Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
jar
Member (Idle past 393 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 193 (584345)
10-01-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Omnivorous
10-01-2010 12:08 PM


on secession
Exactly. It confirms the right to dissolve a relationship or union but also requires that the reasoning also be presented and defended.
quote:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
A major difference between the colonies secession from Great Britain and the events of the Civil War is that the Declaration of Independence was a joint action of all of the individual colonies while the secession during the Civil War was a series of separate acts by individual states.
A second major difference is that with foreign help and recognition, the colonies were able through force and diplomacy to succeed. The South (although the Trent Affair certainly could have helped with recognition) never succeeded in either force or recognition.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Omnivorous, posted 10-01-2010 12:08 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 193 (584349)
10-01-2010 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Theodoric
10-01-2010 12:17 PM


Guess what? It preceded the act of secession and affirms a universal right.
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Had the South succeeded in either area, force or gaining recognition, there would be little legal recourse. But the South failed in both areas.
The Union was preserved not because of legality, but because the North succeeded in having the greater force and the South failed to garner external recognition as a separate nation.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2010 12:17 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 65 of 193 (584356)
10-01-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Omnivorous
10-01-2010 12:36 PM


The South would not have abandoned slavery on its own: indeed, southern agrarian interests were intent on expanding slavery into new states and protecting their state citizens' "right" to practice slavery in free states.
I question that for a few pretty basic reasons.
First, the mid to late 1800s were the advent of the mobile engine. The economy of the Southern States was based on cheap land and hand labor. The thing driving much of the desire to expand slavery into new states was that they were very rapidly depleting the viability of the land and the advent of agricultural machinery was very quickly making much of the hand labor cost inefficient.
Even though slavery itself was abolished and there was a transition from agricultural to resource exploitation and industry, the class system and economic system changed little.
It's likely that the availability of tractors and the other host of mechanical devices that came out over the next fifty years would have doomed slavery anyway, it was just cheaper to buy one multipurpose machine then maintain a large body of slaves.
But the big issue, the class system, continued right on for well over one hundred years throughout the Nation, north and south, and it has only been within my lifetime that that issue has begun to get resolved,

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Omnivorous, posted 10-01-2010 12:36 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Omnivorous, posted 10-01-2010 1:10 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 68 of 193 (584364)
10-01-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Omnivorous
10-01-2010 1:10 PM


slavery then and now
But, sure, let's assume you're right. In that case, I'm happy they fought a war that ended slavery in 1865 instead of 50 years later, regardless of why.
My only point is that the war did not really change that much. The legal institution called slavery was eliminated but the practical economic and social conditions remained the same, and are still being addressed.
Note the date on the reverse.
We still had mill towns and company script well past WWII and the idea that even the lowest, least educated, poorest White Man was superior to even the highest, most educated and richest Black Man (or Mexican or Puerto Rican or...) unfortunately can still be found today.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Omnivorous, posted 10-01-2010 1:10 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Omnivorous, posted 10-01-2010 2:29 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 91 of 193 (584517)
10-02-2010 11:59 AM


And a short historical aside.
The official state song of Maryland is "Maryland! My Maryland"
quote:
The despot's heel is on thy shore,
Maryland! My Maryland!
His torch is at thy temple door,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Avenge the patriotic gore
That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
And be the battle queen of yore,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Hark to an exiled son's appeal,
Maryland! My Maryland!
My mother State! to thee I kneel,
Maryland! My Maryland!
For life and death, for woe and weal,
Thy peerless chivalry reveal,
And gird thy beauteous limbs with steel,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Thou wilt not cower in the dust,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Thy beaming sword shall never rust,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Remember Carroll's sacred trust,
Remember Howard's warlike thrust,-
And all thy slumberers with the just,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Come! 'tis the red dawn of the day,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Come with thy panoplied array,
Maryland! My Maryland!
With Ringgold's spirit for the fray,
With Watson's blood at Monterey,
With fearless Lowe and dashing May,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Come! for thy shield is bright and strong,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Come! for thy dalliance does thee wrong,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Come to thine own anointed throng,
Stalking with Liberty along,
And chaunt thy dauntless slogan song,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Dear Mother! burst the tyrant's chain,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Virginia should not call in vain,
Maryland! My Maryland!
She meets her sisters on the plain-
"Sic semper!" 'tis the proud refrain
That baffles minions back amain,
Arise in majesty again,
Maryland! My Maryland!
I see the blush upon thy cheek,
Maryland! My Maryland!
For thou wast ever bravely meek,
Maryland! My Maryland!
But lo! there surges forth a shriek,
From hill to hill, from creek to creek-
Potomac calls to Chesapeake,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Thou wilt not yield the Vandal toll,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Thou wilt not crook to his control,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Better the fire upon thee roll,
Better the blade, the shot, the bowl,
Than crucifixion of the soul,
Maryland! My Maryland!
I hear the distant thunder-hum,
Maryland! My Maryland!
The Old Line's bugle, fife, and drum,
Maryland! My Maryland!
She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb-
Huzza! she spurns the Northern scum!
She breathes! she burns! she'll come! she'll come!
Maryland! My Maryland!
What is often forgotten is that it was originally a poem soon set to music and is based on the occupation of Maryland by Union Troops (particularly the city and port of Baltimore and the capital at Annapolis) to prevent Maryland from seceding and the despot and tyrant mentioned is Lincoln.
Maryland still sent a contingent of soldiers to fight for the Confederacy and they marched south through Washington to Richmond (about 150 miles) to swear allegiance before turning around and marching the 90 miles back north to Manassas for the Battle of Bull Run.
On their way south they marched through DC and even stopped to salute the flag.
At the time the capital was virtually undefended and they could have easily captured it and Lincoln ending the war, but honor did not let them fight before first joining the Confederacy.
History could have been different.
To carry the irony into today, it is traditional for the US Naval Academy chorus to sing the song before each Preakness.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 10:00 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 93 of 193 (584531)
10-02-2010 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Blue Jay
10-02-2010 12:45 PM


Re: The Morality of States' Rights
Lincoln had a long history of opposing slavery, often outlining very good logical reasons to oppose the institution that went beyond Black/White.
But he was also practical and understood the limits of his power even though he often tried (many times succeeding) in going beyond the Constitutional limits.
He understood that the issue must eventually be resolved by the Legislature and Court, and was perfectly willing to even accept slavery if doing so would preserve the Union.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2010 12:45 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 102 of 193 (584739)
10-03-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NoNukes
10-03-2010 9:37 PM


Why didn't the south have a right to secede?
Why didn't the south have a right to secede?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 9:37 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 10:40 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 104 of 193 (584744)
10-03-2010 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NoNukes
10-03-2010 10:00 PM


Re: And a short historical aside.
I had not heard of this USNA glee club tradition and I'm a grad.
And many owe you a debt of gratitude. Were it not for the Middies many a Johnny would have had to buy his date dinner.
Yikes! The reference to Lincoln is very blatant. Pretty amusing.
I wonder how many of them understand the song?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 10:00 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2010 12:32 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 106 of 193 (584750)
10-03-2010 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by NoNukes
10-03-2010 10:40 PM


Re: Why didn't the south have a right to secede?
The Declaration of Independence though is outlining extra-legal rights, rights that are beyond those instituted by a STATE, rights reserved to the individual and the corporate body.
And the South did go to war to separate.
As I pointed out way up thread, the biggest difference I see is that the Declaration was a joint statement (except maybe from New York) of the Colonies that set out the object as well as the reasoning that led to the decision. I know of no comparable missive from the South.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 10:40 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 118 of 193 (587643)
10-19-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by NoNukes
10-19-2010 9:44 PM


Re: George Washington, secession?
Revolution.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 10-19-2010 9:44 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 132 of 193 (588670)
10-27-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 12:19 AM


Re: thanks
I find the whole thing to be purely political. Lincoln had to wait till 1863 for a real victory to give this proclamation to begin with, had this been given in 1861 he would have looked more the fool, and possibly lost Maryland, placing Washington D.C. on the wrong side of the line.
And as I pointed out back in Message 91 the reason Maryland did not secede was because Baltimore and Annapolis were occupied by Union troops at the very beginning of the war. The timing of the Emancipation Proclamation would have had no effect on what Maryland did.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 12:19 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 145 of 193 (588872)
10-28-2010 7:47 PM


Legality of secession.
Had the South won, it would have been legal.
But the legality of secession is not the issue. Slavery certainly was.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2010 11:46 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 152 of 193 (588948)
10-29-2010 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Artemis Entreri
10-29-2010 7:53 AM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
Article VI
quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
And your point was?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-29-2010 7:53 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 157 of 193 (588994)
10-29-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by NoNukes
10-29-2010 1:25 PM


Re: Worst passed.
Plus, treaties are one of the three Supreme Laws of the Land anyway.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2010 1:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2010 5:14 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024