The Confederacy and States' Rights

[JakeStarkey]

Sunni Man, if that is true, then the South should have lost because of certain defects included in our founding document. Some, such as representation and freedom from religious intolerance, have been worked out peacefully. But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.

And, Kevin, the Sons of the South nonsense is getting old. The Confederates, like our Republicans in the last election, lost. Choices have consequences. Deal with it.

IMHO, you are overlooking the fact that even after the emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves in the Confederate states there were still over 250,000 slaves held in the Union states, so where do you get off claiming the South was the inhumane one when it was the Union that required the 13th Amendment to free the Northern slaves?

The North had emancipated its slaves long before. The South and some of the border states would not emancipate after getting their collective csa butts kicked, so it required the 13th amendment. Those bad states had to approve the amendment to get back into the Union. Rightfully so.

The Sons of the Souths' mentalities are traitors, pure and simple. No need to listen to them, and their children are being educated appropriately on this issue. Not to worry. The home and parochial school get it in college and university. Good for them.

 

[Citizen]

Do you know, Sunni Man, the South could have eliminated slavery gradually with state compensation whenever it want to. It didn't want to is the point, my boy! The Declaration of Independence was only an incomplete paper flying in the wind with slavery legal in our wonderful country.

Freedom means everybody, including you, boyo, and the slave men and women. The South was a bastion of hell, not of liberty. I am so glad it lost, and feel something close to hatred for the men and women who denied liberty to others in the name of their own liberty. Hypocrites!

Did you not know that there were over 250,000 slaves held in the Northern states, at the time of the war, and that slaves in the Northern states were not freed for over three years after the slaves in the South were freed, and you have the audacity to call the Southerners hypocrites.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, it is simple posturing by Kevin, wrong posturing.

 

[Citizen]

I guess the guy who actually wrote the Constitution was completely ignorant too.

He did not believe secession was constitutional.

No one person wrote the Constitution.

No, KK, but who is referred to as the principle author...you know,
the person who is called the "Father of the Constitution?"

I think you know the answer.

Maybe, just maybe, you are unfamilair with the opinion of the "Father of the Constitution" when it came to the Constitution.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788 - considered the 'father of the Constitution'

As to the real causes of the war between the states, or as is it is commonly known, the War of Northern Aggression, I would like to post the following:

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Virginia proposed a requirement for a two-thirds majority to enact laws regulating commerce and levying tariffs, which were the chief revenue of the federal government. Virginia withdrew its amendment at the Convention in the interest of adopting the Constitution, but ratification was with the understanding that it could be rescinded if the powers granted the federal government were used to oppress, and that Virginia could them withdraw from the Union.

Let us not forget that there were at least 250,000 slaves held in the 19 Northern states that fought for the union, which were not freed during the war, but had to wait until the 13 amendment was ratified, which left the Northern slaves in captivity for over three years after the slaves in the South were freed.

The war was really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on the side of the South.

The South knew that it was their import trade that drew from the peoples pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, which were mainly expended in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These were the reasons the people of the North did not wish the South to secede from the Union.

In December 1860, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce:

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coast wise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We would lose our trade with the South, with all its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."

One more example would be the NY Times on March 22, 1861.

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States. It is apparent that the people of the principle seceding states are for commercial independence. They dream that the centers of traffic can be changed from the Northern to Southern ports...by a revenue system verging on free trade."

So, now maybe you can understand why we refer to the war as, The War of Northern Aggression.

Just in case you did not know, the vast majority of the farmers in the South never owned slaves, plowed their own fields, and fought against Northern aggression.

Also, part of our Southern heritage is the fact that our forefathers fought against Northern aggression when the North was forcing the South to pay for most of the Northern improvements, paid for by the federal government, via tariffs imposed upon the South.

As examples, in 1840 the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. The South paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which has a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports.

The South was paying tribute to the North, and the only way to stop it was to withdraw from the Union they had voluntary entered, with nothing included in the US Constitution to prevent such separation.

In March 1861, over one hundred leading commercial importers in New York, and a similar group in Boston, informed the collector of customs that they would not pay duties on imported gods unless the same duties were collected at Southern ports. This was followed by a threat from New York to withdraw from the Union and establish a free-trade zone. Prior to these events, Lincoln's plan was to evacuate Fort Sumter and not precipitate a war, but now he determined to reinforce it rather than suffer prolonged economic disaster in a losing trade war. The reinforcement was met with force by the South, and the war was upon us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

KevinKennedy is being dishonest. He present the minority view, very unconvincingly, I might add. He fails to tell you the press from which he is quoting is Democratic in 1860, and a great enemy of Lincoln.

Yes, the cause of the war was slavery, which threatened the Union. Every secondary cause can be traced directly to the issue of race and slavery. The southern states seceded illegally, Lincoln said "no", then murdered the Old South. Good for him. Good for the United States. Good for the world.

Kevin is entitled to his opinion, however as wrong as it is, because we are able to showcase the light of the truth against the darkness of his conceits.

 

[Citizen]

Sunni Man, if that is true, then the South should have lost because of certain defects included in our founding document. Some, such as representation and freedom from religious intolerance, have been worked out peacefully. But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.

And, Kevin, the Sons of the South nonsense is getting old. The Confederates, like our Republicans in the last election, lost. Choices have consequences. Deal with it.

IMHO, you are overlooking the fact that even after the emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves in the Confederate states there were still over 250,000 slaves held in the Union states, so where do you get off claiming the South was the inhumane one when it was the Union that required the 13th Amendment to free the Northern slaves?

The North had emancipated its slaves long before. The South and some of the border states would not emancipate after getting their collective csa butts kicked, so it required the 13th amendment. Those bad states had to approve the amendment to get back into the Union. Rightfully so.

The Sons of the Souths' mentalities are traitors, pure and simple. No need to listen to them, and their children are being educated appropriately on this issue. Not to worry. The home and parochial school get it in college and university. Good for them.

Do you really not know that when the war was fought that Northern states still held slaves until three years after the Emancipation Proclamation before they were freed.

Two months before the Civil War ended. (February 18, 1865) Delaware voted against the 13th Amendment and thus unsuccessfully tried to continue slavery past the civil war...
It wasn't until 1901 that Delaware ratified the 13th Amendment (a full 40 Years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland were not "northern" states. Are you dishonest, too? Or you just don't know Civil War history. Northern states, your butt.

 

[Citizen]

Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland were not "northern" states. Are you dishonest, too? Or you just don't know Civil War history. Northern states, your butt.

The American Civil War (1861–1865), also known as the War Between the States and several other names, was a civil war in the United States of America. Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America (the Confederacy). Led by Jefferson Davis, they fought against the United States (the Union), which was supported by all the free states and the five border slave states. Union states were loosely referred to as "the North". American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well the next thing you will be posting is that Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland were Southern, or Confederate states.

Maybe you are the one that doesn't know your history, or maybe are you the dishonest one.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KevinKennedy is being dishonest. He present the minority view, very unconvincingly, I might add. He fails to tell you the press from which he is quoting is Democratic in 1860, and a great enemy of Lincoln.

Yes, the cause of the war was slavery, which threatened the Union. Every secondary cause can be traced directly to the issue of race and slavery. The southern states seceded illegally, Lincoln said "no", then murdered the Old South. Good for him. Good for the United States. Good for the world.

Kevin is entitled to his opinion, however as wrong as it is, because we are able to showcase the light of the truth against the darkness of his conceits.

Did I quote some press?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland were not "northern" states. Are you dishonest, too? Or you just don't know Civil War history. Northern states, your butt.

They remained in the Union as slave states, however.

 

[Brubricker]

Kevin,

I'm new to this thread and I'm not even going to begin to try and read all of it, but there are a few indisputable facts of history you need to understand here.

1) The island upon which Ft. Sumter rests was never, ever a part of the state of South Carolina. It is an artificially-created island which was constructed for the sole purpose of building Ft. Sumter. The legislature of the state of South Carolina formally passed legislation asking for the creation of the island way back in the 1820's and in the same piece of legislation they fully recognized federal control of the island. The island was CREATED as federal property. You can look it up if you care.

2) You can argue any states' rights angle you might conceive in your mind but there is one fact of history which is beyond any doubt. A Confederate army began hostilities by firing on a US Army garrison which had fired no shot at anyone. That US Army garrison was sitting on land which has never, ever been part of any state. It is man-made land intentionally created by legislation for federal government purposes. No state ever had any right to claim ownership of it.

3) States have rights but they do not have the right to attack the United States Army when it is peacefully occupying a piece of land which the federal government has always owned. This is what the Confederate army did. They committed a blatant act of war which was in no way related to the properties or the rights of any state. No state can claim any right to a property which has never, ever been a part of that state.

4) No one can ignore an act of war, period. The CSA started it. They asked for it. They did it. They set it in motion. You need to come to grips with that fact. States have rights but that does not mean the US Army is automatically required to surrender to any state that starts shooting at it while it sits peacefully on federal land. Latter-day Confederate apologists have somehow concocted the notion that the US Army was somehow constitutionally-required to just surrender in this way in the face of an open act of war. This is absolute nonsense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin,

I'm new to this thread and I'm not even going to begin to try and read all of it, but there are a few indisputable facts of history you need to understand here.

1) The island upon which Ft. Sumter rests was never, ever a part of the state of South Carolina. It is an artificially-created island which was constructed for the sole purpose of building Ft. Sumter. The legislature of the state of South Carolina formally passed legislation asking for the creation of the island way back in the 1820's and in the same piece of legislation they fully recognized federal control of the island. The island was CREATED as federal property. You can look it up if you care.

2) You can argue any states' rights angle you might conceive in your mind but there is one fact of history which is beyond any doubt. A Confederate army began hostilities by firing on a US Army garrison which had fired no shot at anyone. That US Army garrison was sitting on land which has never, ever been part of any state. It is man-made land intentionally created by legislation for federal government purposes. No state ever had any right to claim ownership of it.

3) States have rights but they do not have the right to attack the United States Army when it is peacefully occupying a piece of land which the federal government has always owned. This is what the Confederate army did. They committed a blatant act of war which was in no way related to the properties or the rights of any state. No state can claim any right to a property which has never, ever been a part of that state.

4) No one can ignore an act of war, period. The CSA started it. They asked for it. They did it. They set it in motion. You need to come to grips with that fact. States have rights but that does not mean the US Army is automatically required to surrender to any state that starts shooting at it while it sits peacefully on federal land. Latter-day Confederate apologists have somehow concocted the notion that the US Army was somehow constitutionally-required to just surrender in this way in the face of an open act of war. This is absolute nonsense.

You make good points. However, Lincoln knew what was going to happen if he tried to re-supply Fort Sumter. He knew that the Confederacy would not want a Union base in Confederate borders, so he knowingly and belligerently tried to re-supply the Fort to make the Confederacy fire the first shot. He did this because he wanted the war, and he knew he needed northern sentiment on his side which it was not before Fort Sumter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good, Kevin, you are repeating the lesson that I gave to you several weeks ago.

Yes, Lincoln moved the South into firing the first shots in order to rally the Northern democracy to his side. He succeeded, the South was destroyed, Heaven was pleased.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Good, Kevin, you are repeating the lesson that I gave to you several weeks ago.

Yes, Lincoln moved the South into firing the first shots in order to rally the Northern democracy to his side. He succeeded, the South was destroyed, Heaven was pleased.

You've given no lessons, as it's been my position that Lincoln purposefully started the Civil War since long before you registered at this message board.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You never used that point before I pointed it out to you. Yes, you were schooled, you learned well, but you can't admit that you are only the student and not a master of the subject. I am still learning myself.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You never used that point before I pointed it out to you. Yes, you were schooled, you learned well, but you can't admit that you are only the student and not a master of the subject. I am still learning myself.

I didn't?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/979109-post1.html

That post was made on January 6, 2009, nearly a year ago exactly. You did not join this message board until August of 2009.

The evidence speaks for itself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I stand corrected, KevinKennedy.

Your error is not that you did not use it, but that you misinterpreted it. Lincoln had no desire to wage war, but he did desire three things to which the South had to submit: (1) acceptance of Constitutional electoral process ~ Lincoln's victory; (2) no slavery in the territories; and (3) Southern respect for federal properties ~ such as Ft. Sumter.

The South insisted that war was the only way when it fired on Sumter.

Lincoln then constitutionally murdered the Old South.

The history of mankind has been far better served by the national victory rather than a sectional one.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I stand corrected, KevinKennedy.

Your error is not that you did not use it, but that you misinterpreted it. Lincoln had no desire to wage war, but he did desire three things to which the South had to submit: (1) acceptance of Constitutional electoral process ~ Lincoln's victory; (2) no slavery in the territories; and (3) Southern respect for federal properties ~ such as Ft. Sumter.

The South insisted that war was the only way when it fired on Sumter.

Lincoln then constitutionally murdered the Old South.

The history of mankind has been far better served by the national victory rather than a sectional one.

Incorrect. All Lincoln cared about was forcing them back into the Union and having them pay their taxes and tariffs. He did not care about slavery whatsoever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The South never constitutionally or legally left the Union. Lincoln carried about preserving the nation. He did so. The world is far better off because of his steely determination, and my beloved South paid the price for sectional hubris.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The South never constitutionally or legally left the Union. Lincoln carried about preserving the nation. He did so. The world is far better off because of his steely determination, and my beloved South paid the price for sectional hubris.

If that were so then why did the southern states have to take steps necessary to rejoin the Union during Reconstruction? If what you say is true when the Civil War ended the southern states should have been immediately recognized by the federal government.