|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Exactly. It confirms the right to dissolve a relationship or union but also requires that the reasoning also be presented and defended.
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Guess what? It preceded the act of secession and affirms a universal right.
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The official state song of Maryland is "Maryland! My Maryland"
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Revolution.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Article VI
quote: And your point was? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024