So far we've established that the anticipated abolition of slavery by the North was one of the main reasons for prompting the South to secede.
Let's throw another question into the playpen-
How many southerners owned slaves?
If the majority didn't own slaves, why didn't they refuse to fight on the grounds that slavery was therefore no concern of theirs and certainly not worth them putting their lives on the line to defend it in a war?
If the majority didn't own slaves, why didn't they refuse to fight on the grounds that slavery was therefore no concern of theirs and certainly not worth them putting their lives on the line to defend it in a war?
First the economic was founded on slavery so no slavery one hell of a depression for everyone in the south.
Second in some of the southern states slaves outnumber free men and there had been a few slave rebellions that had resulted in women and children being killed with heads cut off and then the example of Haiti where most of the white population was killed was on the mind of southerners.
0 Replies
OmSigDAVID
1
Reply
Sun 26 Jan, 2014 11:33 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
So far we've established that the anticipated abolition of slavery
by the North was one of the main reasons for prompting the South to secede.
No. That has NOT been established.
The point has already been brought out that the Southern States
cud have prevented the Constitution from being amended against slavery;
it had enuf numerical strength to prevail in that.
The point has already been brought out that the Southern States
cud have prevented the Constitution from being amended against slavery;
it had enuf numerical strength to prevail in that.
Taxes/tariffs and other policies that favor the northern type of economic over the southern one and the reduction of power of the south in congress over time as more of the new states being form and admitted to the union as non-slaves states as well as the far greater increase of population in the north thank to it must greater immigration was the trigger for the war.
The point has already been brought out that the Southern States
cud have prevented the Constitution from being amended against slavery;
it had enuf numerical strength to prevail in that.
BillRM wrote:
Taxes/tariffs and other policies that favor the northern type of economic over the southern one and the reduction of power of the south in congress over time as more of the new states being formed and admitted to the union as non-slave states as well as the far greater increase of population in the north thank to it must greater immigration was the trigger for the war.
That 's a fact.
0 Replies
Setanta
4
Reply
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 04:22 am
It is true that if the southern states remained in Congress they could have prevented the abolition of slavery by constitutional amendment. That the southern states decided to secede and to make war on the United States is evidence that they were not thinking in terms of exercising constitutional power, but only of establishing and exercising power on their own, outside of the constitutional framework. That one course is more sensible than another doesn't mean that course will be adopted--one cannot automatically assume that people will react rationally to their situation--and politicians constantly and successfully bank on people responding to emotional appeals rather than rational appeals.
While it is true that many southerners initially supported secession even though they were not slave-owners ignores that many of those people aspired to be slave owners. It is no different than contemporary voters who support tax reductions for the highest income brackets even though it does not benefit them because they aspire to one day be in that higher tax bracket. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the Confederate States instituted conscription almost a year before the United States government did so, because they were not meeting their manpower needs. At one point in 1862, Thomas Jackson wrote to Lee to urge him to cancel leave for private soldiers and to express his opinion that the provision of 60 days leave for men who reenlisted for the duration was a bad idea. There were thousands of soldiers who, if granted leave, simply took to the hills--they deserted. Thousands of southern troops were employed hunting down deserters. As i've already pointed out, the "cause" was sufficiently unpopular that the western counties of Virginia seceded from that state to remain in the Union, and the eastern counties of Tennessee remain loyal unionists, even when they were the object of continuous (and failed) efforts by Confederate authorities to enforce their will on them. The war was not universally popular in either the North or the South.
they could have prevented the abolition of slavery by constitutional amendment
I have read quite a lot of Civil War history but don't remember this being discussed much.
Can you point me to a book that might go into this?
Quote:
It is no different than contemporary voters who support tax reductions for the highest income brackets even though it does not benefit them because they aspire to one day be in that higher tax bracket.
This seems to be a pervading theme for this nation. Good observation.
Believe it or not, i have ideas which i didn't get from a book. To amend the constitution, a vote of two thirds of both houses of the Congress is required. Once a proposed amendment is sent to the states, it requires three quarters of the states of ratify the amendment. It was not until 1907, when Oklahoma entered the union, that there would have been enough senators to pass a proposed amendment abolishing slavery over the objections of slave holding states, if those states voted as a block. To this day, the fifteen slave holding states would have been sufficient to prevent the ratification of such an amendment. In fact, you only need 13 states to assure the failure of a constitutional amendment.
The point is less about the provisions of the constitution than it is about the intransigence of the southern states. Because of the three-fifths provision of the constitution, they weilded power out of all proportion to their voting, tax-paying population. They saw that threatened (although in 1860, only notionally), so the hotheads began ranting, Senator Chestnut lead the South Carolina delegation out of Congress, and southerners began making war on the United States. The point about amending the constitution is less about practical politics than it is about how little interest powerful southerners had in practical politics and constitutional processes.
***********************************************
Now, if you'll excuse me, i'm over at Youtube doing a System of a Down retrospective . . . .
Can you point me to a book that might go into this?
Seems like a simple request that doesn't demean your intellect.
Christ you're grouchy!
You're excused...and before you leave..
Can you clean up the bile you spilled?
Romeo said: So far we've established that the anticipated abolition of slavery by the North was one of the main reasons for prompting the South to secede. OmSigDavid said: No. That has NOT been established
Well can somebody briefly list the reasons in order of priority?
I asked the question earlier but was told to go read books.
Is the issue too complicated to be answered in a few brief sentences?
Come on guys, give it your best shot and let's call it a leadership test- "Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand"
-Gen. Colin Powell
So what would you have told the men under your command when they asked you- "Sir, me and some of the boys are wondering why are we fighting this war?"
There was nothing grouchy about my reply, and there was no bile. But if it pleases you to think so, help yourself.
0 Replies
OmSigDAVID
1
Reply
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 12:51 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Believe it or not, i have ideas which i didn't get from a book.
To amend the constitution, a vote of two thirds of both houses of the Congress is required. . . .
It is 2/3 of EACH house of Congress. That 's a higher standard.
Romeo said: So far we've established that the anticipated abolition of slavery by the North was one of the main reasons for prompting the South to secede. OmSigDavid said: No. That has NOT been established
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
Well can somebody briefly list the reasons in order of priority?
I asked the question earlier but was told to go read books.
Is the issue too complicated to be answered in a few brief sentences?
Come on guys, give it your best shot and let's call it a leadership test- "Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand"
-Gen. Colin Powell
So what would you have told the men under your command when
they asked you- "Sir, me and some of the boys are wondering why are we fighting this war?"
Answer: We are fighting for INDEPENDENCE. The Southern States can do better
without Northern interference, the same as America can do better without English interference.
The C.O. wud not begin a seminar on economics.
0 Replies
Setanta
2
Reply
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 01:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
The opening lines of Article Five of the constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution . . . (emphasis added)
Why don't you dig up the framers, lay out the corpses in a line so they can all hear you, and lecture them on English grammar according to Mr. Mensa.
The opening lines of Article Five of the constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution . . . (emphasis added)
Why don't you dig up the framers, lay out the corpses in a line so they can all hear you,
and lecture them on English grammar according to Mr. Mensa.
R u sure that will be necessary ??
U gave me a smile, Mr. Setanta; thank u.
In any case, it IS 2/3 of EACH house of Congress;
i.e., the votes of both houses cannot be added together
for a successful proposed amendment if affirmative votes = 2/3 of both houses' cumulative votes.
Do u deny that ??
( Note that I did not denounce u as being incorrect; I merely offered clarity on that point. )
David
0 Replies
Setanta
2
Reply
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 02:15 pm
I certainly deny that you are making a valid distinction. I also know that you never think that you are wrong, so whether you respond or not, i'm done with this silliness.
B. Attempts to Use the Convention Method
Although the convention method for proposing amendments
has never been used, the threat of a convention has sometimes
spurred Congress to action. During debates over the Constitu‐
tion’s ratification, the threat of a second constitutional conven‐
tion was a key factor in Congress proposing the Bill of Rights.22
There have been several occasions where the number of state
applications for a convention was close to reaching the re‐
quired two‐thirds; at least once during the course of events
leading to the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment, the
threat of a constitutional convention may have spurred Con‐
gress to act preemptively to propose the desired amendment
itself.23 The prospect of a convention may also have played a
role in leading Congress to propose the Twenty‐first, Twenty‐
second, and Twenty‐fifth Amendments.24
So what? With fifteen slave states, that wasn't going to happen if there was even a hint that the abolition of slavery was in prospect. Congratulations--you have actually read and understood a portion of the constitution. I didn't say that two thirds of both houses of the Congress was the only avenue for amending the constitution.
0 Replies
Thomas
5
Reply
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 04:25 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Quote:
Who said George Washington wasn't a traitor?
LOL that my point as if Lee is a traitor for siding with his home state instead of the whole US then Washington is similarly a traitor for siding with the same state Virginia and the united states in the process of being born instead of the English empire.
You say that as if it was a reductio ad absurdum. But it doesn't work because the result of your reduction not absurd; it's perfectly valid. George Washington was a traitor. So was every officer who had sworn an oath to the British crown and took arms against Britain. So was every signatory of the Declaration of Independence. America is a nation built on treason. You just don't hear that often because, as they say, "if treason prospers, none dare call it treason". Washington was a traitor who prospered; Lee was a traitor who didn't. That's the main difference between them. Both of them are traitors.
