Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 193 (584278)
10-01-2010 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Blue Jay
10-01-2010 1:00 AM


Re: It is very complex
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 1:00 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 11:29 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 47 of 193 (584309)
10-01-2010 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Blue Jay
10-01-2010 1:57 AM


Re: It's all relative
Blue Jay writes:
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?
That's from the declaration of independence, not from the constitution.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 1:57 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 1:57 PM nwr has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 48 of 193 (584313)
10-01-2010 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Blue Jay
10-01-2010 12:59 AM


Re: It is very complex
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:
The Confederacy explicitly declares that only citizens of the CSA can vote in elections. In the USA the individual states have the power to decide voter eligibility, so already here's one power that the supposedly more pro-"states' rights" Confederacy is actually taking away...
The CSA clarifies that state legislatures will appoint senators at the last session before the Senator's term expires.
This prevented state legislatures from appointing a "reserve" senator to wait in the wings until the incumbent guy left office, as was common in some American states. ..
The CSA adds a disclaimer that the state legislatures are bound by the federal constitution when creating rules for elections to the Senate and House. This evokes Section 2(1) of the Confederate constitution, which demands that states only grant voting rights to citizens. ..
The Confederate Congress gains the power to meddle in the free-trading between the states by imposing tariffs on certain states' exported goods. ..
Overall, the CSA constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was set up under the United States constitution. It is thus very debatable as to whether the CSA was a significantly more pro-"states' rights" country (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away- the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders, and the freedom of states to trade freely with each other.
States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit." When people champion the cause of reclaiming state power from the feds, are matters like these at the tops of their lists of priorities?
As previously noted, the CSA constitution does not modify many of the most controversial (from a states' rights perspective) clauses of the American constitution, including the "Supremacy" clause (6-1-3), the "Commerce" clause (1-8-3) and the "Necessary and Proper" clause (1-8-18). Nor does the CSA take away the federal government's right to suspend habeus corpus or "suppress insurrections."
As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Indeed, CSA constitution seems to barely stop short of making owning slaves mandatory. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of future anti-slave law or policy will be unconstitutional. People can claim the Civil War was "not about slavery" until the cows come home, but the fact remains that anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 12:59 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 11:47 AM Theodoric has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 193 (584322)
10-01-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by dwise1
10-01-2010 1:58 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by dwise1, posted 10-01-2010 1:58 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 10-01-2010 11:36 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2010 12:32 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 193 (584323)
10-01-2010 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
10-01-2010 3:23 AM


Govenor Harris's Speech
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2010 3:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2010 12:02 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 51 of 193 (584325)
10-01-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr Adequate
10-01-2010 3:54 AM


Re: It is very complex
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2010 3:54 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2010 12:15 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 193 (584327)
10-01-2010 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by NoNukes
10-01-2010 11:06 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2010 11:06 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Omnivorous, posted 10-01-2010 12:08 PM jar has replied
 Message 58 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2010 12:17 PM jar has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 53 of 193 (584331)
10-01-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Theodoric
10-01-2010 9:17 AM


Re: It is very complex
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2010 9:17 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2010 12:00 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 54 of 193 (584332)
10-01-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Blue Jay
10-01-2010 11:47 AM


Than it was just an excuse
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 11:47 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 193 (584333)
10-01-2010 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by NoNukes
10-01-2010 11:18 AM


Re: Govenor Harris's Speech
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2010 11:18 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 56 of 193 (584336)
10-01-2010 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
10-01-2010 11:36 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 10-01-2010 11:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 10-01-2010 12:24 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2010 1:15 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 57 of 193 (584339)
10-01-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Blue Jay
10-01-2010 11:29 AM


Frustration?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 11:29 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 2:42 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 58 of 193 (584341)
10-01-2010 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
10-01-2010 11:36 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 10-01-2010 11:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 10-01-2010 12:33 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 59 of 193 (584342)
10-01-2010 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ringo
09-30-2010 3:01 PM


Re: It's all relative
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 09-30-2010 3:01 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2010 12:24 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 60 of 193 (584344)
10-01-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Tram law
10-01-2010 12:17 PM


Re: It's all relative
quote:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Tram law, posted 10-01-2010 12:17 PM Tram law has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2010 3:07 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024