|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cause of Civil War | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But, the perception is that the union was not a constitutional construct, but a cultural construct derived from a flawed interpretation of the Constitution. They don't change the Bible when they disagree with how somebody else interprets it (usually): why should we expect them to change the Constitution? I wouldn't. If you think you're arguing with me, you're not. On the contrary, I see exactly why they had to make their Constitution a carbon-copy of that of the USA. To change it would be to throw away their arguments that they had always been in the right. For example, to put in a clause allowing for secession would have been to acknowledge that one was needful, which would be as much as to say that their secession from the USA was not lawful according to the constitution of the USA. My only point was to disagree with Artemis. The CSA were not trying to establish a new kind of government in which there would be a radically different relation between the states and the federal government. On the contrary, as Jefferson Davis said: "We have changed the constituent parts, not the system of our government".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Blue Jay writes:
That's from the declaration of independence, not from the constitution.So, when gay-rights proponents argue the "pursuit of happiness" clause, is this also just a smokescreen of principle around an ultimately selfish argument? Or is it actually about the principle? I see the gay rights people making a grass roots campaign to persuade the population, rather than a legal campaign based on the constitution. Yes, there are also court cases, though I haven't closely followed the arguments used there. But I also view the court cases as skirmishes the grass roots campaign. It is all about winning the hearts and minds of the population. If you want to compare that to what happened around the time of the civil war, then at that time there was also a grass roots campaign to win the hearts and minds of the population. The abolitionist's won that campaign. Incidentally, the gay rights advocates seem to be winning their grass roots campaign.
Blue Jay writes:
Their states right issue was a fair principle to use in the grass roots campaign. They lost that campaign. The only principle I can see behind secession, was the "sore loser" principle.
The fact that there is a principle that could, in theory, defend their position, and that it is the very principle that they appeal to, should at least give you pause in ruling on their motivation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
But, what would they have changed to fix this?
They were claiming states rights abuses by the current system. Does it seem logical to institute basically the same system that lead to "abuses"? What were all of these abuses? Lincoln went into his presidency calling for stopping the spread of slavery not the abolition. What were the abuses other than things related to slavery?
They already have the text of the Tenth Amendment. And, they already got rid of everybody they thought had the motivation to abuse the Tenth Amendment. This argument only works if there was a particular thing they felt caused "abuse" of the Tenth amendment. If it was truly an overarching "abuse" of states rights, then they should have wanted to implement plans to prevent anything similar from happening in the future. They did not. Also, their Constitution restricts states rights more than The US Constitution in places.Did you look at the side by side comparison on the link Dr. A provided? CSA Consitution Some important points where there are less states rights in CSA.
quote: Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
A fascinating and moving story. Thanks for sharing it.
dwise1 writes: So regardless of what each Confederate state said, the slavery issue predominated US politics leading up to the Civil War. The only things I can say on their behalf is that I seem to recall part of the Constitution that stated that any state that wanted to leave the Union would be free to do so... Lincoln's position was that secession was illegal. Confederacy supporters believe otherwise. I've never seen anyone cite any portion of the Constitution as explicitly giving a right to secede. It simply isn't there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Dr. Adequate writes: If he didn't care why the secessionists won the referendum, and if the real concerns of the Tennessee voters at the time of the second referendum was that Union soldiers would march through their lands on the way to the Lower South, then he could have played on that fear. Yes he could have. Perhaps he should have. But the fact remains that the TN voting results were dramatically different despite essentially the same pre referendum rhetoric from the governor. Doesn't that at least suggest that some other force other than the content of the governor's speech was in play.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dr A.
Dr Adequate writes: If you think you're arguing with me, you're not... My only point was to disagree with Artemis. Doesn't this mean that it's you who isn't arguing with me? You're right, though. I only joined this thread because I felt like one side was getting overwhelmed too easily, and I wanted to see a little more of the topic than Artemis giving up in frustration after 3 posts. I can only keep it up for so long: I'm not going to try to push it any further. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Lincoln's position was that secession was illegal. Confederacy supporters believe otherwise. I've never seen anyone cite any portion of the Constitution as explicitly giving a right to secede. It simply isn't there. That is because the rights and reasoning for secession are not in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Theodoric.
Theodoric writes: They were claiming states rights abuses by the current system. I thought we had just established that they were claiming abuses by a future system. You just nailed me on that one in your previous post. They thought the Republicans were going to illegally change the status quo, and that there was nothing they could do about it, so they started a country where they could keep their status quo. ----- P.S. Your next post will be your 1865th post: I think it would be fitting for it to happen in this thread. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I thought we had just established that they were claiming abuses by a future system. This is where the argument fails. They are sure of abuses before they happen so they secede. Now the argument for states rights abuses would hold some weight if they were subjected to "abuses" before they seceded.
They thought the Republicans were going to illegally change the status quo, and that there was nothing they could do about it, so they started a country where they could keep their status quo. So you agree that at the time they had no legitimate reason for seceding on the states rights issue. This again shows that the states right argument is just a thinly veiled covering of slavery being the issue. Is it much different than ID and Creationism? This should be 1865. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes he could have. Perhaps he should have. But the fact remains that the TN voting results were dramatically different despite essentially the same pre referendum rhetoric from the governor. Doesn't that at least suggest that some other force other than the content of the governor's speech was in play. I didn't suggest that the governor's speeches were particularly a causal factor in secession --- I just offered them up as evidence of what the secessionists were thinking at the time, namely that the dispute was about slavery, contrary to Artemis's apologiae. Yes, there was a difference in the referenda, and yes, there was another force in play. Lincoln, by his call for troops, had signaled his intention to turn the dispute from a political schism into a shooting war. At that point both honor and interest dictated that the slaveholders of Tennessee should get off the fence and take a stand. But Lincoln only changed the way that the dispute was being carried out --- with bullets rather than ballots --- he did not change what the dispute was about. It was still about slavery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
jar writes: That is because the rights and reasoning for secession are not in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence. Along with citations of a long chain of abuses. Dost thou prate, rogue? -Cassio Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I only joined this thread because I felt like one side was getting overwhelmed too easily, and I wanted to see a little more of the topic than Artemis giving up in frustration after 3 posts. Why do you think Artemis gave up because of frustration? What would he have to be frustrated about? This thread was started so that he could defend his assertions and his spurious quotes about the cause of the Civil War. He has provided no evidence to support the Robert E. Lee quote and has provided little to no evidence for his other assertions. All he has done is make more assertions. He has not made a rebuttal to arguments in 40 posts. Maybe he is gathering evidence to support his assertions. I hope so. Because his last post ended with uncalled for abusive language toward another poster.If he continues in that vein I do not want him contributing at all. When a poster resorts to the attacks like Artemis made it is usually a pretty good sign that they have noting to defend there assertions with. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
That is because the rights and reasoning for secession are not in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence. Which is not a US legal document. Therefore, there is nothing in the US Constitution or US law that authorizes secession. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
Well, according to the Wiki:
Everyone agreed that states had certain rightsbut did those rights carry over when a citizen left that state? The Southern position was that citizens of every state had the right to take their property anywhere in the U.S. and not have it taken awayspecifically they could bring their slaves anywhere and they would remain slaves. Northerners rejected this "right" because it would violate the right of a free state to outlaw slavery within its borders. Republicans committed to ending the expansion of slavery were among those opposed to any such right to bring slaves and slavery into the free states and territories. The Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857 bolstered the Southern case within territories, and angered the North.[59]
Secondly the South argued that each state had the right to secedeleave the Unionat any time, that the Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. Northerners (including President Buchanan) rejected that notion as opposed to the will of the Founding Fathers who said they were setting up a "perpetual union".[59] Historian James McPherson writes concerning states' rights and other non-slavery explanations: While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the state's-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? State's rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle.[60]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
quote: Another way that the states rights argument fails. In order to promote slavery, the southern states had no problem in infringing on the rights of northern states to make slavery illegal.
Secondly the South argued that each state had the right to secedeleave the Unionat any time, that the Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. Northerners (including President Buchanan) rejected that notion as opposed to the will of the Founding Fathers who said they were setting up a "perpetual union".
As said before, no where in US jurisprudence does this right exist. It was clearly a smoke screen to attempt to cover the real issue. Just felt a commentary was needed for the wiki info. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024