Was the civil war about slavery?

@Romeo Fabulini,

I think I'm about to have a brain bleed, so according to you the United States could have just politely informed the King of England that we no longer wished to pay taxes to the King and wanted to fly solo, we could have skipped that whole War for Independence thing???? Is that true, we just were not polite enough?????

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

What you say may be true, David, but my point is that the United States,
by its refusal to withdrawn Federal forces from the so-called CSA territory,.
was indicating quite clearly that it was not about to accept the
South's declaration of independence.

It was, but the South made federal recourse to violence
much easier by firing on the Flag.
Non-violent resistance might well have been more successful.
I believe that is the point that Romeo is making.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

In my opinion -- never humble -- there was no conceivable way
that the war could have been avoided.

That is speculative. We will never know.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

A confrontation is what the two sides had been headed for
ever since adoption of the wrong-headed articles in the Constitution
which endorsed the "peculiar institution" of slavery and counted persons of color as "five-eighths" of a man.

Historically, there was no chance
that the South woud have joined the Union,
if emancipation of slaves had been necessary.

WHERE in the Constitution is "five-eighths" designated??

Article I Section 2 provides for 3/5 of slaves to be counted
in addition to the free population, for representation n taxes.
IF the Northern region had been un-willing to offer this compromise
so as to assure the Southern region that it woud not be hopelessly
out-voted in Congress, then there is too much likelihood that
the South (including Virginia, the home of Washington, Madison,
and Jefferson, et al) woud have been satisfied to create
a Southern Confederacy a lot sooner. A 13 State USA woud not have existed,
if the South believed it woud be oppressed by Northern manufacturing states.
Presumably, a CSA woud have begun its existence sooner and more peacefully;
probably having close, friendly commercial relations with its Northern nabor.

Andy, woud u join a club that u suspected woud oppress u,
and exploit u? Woud u knowingly lock yourself into it permanently,
knowing that u coud never get out of that club again, simply getting out-voted forever???

Lustig Andrei wrote:

I know you consider the Constitution a sacred document, Dave.

I consider it to be an Instrument, not a document.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

But the fact is that in its original version it is absolutely loaded
with wrong=headed solutions to real problems.

very vague; super-vague

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

WHERE in the Constitution is "five-eighths" designated??

Article I Section 2 provides for 3/5 of slaves to be counted
in addition to the free population, for representation n taxes

Sorry 'bout that. You're right. I was always weak on fractions. Smile

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Andy, woud u join a club that u suspected woud oppress u,
and exploit u? Woud u knowingly lock yourself into it permanently,
knowing that u coud never get out of that club again, simply getting out-voted forever???

Irrelevant. A union of states is hardly a "club" from which one may resign at will. It's an "in for a penny in for a pound" situation in which a consideration of the greater good for all supersedes considerations of particular regional cultural norms. By mid-19th Century, the institution of slavery was viewed as an abomination by every civilized nation on the globe. Any special pleading that this was the South's "peculiar institution" represented an indefensible position.

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Andy, woud u join a club that u suspected woud oppress u,
and exploit u? Woud u knowingly lock yourself into it permanently,
knowing that u coud never get out of that club again, simply getting out-voted forever???

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Irrelevant. A union of states is hardly a "club" from which one may resign at will.

I see; I guess it must say that FORTHRIGHTLY, as fair warning
to any approaching potential members, right??
I guess that must OUTRANK the 1Oth Amendment reservation
to the States or to the citizens of all powers not delegated to the Union, right??

Lustig Andrei wrote:

It's an "in for a penny in for a pound" situation in which a consideration of the greater good for all
supersedes considerations of particular regional cultural norms.

Can u point to the source
of those concepts, other than your own imagination??
In other words, did u find that written into the text
of the Constitution somewhere ?????

Incidentally, that notion of "the greater good for all";
was that the rationale of the nazis and the commies ??????

Lustig Andrei wrote:

By mid-19th Century, the institution of slavery was viewed
as an abomination by every civilized nation on the globe.

It was tolerated and accepted when practiced
by the commies and the nazis; yes ??????
Were the Southern States governed by alien opinions????

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I was wondering how long it would take for you to bring the "Commies" and the "Nazis" into the conversation. You're right in one sense, of course: under the Communist regime of the Soviet Union, the country of my birth, Latvia, had no option of leaving the USSR any more than, say, Mississippi had the option of leaving the USA in 1860.

You wrote:

Quote:

Can u point to the source
of those concepts, other than your own imagination??
In other words, did u find that written into the text
of the Constitution somewhere ?????

The text of the Constitution does not foresee the possibility of a member state opting to withdraw from the Union at some point. Therefore it says neither 'yea' nor 'nay' on the subject. It was, in fact, the conflagration which has come to be known (incorrectly, imo) as the American Civil War which settled the matter once and for all, demonstrating graphically that a member state has no such right; that such an action, in fact, constitutes treasonable behavior.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

I was wondering how long it would take for you
to bring the "Commies" and the "Nazis" into the conversation.

I did so bearing upon slavery,
not qua preserving an empire.
Our experience of slavery in the 1900s
was in those 2 regimes.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

You're right in one sense, of course: under the Communist regime
of the Soviet Union, the country of my birth, Latvia, had no option
of leaving the USSR any more than, say, Mississippi had the option
of leaving the USA in 1860.

You wrote:

DAVID wrote:
Can u point to the source
of those concepts, other than your own imagination??
In other words, did u find that written into the text
of the Constitution somewhere ?????

The text of the Constitution does not foresee the possibility
of a member state opting to withdraw from the Union at some point.

I deny that. See the 1Oth Amendment.
The Constitution of 1789 was not accepted without the deal
of the Bill of Rights agreed to be added; the Federalists kept their word.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Therefore it says neither 'yea' nor 'nay' on the subject.

BULLoney!!! See the 10th Amendment:

James Madison wrote:

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.

That includes the power
to quit and leave.
The Federalists were very well aware of the demand for freedom to leave.
Indeed, that was set forth very explicitly in the New York Instrument of Ratification.
The (super-hypocritical) New Yorkers left no room for doubt
on their point of vu qua their reserved power to leave the Union.
I do not believe that New York was alone regarding the rights of States to abandon the Union.
New York said that all that was required to justify cessation was its HAPPINESS.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

It was, in fact, the conflagration which has come to be known
(incorrectly, imo) as the American Civil War

What name do u prefer ?

Lustig Andrei wrote:

which settled the matter once and for all,

No; non-sequitur. Might does not make right.

David

1 Reply

You've used that witless "joining a club" analogy before, and it's a failed analogy. If you join a club, and then decide to leave, it does not jeopardize your future freedom. If the union had dissolved, as it inevitably would have done, there were any number of powers who would have attempted to exploit the situation to their advantage. A good example of this is when, while the United States was embroiled in war, France and Belgium landed troops in Mexico to set up an "empire" there, with an Austrian emperor, without the consent of the Mexican people. Napoleon III and Palmerston both hated the United States and only refrained from overtly supporting the Confederate States because of public opinion, and the military might ot the United States.

If you choose to leave a club you have joined, do you think you're entitled to seize the property of the club, and resort to violence and gunfire to achieve that end?

As for the constitution, you're cherry-picking the texts you want to refer to. Article One, Section Ten, reads, in its entirety:

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 as 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.

The southern states were in violation of several of these provisions. But more importantly, you are ignoring that several of these states made war on the Untied States. They seized the property of the United States without offering compensation and without even offering to negotiate terms for the seizure of that property. They fired on an unarmed ship hired by the United Staets government to deliver troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, and they fired on Fort Sumter. They attempted to seize Forts Barrancas and McRae outside Pensacola--however, the Lieutenant of artillery in command there fired over the heads of the mob (so-called state troops of Florida and Alabana), driving them off. Lt. Slemmer then had the guns in those two forts spiked and had trains laid to the powder magazines. The trains were lit and he and his 50 men pulled off from shore to occupy Fort Pickins in the harbor. This effectively denied the artillery and powder in those forts to people who were in rebellion against their lawfully constituted government.

You act as though the constitution were a menu from which you can pick and choose what you which parts you will honor and which parts you will ignore.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You've used that witless "joining a club" analogy before, and it's a failed analogy.

No. I have previously exhibited to you
the NY Instrument of Ratification insofar as
it boldly declared New York 's reservation of its right to leave
the Union, if that be necessary to effect its "happiness".
(Does that say anything about hypocrisy in 1861??)
That ratification was ACCEPTED with NO objection
with that reservation of rights. This shows the temper of the times
and the understanding wherein joining up was considered.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that a big war had just been fought
concerning the point of WHO cud withdraw from WHAT; YES????

Setanta wrote:

If you join a club, and then decide to leave,
it does not jeopardize your future freedom.

Yes; like joining the U.N.
The contemporary understanding appears to have been that
a joining State was NOT going to get trapped forever.
That was never part of the deal. Thay probably wud not have
gotten any members if it had been known to be a trap.
There are some criminal clubs concerning withdrawal from which is not in favor.
"Blood in, blood out" thay have been known to say; this is explained on the way in.

Setanta wrote:

If the union had dissolved, as it inevitably would have done, there were any number of powers who would have attempted to exploit the situation to their advantage. A good example of this is when, while the United States was embroiled in war, France and Belgium landed troops in Mexico to set up an "empire" there, with an Austrian emperor, without the consent of the Mexican people. Napoleon III and Palmerston both hated the United States and only refrained from overtly supporting the Confederate States because of public opinion, and the military might ot the United States.

That does not endow the US with authority to coerce or extort membership,
effectively holding States in captivity.

Setanta wrote:

If you choose to leave a club you have joined,
do you think you're entitled to seize the property of the club,
and resort to violence and gunfire to achieve that end?

I don t. That 's a separate issue. Thay 'd probably have worked that out.

Setanta wrote:

As for the constitution, you're cherry-picking the texts you want to refer to.

Yes; I ignored inapplicable provisions
e.g., the 1O year census and the age minimum of congressmen
that have nothing to do with the issues at hand.

Setanta wrote:

Article One, Section Ten, reads, in its entirety:

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 as 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.

The southern states were in violation of several of these provisions.

Those provisions are applicable to members of the United States,
from which the Southern region had withdrawn, in the exercise
of its 10th Amendment powers and of the State sovereignty
that thay had when thay approached the Union.

Setanta wrote:

But more importantly, you are ignoring that several of these states made war on the Untied States. They seized the property of the United States without offering compensation and without even offering to negotiate terms for the seizure of that property. They fired on an unarmed ship hired by the United Staets government to deliver troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, and they fired on Fort Sumter. They attempted to seize Forts Barrancas and McRae outside Pensacola--however, the Lieutenant of artillery in command there fired over the heads of the mob (so-called state troops of Florida and Alabana), driving them off. Lt. Slemmer then had the guns in those two forts spiked and had trains laid to the powder magazines. The trains were lit and he and his 50 men pulled off from shore to occupy Fort Pickins in the harbor. This effectively denied the artillery and powder in those forts to people who were in rebellion against their lawfully constituted government.

That proved not to be an optimal strategy for Southern independence.

Setanta wrote:

You act as though the constitution were a menu from which you can pick and choose
what you which parts you will honor and which parts you will ignore.

Of course. Everyone does that.

David

0 Replies

First, your obsession with the ratification of the constitution by New York is not germane here. Quite apart from that, you've attempted that silly joining a club analogy before. It fails.

The rest of that is typical of your bombastic and prolix drivel. So-called "state troops" of Florida seized Federal property before an ordinance of secession was passed. The United States government had every right to consider people like that to be in a state of armed inssurection against the lawfully constituted government. Do you know that the votes for delegates to secession conventions were fair and open? The western counties of Virginia and the eastern counties of Tennessee didn't think so, and they held out against Confederate authority under arms.

I have no doubt that your sympathies lie with the slave-owning hotheads of the South and the slave-owner wannabe hotheads. I have no doubt you think slavery was a good idea. Attacking the legally constituted government when you're not prepared to go to war and win, though, is just the sort of thing one can expect from loony, conservative hotheads. They got what they deserved. The sad part is that hundreds of thousands of Americans who didn't deserve it got killed in the process.

Just your kind of club, huh, David?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

First, your obsession with the ratification
of the constitution by New York is not germane here.

It SURPRIZES me that u fail to get the point. Its not hard.
It can be argued against anyone in this century (e.g., against ME)
that I did not understand the temper of the times
in the 1700s and any allegations can be asserted
by whoever wishes to assert them. Citing to serious expressions
of the political leaders of the day SHOWS what was on the folks' minds,
how thay saw things, experienced them and believed about them.
A ratification like this was not done by the village idiot;
it was done by respected political leaders of that time.
Those political leaders resolutely believed that it was reasonable
and proper for a State to abandon the Union and to go its own way,
in order to effect its "HAPPINESS" and thay boldly said so,
for all to see. It was received without denial or objection,
so far history shows. If not, then please cite to any dispute
of that concept and we can consider it.

Setanta wrote:

Quite apart from that, you've attempted that silly joining a club analogy before. It fails.

U have not disproven it. Alleging & assuming, without demonstrating,
that it is "silly" does not count for much. U merely howl
in a conclusory fashion, rather than proving your point
by assembling any supportive evidence.

Setanta wrote:

The rest of that is typical of your bombastic and prolix drivel.

I was concise; look again.

Setanta wrote:

So-called "state troops" of Florida seized Federal property before an ordinance of secession was passed. The United States government had every right to consider people like that to be in a state of armed inssurection against the lawfully constituted government.

I will concede that point.

Setanta wrote:

Do you know that the votes for delegates to secession conventions were fair and open? The western counties of Virginia and the eastern counties of Tennessee didn't think so, and they held out against Confederate authority under arms.

I have no opinion on that, for lack of information.

Setanta wrote:

I have no doubt that your sympathies lie with the slave-owning hotheads
of the South and the slave-owner wannabe hotheads. I have no doubt
you think slavery was a good idea.

Your effort to read my mind failed; u r not good at it.
I regret that the slaves were not left un-disturbed in Africa.

Setanta wrote:

Attacking the legally constituted government when you're not prepared to go to war and win,
though, is just the sort of thing one can expect from loony, conservative hotheads.

Attacking conservatism is attacking accuracy
in doing things correctly.
In regard to the US Constitution,
thay were NOT conservative. Thay were 1OO% radical.

Setanta wrote:

They got what they deserved. The sad part is that hundreds of thousands of Americans
who didn't deserve it got killed in the process.

Just your kind of club[????], huh, David?

I have no idea what u mean.
Mine is a fine dining club.

David

0 Replies

More bombastic, prolix drivel. I've said what i wanted to say, and you've got nothing to reasonably dispute it.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Could you point out for us, David, where in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution it states that a State may choose to leave the Union at will? I don't see how reserving to the States those rights not delegated to the Federal government includes this unlikely "right". I mean secession is not a function of either government.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

WHERE in the Constitution is "five-eighths" designated??

Article I Section 2 provides for 3/5 of slaves to be counted
in addition to the free population, for representation n taxes

Sorry 'bout that. You're right. I was always weak on fractions. Smile

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Andy, woud u join a club that u suspected woud oppress u,
and exploit u? Woud u knowingly lock yourself into it permanently,
knowing that u coud never get out of that club again, simply getting out-voted forever???

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Irrelevant. A union of states is hardly a "club" from which one may resign at will.

The reason for this is ANTICIPATED BRUTALITY from
the abandoned political entity, like an un-friendly divorce, Andy ?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

More bombastic, prolix drivel.
I've said what i wanted to say, and you've got nothing to reasonably dispute it.

In the universe between your ears,
I guess that 's the way u define it.

I thought I was concise.

I don t believe that a fair minded judge
woud deem what I wrote to be "bombastic".

Happy Robert E. Lee 's birthday, Setanta.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

ERRATUM:
I thought that today was January 19th.
Happy Robert E. Lee 's birthday RETROACTIVELY to and including yesterday!

David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Setanta wrote:

More bombastic, prolix drivel.
I've said what i wanted to say, and you've got nothing to reasonably dispute it.
In the universe between your ears,
I guess that 's the way u define it.

I thought I was concise.

I don t believe that a fair minded judge
woud deem what I wrote to be "bombastic".

Happy Robert E. Lee 's birthday, Setanta.

David

1 Reply

And, proactively, happy Abraham Lincoln's birthday to you, David.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

David, I find your writing style to be bothersome to trudge thru. Your annoying fluctuation between accurate spelling and that God-awful quasi faux phonetic crap you INSIST on using makes trying to determine your meaning more trouble than it's worth.

I've read your stuff from time to time when I have the stomach to switch from enjoyment to cryptography. These views you have expressed regarding the Civil War have annoyed me beyond annoyed. First of all the Federal Government is not a club. Using that rationale, why couldn't Cities or Counties secede. What will they use for currency, will they need passports to travel from West Virginia to Ohio. Will these new entities establish their own Military? Collect taxes? What country will they be? They would have to denounce their American citizenship to become citizens of Tennessee.

The bottom line regarding the Civil War was the South claimed The United States of America was interfering in States Rights. They didn't want to be told they didn't have the right to own human beings.

This is probably the weakest argument you ever attempted to make. The territories who sought Statehood, joined the Union after the 13 original Colonies fought for our nations independence. the sought Statehood to strengthen their own independence. How many Texans, Floridians, or Californians signed the Declaration of Independence? Once the British were defeated, they must have decided they would rather be US citizens instead of Spanish/Mexican subjects.

Bottom line, do you really think a fractured map of the US could possibly have been successful during WWI or WWII. those are just two examples of why the union should never be divided. It's not a club or fraternity, or even a corporation designed to make a profit.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Thank u, Advocate.
HAPPY John Moses Browning 's birthday to u!
We won t need to wait so long for that: January 23rd

John Moses Browning was such a GREAT guy!!!
We shud put him on the $5 bill!

That other guy 's been there long enuf.

David

0 Replies

Only David would think a wholesale death merchant like John Browning should be on our money. John Brown, perhaps; John Browning, never.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

He was a real GENIUS. I LOVE John Moses Browning!!!!!

The guy that 's on the $5 bill now, killed quite a lot of people.
Was he a "wholesale death merchant" or retail ?

David

0 Replies

Was the civil war about slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know