12
   

is the pledge unconstitutional?

 
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I think it's a stretch to say the slavery debate was anywhere near as well known as abortion. There were some areas of prominent debate, bleeding kansas for one.
To say that slavery became an issue against which many union forces fought is just wishful thinking. Equally misleading is the idea that the south fought to preserve slavery.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:16 pm
@wayne,
The South fought to preserve local sovereignty,
including that its own laws remain intact.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:16 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Yeah, right . . . wanna buy a bridge?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:19 pm
@Setanta,
including its laws of property
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
If they truly wanted to preserve the institution of slavery, leaving the union was the stupidest thing to do. You haven't really given this dispassionate thought, have you? You're just spouting another version of your ideology.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:26 pm
@Setanta,
In the light of the emergent industrialization of the Union, the south had little chance of preserving such an antiquated lifestyle, regardless.

I find all the romantic notions about the south all rather silly.
Just where did they think they were going with all that?
Like you say, they were screwed in every possible way anyhow.
We'd be giving them billions in aid right now.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
That's one way of putting it anyway.
Or you could say they fought to preserve thier own version of royalty, and the status quo.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:34 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
If they truly wanted to preserve the institution of slavery, leaving the union was the stupidest thing to do.


And this statement of yours is supposed to represent thought? It seems pretty clear that had there been a dissolution of the US into two separate countries, that slavery would have existed for a good long time.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:37 pm
@JTT,
How do you figure that?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:38 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
They were spoiling for a fight even before Lincoln was elected. John Floyd, a Virginian, was Buchanan's Secretaryof War until he resigned at the end of December, 1860. During 1860, he shipped more than 100,000 muskets from the St. Louis Arsenal to armories in the South--and did it quite illegally, too. Article One, Section 8 give Congress the power to provide for arming the militia. Floyd, as an executive branch employee, had no authority to ship the muskets without congressional approval or an act of congress.
I disagree with your legal conclusion.
The President has Constitutional authority to deposit federal military assets
into any State of his choice. The Secretary of War acted in furtherance of power delegated from the President.

Note that (with no interference from Article I Section 8)
around approximately 1920, Congress enacted the Civilian Marksmanship Program,
by whose terms the Director of Civilian Marksmanship was to encourage gunnery competitions thru out America,
particularly in its public schools (competitive teams)
and to sell military assets to the civilian population.

(I bought a mint .3O caliber M-1 Carbine for $2O and a Colt .45 caliber 1911 automatic pistol for $12.)
Obviously, the Director is and was employed in the Executive Branch of the federal g.






Setanta wrote:
He not only shipped the muskets, he actively encouraged state authorities to send him requests for muskets. The South was looking for a fight long before it started.

The true stupidity is that had the South remained in the Union, no constitutional power could have deprived them of their slaves. While by now, there would have been enough votes in Congress to propose an amendment (it takes two thirds of both houses), if the eleven states which actually seceded along with the four border states--Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri--failed to ratify, there would not be enough states to ratify such an amendment. Their political stupidity knew no bounds. John Breckenridge, Kentucky's favorite son and Buchanan's Vice President, ran against Stephen Douglas and the other two candidates (there were four in1860), thus splitting the Democratic Party and assuring the election of Lincoln.

Even had the North simply followed Winfield Scott's advice--"Go, wayward Sisters"--the South was screwed, because slaves who could escape could have gone north, and the South could not have enforced the fugitive slave laws. Crossing into United States Territory to attempt to recapture slaves would inevitably lead to incidents which probably would have lead to war.

What a bunch of pea-wits.
YES. That 's very true.
It appears that thay believed that thay were a lot stronger than thay proved to be, in the end.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:42 pm
@wayne,
Because the south wanted to continue slavery.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:48 pm
@JTT,
So? Slaves were already escaping.
Economicly, slavery wouldn't have proven to have been anything but a burden, in the face of an anti-slavery, industrial nation to the north.
They needed the north a lot worse than the north needed them.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:51 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
If they truly wanted to preserve the institution of slavery, leaving the union was the stupidest thing to do.
Yes. History has proven that to be true.
We know that with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
The Southerners did not turn out to be as strong as thay thought thay were.


Setanta wrote:
You haven't really given this dispassionate thought, have you?
You're just spouting another version of your ideology.
Well, I have agreed with U,
as to your observations of history on this point.

Note that my thoughts r dispassionate,
tho the Civil War invests me with sadness.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 02:07 pm
@wayne,
Quote:
So? Slaves were already escaping.


As they had been since slavery started.

Quote:
Economicly, slavery wouldn't have proven to have been anything but a burden, in the face of an anti-slavery, industrial nation to the north.


The north wasn't anti-slavery. What slaves they were able to keep would hardly have been any greater burden. In fact, they would have been the boon they had always been to farmers who needed a lot of labor.

Quote:
They needed the north a lot worse than the north needed them.


I'm not so sure of that. It was the north that used high tariffs to protect northern industry. The south hated them. Obviously the south had a lot of trade going on with other countries.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 02:28 pm
@JTT,
Starting to sound a lot like the Japanese position prior to ww2.
Economic pressures would have eventually led to war. The south simply didn't have the diversification to defend itself economically.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 02:40 pm
@wayne,
Quote:
A New Look at the "Civil War"

by Carl Pearlston

...

The nub of the problem was that the North wanted high tariffs on imported goods to protect its own manufactured products, while the South wanted low tariffs on imports and exports since it exported cotton and tobacco to Europe and imported manufactured goods in exchange. High tariffs in effect depressed the price for the South's agricultural exports; the South paid high prices for what it bought and got low prices for what it sold because of the federal tariff policy which the South was powerless to change. Southerners viewed themselves as being dominated by the mercantile interests of the North who profited from these high tariffs.

...

Consider, for example, a quote by author Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861, "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel". As Adams notes, the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/pearlston1.html

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 04:10 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Note that you are referring to an act of congress, which was my point. Floyd in 1860 was not acting on executive order, he was acting on his own authority, which authority did not extend to such shipments.

By the way, it didn't take 20-20 hindsight to see, and see in 1861, that the South could have indefinitely prevented an amendment of the constitution abolishing slavery. They could have protected that institution by constitutional means to this day.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 04:25 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

As far as Mr. Lincoln was concerned, the civil war was fought to preserve the union. That is why he wrote to Mr. Horace Greeley, in August, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." This is just more evidence of what an idiot you are--you are profoundly ill-informed, or uninformed, and you prove it every time you type that pathetic drivel.

Every time you respond to one of my posts with your uninformed, idiotic drivel, i am going to tell you: You are an idiot.
It does not matter what he would have done as president to presever the union... He made clear his understanding of the moral wrong of it, and its inconsistency with the declaration of independence... But; before he was a republican or a moralist he was an attorney and a politician... He knew that having public opinion behind him was essential and that it made all things possible... Even then, he thought constitutional protections of property made any attack on slavery futile, just as southerners thought all other chattels being portable, that slaves should be as well... They did not want to see the slow death of slavery they thought Lincoln meant for the institution, so they chose suicide... What Lincoln said in the context of the war means little... We know enough of the man to know how he stood with it, but he was too smart to ask a white peasant farmer to die for the rights of a black man...As I am certain he recognized in his House Divided speech: There are no natural borders between us, and we would no sooner be separated than we would be at war... To be exact, the Civil War was a war of property rights against human right, and the government of the United States, in the constitution and Declaration of independence gives lip service to human rights while serving in fact those with property... We are still a house divided, and it is our constitution that makes our division certain... We lost the Civil War with even greater protections for property than we entered the war, and the Negro was little better off for being a wage slave...
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 04:30 pm
@Fido,
I knew it was only a matter ot time before you attempt to conflate the declaration of independence with the constitution. That has no bearing on your specious claim that the constitution contradicts itself. Your claims about Lincoln suggest that you know more about what he thought than he did. You are an idiot.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 04:37 pm
@hamilton,
Thanks for your kind words... I only need to be reminded occasionally why I so seldom bother with set... Slavery was the underlying issue, and for that reason many in the North at one time considered secceeding from the Union- until they saw their political power growing through the republican party... Lincoln's greatest victory was dividing the democratic party in the Lincoln Douglas debates so that many Southerners would not accept Douglas as a candidate, and so put up another candidate so that neither could win... The election of Lincoln was done in the South by hard core anti abolitionists acting out of their fear... It was simply a sense of the matter that grew on the North side of the issue, that states rights had nothing to do with the matter, and slavery had everything to do with it, and in that they were correct... But Lincoln believed he had little legal authority against it, and he recognized well into the war that slavery had protection as a property right... For that reason he often stressed the sense of buying the slave for a fair price rather than exspending millions of dollars and thousands of lives to take property without the legal right to do so... War makes all measures necessary, but then those measure require the force of victory...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/16/2022 at 10:46:32