Was the civil war about slavery?

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

David, I find your writing style to be bothersome to trudge thru.

I see. (I gratefully APPROVE of your writing "trudge thru";
it makes my humble efforts feel worthwhile.)

glitterbag wrote:

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 taken a liberal vu of when to apply it; don t wanna over-do it.

glitterbag wrote:

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.

Do u have any historical information showing that the States were warned
that thay 'd be trapped FOREVER, if thay joined up?? Does it say that in the text?
Did the Federalists make a public announcement to that effect??
I have repeatedly pointed out that New York, (1 of the 2 most important States)
explicitly reserved the right to secede to effect its "HAPPINESS" in its Instrument of Ratification,
and this ratification, bearing that reservation of rights, was accepted
without denial and without rejection by the Federalists.
That contemporary fact of 1788 shows that it was then deemed
appropriate and reasonable for a State to withdraw from the Union,
hopefully more PEACEFULLY than it had just seceded from the English Empire.

glitterbag wrote:

Using that rationale, why couldn't Cities or Counties secede.

I don t know of a reason against it.

glitterbag wrote:

What will they use for currency,

Gold or silver coin, per the Constitution.

glitterbag wrote:

will they need passports to travel from West Virginia to Ohio.

No. That has not proven to be necessary
with joint sovereignty.

glitterbag wrote:

Will these new entities establish their own Military?

Thay already did.

glitterbag wrote:

Collect taxes?

That 's a joke, right??

glitterbag wrote:

What country will they be? They would have to denounce their American citizenship
to become citizens of Tennessee.

No; experience has disproven that.

glitterbag wrote:

The bottom line regarding the Civil War was the South claimed
The United States of America was interfering in States Rights.

Thay felt abused in Congress; outvoted by Northern interests.
The South did not believe that continued participation
was ideally in keeping with its best interests.

glitterbag wrote:

They didn't want to be told they didn't have the right to own human beings.

Do u believe that the Southerners
considered Africans to be fully human ?
Do u think that, in the Southern vu of the 18OOs, owning an African
was the same as owning a Frenchman or a Bulgarian?? (or the Northern vu, for that matter)
U think thay saw no significant racial difference ?
Even in New York, slavery for blacks legally continued until 1827.
That 's only some 34 years before the South seceded.

glitterbag wrote:

This is probably the weakest argument you ever attempted to make.

Well, I guess SOME argument must be the weakest,
unless thay r all of equal strength.

glitterbag wrote:

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.

Were thay more independent before
thay joined up ?

glitterbag wrote:

How many Texans, Floridians, or Californians signed the Declaration of Independence?

O.

glitterbag wrote:

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.

I really think that it coud possibly have succeeded in both wars; yes.
In the First World War, we only tipped the balance.
American forces were only in combat for a few months b4 the Armistice.
If I remember accurately, it was about 5 months.
The English and German armies were badly exhausted by then.

glitterbag wrote:

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.

I believe that a fair minded, impartial judge woud hold that the States
retained the right and the power to secede; see 1Oth Amendment.
Nowhere in the Constitution of 1787 is the federal government
granted authority to hold in any State against its will.
IF the Constitution HAD declared that, then the NY Instrument
of Ratification woud not have declared the right of the State to secede.
Perhaps, it woud simply not have joined up. (It was a close vote.)

U have alleged, without proving, that the joining up of the States
was distinct in principle from joining a club. Please offer evidence
that thay had chosen to do something DISTINCT in principle from joining a club.
Nowhere was it said that it was a permanent trap.

I agree that in the future, splitting up woud be a bad thing.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

David...

...was New York actually one of the two most important states?

Just curious.

I would have thought the "most important states" would be southern states rather than northern...with the possible exception of Massachusetts.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

David...

...was New York actually one of the two most important states?

Just curious.

I would have thought the "most important states" would be southern states
rather than northern...with the possible exception of Massachusetts.

Yes; Virginia and NY, by consensus.

0 Replies

Once again, David displays his dismal ignorance. The two most populous states in 1787 were Virginia and Massachusetts--followed by Pennsylvania and Maryland. New York was considered one of the small states, based on their relatively small population.

1 Reply

I just checked my facts, and it is true that New York had a larger population than Maryland in 1787. However, it was still way behind Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

1 Reply

Population, since power was proportioned by population...is a good indicator of power.

Virginia had a huge slave population that only counted as 3/5ths of non-slave count...but Virginia, I certainly expected to be the most powerful state...if Massachusetts was not. I expected that New York and New Jersey were smaller...and less powerful.

That is why I asked.

0 Replies

re David:

The Supreme Court decided in Texas v. White that the Union was indissoluble. Once in, you were in, and had no right to secede, and that dated back to the Confederation. Sorry, David, you're outvoted, and have been for a century and a half, no matter what pathetic analogies you try to draw. Of course you can always petition the Supreme Court to change its mind. Good luck.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Once again, David displays his dismal ignorance. The two most populous states in 1787 were Virginia and Massachusetts--followed by Pennsylvania and Maryland. New York was considered one of the small states, based on their relatively small population.

U FOOL.
I said that it was 1 of the 2 most important States,
not the most populated. Can t u read??
It was a financial center, u ignoramus.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I just checked my facts, and it is true that New York had a larger population than Maryland in 1787. However, it was still way behind Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

That was NOT the question.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Setanta wrote:

I just checked my facts, and it is true that New York had a larger population than Maryland in 1787. However, it was still way behind Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

That was NOT the question.

That was certainly the question that Frank Apisa asked.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Dave, you're a moron.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Dave, you're a moron.

You're too kind, glitter.

0 Replies

Guys...in fairness to David...

...New York City was a very important city in the new country. In fact, it was the first capital of the nation. And it was, as he said, a financial center. (Amazingly, it was also one of the more conservative places...rather than the liberal hot bed it is now.)

But the state of New York...which was the subject...was a fairly small state as was New Jersey.

The power lay in the congress...the states were represented in the congress by population...and Virginia and Massachusetts had the power.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

re David:

The Supreme Court decided in Texas v. White that the Union was indissoluble. Once in, you were in, and had no right to secede, and that dated back to the Confederation. Sorry, David, you're outvoted, and have been for a century and a half, no matter what pathetic analogies you try to draw. Of course you can always petition the Supreme Court to change its mind. Good luck.

You ARE able
to THINK, right?? To reason ?

Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court coud not be expected
to operate as a court IMPARTIALLY in this case because it was directly in the pay
of one of the parties, deciding a question of FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE to that party which paid it.
It woud have been un-thinkable that the USSC 'd have repudiated Lincoln the martyr (4 years dead).
Union passion was raging.

That was no better than if Jeff Davis were suing all 9 of the Justices' mothers.
A court cannot be a judge in its own cause.
Judges are ethically required to avoid EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

Just by collecting their usual salaries, thay were ALL bribed, on that point.
The legitimacy of the court to rule on the question of secession was a joke,
a very funny joke, not to be taken seriously.

Let 's try it this way, Jack; see if this gets the point across:
Suppose the issue of the validity of secession were litigated
in the Supreme Court of the Confederacy all of whose judges
were appointed by Jefferson Davis. Wud u deem that to be a credible judicial process???

An HONEST, ethical 1869 USSC woud have recused itself.

The passion of the day substituted for judicial honesty n integrity.
If a court is dishonest, pre-judiced regarding the litigated issues,
then: what good is it, what value does it have??

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You're just describing the normal judicial process in re: SCOTUS here, David. What the hell's your point?

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

an effort at humor ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

weak, I admit

but firmly based on fact

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

We disagree.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

This horseshit has been done to death. I recommend the loons in this thread making claims they can't back up read this thread: The Confederacy was About Slavery

0 Replies

I wonder if Robert E. Lee would have been man enough to spare Lincoln's life in the unlikely case the South had defeated America?

1 Reply

Was the civil war about slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know