Cause of Civil War

The emancipation proclamation was probably ready for the 1st Battle of Manasses, Lincoln had to wait two years for a real victory. Lincoln could have handled the war peacfully, but he choose another route.

I got a little carried away, I think maybe 2 out of 21 posts he/she actually looked something up and posted his/her own thoughts. MOST of the time he/she is your echo.

he/she claims its all about a quote I used from the quote of the day thread.

Care to show evidence for this assertion?

Well that is what the OP says, and since I wrote the OP I should know what the thread is about.BTW
Any evidence at all that Lee said what you claim?

If you also take a look at your response, you'll see that you accepted the full scope proposed by Theodoric.

Theo writes: I can more than stand my own on any historical debate.

How about defending your original assertions?

I respectfully disagree. There's nothing particularly natural about the 1st Amendment. Further, most of the bill of rights protects us from the state government as well as the federal, thanks to the 14th Amendment. Clearly the 13, 14, and 15th amendments all protect citizens against state governments.

I'm not going into detail regarding your examples of aggrieved states, other than to say that you and I differ significantly on federalism. I don't find your examples the least bit compelling. My experience is that it is generally the state government that wants walk its jack boots into private places or all over individual rights. There are plenty of examples of the federal courts vindicating individual rights against states.

13, 14, & 15 are probably the worst passed amendments ever and I was not talking about them.

Artemis writes:Oh my bad instead of saying bill of rights it seems I should have said, the 1st 10 amendments. 13, 14, & 15 are probably the worst passed amendments ever and I was not talking about them.

I understand your position. I disagree with it primarily because I believe the union under the Constitution was not a dissoluble union of states.

The people gained a number of important rights under the constitution, and I think the process of severing those rights is not well served by allowing a simple majority vote of the legislature or even direct vote by the people to eliminate those rights and protections.

For example if the VA legislature decided today that the 14th amendment (or 13th or 15th) was incompatible with VA values, I don't believe the state legislature has any right to simply refuse to recognize that right regardless of how the public or the legislature votes. Secession in my view is the ultimate revocation of minority rights.

A state might be said to have an extra-legal right to revolt or rebel against the union, but in that case, we get to judge the state's moral position. I believe that the seceding states utterly fail that examination.

Artemis writes:I just did, and you are incorrect. I quoted myself, and began to go into the individual states that I do not think left for slavery.

Dr. A writes:But this is a mere argument from consequences, and does not affect what the law is.

Post war, we have a SC decision that session is illegal without the consent of the other states.

I have stated my reasoning for why Lee felt this way. the only response you can muster is "can you show evidence for your assertion?" and that is it, you are horrible at debating anything, its like talking to a droid. Its called History, look it up, I am not your TA.

And being the son of a Revolutionary Calvalryman, and Marrying into George Washinton's Family, and living across the Potomac from D.C. He was an american military man at heart, a Patriot.

He did not want to fight a war against Americans, and against the people in his home state. So he resigned from duty and went to serve with the Virginians. He was not into politics and had no say on whether Virginia would stay or leave the Union. He knew what would happen and he wasn't going to be the cause of it, especially against Virginians.

Don't you find it rather odd that Lee freed his slaves in 1862 (slaves that he never purchased, but inherited), even though as you assert he was fighting for slavery!?!
who would believe that? seriously?

absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.

Robert E. Lee writes: The Civil war was totally about slavery

jar writes:Had the South won, it would have been legal.

Dr. Adequate writes:Perhaps you could fill in this lacuna in my knowledge.

Lee writes:So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.

Lee writes:These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race.

Lee's second-hand slave writes:My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.

Custis actually gave freedom to his slaves without qualification in his will; the matter of the five years was supposed to be time for Custis’s executors to do the legal paperwork for emancipation in such manner as may to [them] seem most expedient and proper. There’s good reason to read the clause as intending for the five years to serve as an upper bound on settling the legal details, not as five more years for driving the slaves for whatever last bits of forced labor could be gotten. Lee, however, did not see it that way, and set the slaves to for his own profit for as long as he could. We have already seen that some of the slaves disagreed with Lee on this point of legal interpretation, and how he treated those who acted on their legal theory by seceding from his plantation.Of course, Lee never was very big on secession at all. Those who love to haul out the Confederacy Lee included as heros for secessionist self-determination tend to neglect comments such as this one:Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.Robert E. Lee, letter, 23 January 1861