution. But it would seem to me, that in becomming a member of the United States, a state accepted the Rule of Federal Law over State Law, and that succession was "cheating" this system.

In other words, had the southern states been allowed to succeed, then any state could avoid being held to Federal Statute by succeeding, and the entire Nation would be at risk, a prospect that Linclon was sworn to prevent.

There are several people in this thread that REFUSE to see that argument. If a State is free to leave, for any reason or no reason, any time it wants, then the Constitution is meaningless. The compact between the States is a meaningless gesture with no enforcement or glue to hold it together.

No Country I know of has ever held the position that parts of it can freely leave any old time they feel the desire to quit. Perhaps someone can provide for us an example?

As for the argument that since it is not addressed in the document it is not an enforceable power of the Government, that too is foolish in the extreme. Laws , statues , powers and authoirty given to Federal Government would be meaningless if any State at any time, for any reason could just quit the Union. Land ceded to the Federal Government would be worthless as the State could simply leave the Country and take back its land with it. Debts owed , meaningless. Responsibilities deelgated via the Constitution and Congress, meaningless.

The Constitution would not be worth the paper it was written on if any State at any time could simply quit the Union at any time, for any reason. That would be worse then the Articles of Confederation which were replaced by the Constitution.

 

[Samson]

Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists wolves try to hide. The reason that the US Civil War is in such hot dispute is because of those suffering from white guilt who who claim Christianity, yet refuse to practice it.

From what I've been able to gleen from the OP and only several pages of reading, KK's affirmative debate position is :

That the Federal Government under the Lincoln Presidency used the slavery issue as leverage to impose the will of central government over the rights of states.

The questions of slavery's morality weren't completely immaterial. The use of the slavery issue is obvious, (but really not a point of arguement).

During the decades leading to the civil war, congress had danced around abolishing slavery by Federal Statute, the only way to Constitutionally trump the Rights of States. As it became clear that this dance was ending (Lincoln, a Republican, was elected), the Southern states tried an "end-around." They separated themselves from the United States before the they lost majority in the Senate, and any Federal Statute Prohibiting Slavery could be passed.

I'm not aware there's been any evidence offered that succession was either directly or indirectly addressed in the Constitution. But it would seem to me, that in becomming a member of the United States, a state accepted the Rule of Federal Law over State Law, and that succession was "cheating" this system.

In other words, had the southern states been allowed to succeed, then any state could avoid being held to Federal Statute by succeeding, and the entire Nation would be at risk, a prospect that Linclon was sworn to prevent.

There are several people in this thread that REFUSE to see that argument. If a State is free to leave, for any reason or no reason, any time it wants, then the Constitution is meaningless. The compact between the States is a meaningless gesture with no enforcement or glue to hold it together.

Its difficult tho believe that anyone could be this remarkably dense: Its like someone joining a baseball team then refusing to play because they're required to use a baseball.

They would no doubt claim that they hadn't understood when they joined the team that a baseball was used to play the game!

 

[Charles Stucker]

The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom.

No, the war was fought to remove human beings freedom.
The freedom of human beings to freely associate, or not, with a tyrannical regime.
IF the North had simply desired to abolish slavery then they would have abolished it at the end of the war, invited all the blacks to the North and then allowed the Southern states their independence.

The much celebrated Emancipation Proclamation was a purely political move to garner support from Europe. Freeing the blacks was strictly secondary to enslaving the citizens.

 

[paperview]

No, the war was fought to remove human beings freedom.
The freedom of human beings to freely associate, or not, with a tyrannical regime.

Except those black folks, huh?

Yes, the south was tyrannical.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom.

No, the war was fought to remove human beings freedom.

The above statement is completely indefensible. The war was fought to (1) keep the Union intact; (2) to protect federal properties throughout the nation; and (3) to enforce the constitutional electoral process.

In other words, the South was forced to comply with the American political and social contract.

A parallel of course is that the Republican far right is screaming right now because it has been forced to accept constitutional rule by the electoral majority.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Except those black folks, huh?

Read my words
"The North did NOT go to war to end slavery."
Ending slavery was an afterthought.
Had the Southern slaveholders done the smart thing - remained in the union - the North would have never paid off the property and never done more than posture.
The Southerners could have had the best of all worlds -
Paid off for their slaves
Kept all their property and wealth
Used the free blacks as cheap labor, which could have cost even less (for a given amount of productivity) than keeping slaves. Note that the "oh so righteous" North NEVER lifted a finger to help black sharecroppers and passed laws to keep the "negroes" out of their White Northern RACIST communities.

The North would never have gone for any scheme which did not strip the South.
Because the Northerners were NEVER concerned with freedom.