Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,113 Year: 5,370/9,624 Month: 395/323 Week: 35/204 Day: 11/24 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 1 of 193 (583866)
09-29-2010 11:12 AM


Artemis has made some assertions in the daily quote thread.
The first is a spurious quote from Robert E. Lee.
quote:
"This war is not about slavery."
He has shown no evidence this is a correct quote or anything to show Lee felt this way.
Next he makes this claim.
Artemis Entreri writes:
but the general wasn't fighting and bleeding so a the elite could own slaves, its not was VA, NC, AR, or TN left the union, and its not why KY or MO tried to leave.
Now I would love to see his arguments and evidence for this. He seems pretty confident here.
I know how this is going to go. He is going to demand evidence from me first.
I will assume it is lee, as you have failed to disprove it.
Well Artie, you made the assertions and demanded a thread so you can back them up.
anyway this is not the thread for this, make a new thread and we can go back and forth but I think we should stop jacking this thread, and move to another one where we can stay more on topic.
yep, i changed you on this 1st and you backed down, now you are acting like it is the other way around. that's hilarious.
Artie, can you back up your statements? I know you can't on the Lee quote, but maybe on the others?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 12:53 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 2 of 193 (583878)
09-29-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theodoric
09-29-2010 11:12 AM


Evidence against AE's assertions
As Arty probably will not attempt to support his assertions, lets look at some evidence already presented against them.
Subbie and Dr A posted this info in the quote thread already. I hope they do not mind that I repost it here.
Message 50
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
- State of Mississippi in its Declaration of Causes of Secession
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
- Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
(Emphasis in original)
- State of Texas in its Declaration of Causes of Secession
Message 81
Resolved by the general assembly of Virginia [...] That these causes are to be mainly found in the denied equality of the rights of the slaveholder and the non-slaveholder, involved in the proposed partial exclusion of the former from the common territories--in the breach of the plighted faith of some of the non-slaveholding states and people, by acts and laws designed to obstruct the recovery of escaped slaves--by avowed designs to shape the policy, and use the machinery of the general government so as to effect, by indirection, the extinction of slavery, which it is conceded that government cannot rightfully or directly interfere with--and by other acts importing a denial of our rights of property in our slaves, and of our exclusive control over slavery as a domestic institution--and these are causes of complaint common to all the slaveholding people and states, and are in plain violation of the spirit and terms of our compact of union. --- Journal of the House of Delegates of the State of Virginia, for the Extra Session, 1861.
The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the federal government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the southern, slaveholding states: --- Virginia Ordinance of Secession
quote:
The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.
Source
Lee to Mrs. Lee, Dec. 27, 1856; Lee MSS., Library of Congress.
So here is some evidence to counter your assertions. Now are you ready to refute it?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 11:12 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 4 of 193 (583907)
09-29-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


Re: thanks
You have done nothing to defend your point. You have presented no evidence to support your assertions.
Nothing to support this.
but the general wasn't fighting and bleeding so a the elite could own slaves, its not was VA, NC, AR, or TN left the union, and its not why KY or MO tried to leave.
The Virginia declaration mentions slaveholders and slave holding states directly. I think maybe you have some cognitive dissonance there. How about some evidence for your assertions next time.
Part of the issue in in the idea of this Unified South, this unified slave states idea. That is not what a Confederacy means. The confederacy was not another union to fight against the previous union, but a collection of individual sovereign states.
This has nothing to do with the thread or your assertions. You made very clear assertions. Back them up.
This idea that the whole war was to end slavery and the southern states rose up to gether to protect slavery is misleading and incorrect.
No one is saying this. This is a strawman you are attempting to build. Slavery was an integral part of the reasons for the war. Was it the sole reason? No. But the economic reasons for the war were driven by slavery. States rights is just a smoke screen to hide slavery as a primary cause.
If the true goal of the war and the emancipation proclamation was to end slavery
No one is stating this. Another straw man. The war from the union side was to preserve the union. The war from the confederate side was to dissolve the union.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 1:30 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 3:38 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 6 of 193 (583975)
09-29-2010 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 3:38 PM


Re: thanks
You really should try using references.
The reason for the "invasion" is because MO was split between pro and anti slavery. In the 1850's there was a large influx of Germans into MO. They were staunchly anti-slavery. The 1850's was the scene of much violence in MO, caused by the pro and anti slave people. To say slavery has nothing to do with the civil war in Mo is to deny the history of the 1850's.
quote:
By 1860 Missouri was a state in change. In the ten years before the war the original Southern settlers of the state discovered themselves sharing the land with a large contingent of German immigrants. These newcomers were staunchly antislavery. As the country lurched toward war in 1861, newly elected Governor Claiborne F. Jackson led the pro-slavery forces in Missouri. Leading the antislavery group were Congressman Francis P. Blair and General Nathaniel Lyon.
http://www.mocivilwar.org/history/1861.html
The arsenal was a Federal arsenal. There was not an invasion. The federal troops were there to move the US arms out of MO to Illinois in order that they would not fall into the hands of secessionists.
Missouri during the war had two governments one on each side, and sent men and supplies to both sides.
Not really true.
quote:
On July 22, 1861, following Lyon's capture of the Missouri capital at Jefferson City, the Missouri Constitutional Convention reconvened and declared the Missouri governor's office to be vacant. On July 28, it appointed Hamilton Rowan Gamble as governor of the state and agreed to comply with Lincoln's demand for troops.
quote:
In October 1861, the remnants of the elected state government that favored the South (including Jackson and Price) met in Neosho, and voted to formally secede from the Union. The measure gave them votes in the Confederate Congress, but otherwise was symbolic since they did not control any part of the state. The capital was to eventually move to Marshall, Texas. When Jackson died in office in 1862, his lieutenant governor, Thomas Caute Reynolds, succeeded him.
Missouri in the American Civil War - Wikipedia
I am not sure why MO is high on your list. They never seceded and never were in open rebellion to the Union. Pro-Unionist were in control from nearly the beginning.
Since theodoric doesn't really claim to have opinions and merely just tries to refute everything I say I think it will be a booring and easy to call debate. He will probably just attack me and my sources without much thought given to the response.
Ax to grind much?
When did I ever say I don't have opinions. All I want is for you to back you many assertions with facts and evidence. I have not attacked you. All I have done is question your assertions. I cannot attack your sources because as of yet you have none.
OK to summarize.
The reason for the conflict in MO was because of pro and
anti slavery forces fighting for control of the government. This in turn lead to the US forces moving the arms from an arsenal in St Louis to Illinois.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 3:38 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 11 of 193 (584051)
09-29-2010 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 3:38 PM


More on Missouri
quote:
Two members Claiborne Jackson, and William B. Napton, Sr., sought to undermine the power of Missouri's U.S. Senator Thomas Hart Benton. Benton was not anti-slavery, but he opposed its expansion into new territories. Jackson and Napton penned a series of resolutions, which essentially made the following points:
1. Any attempt by Congress to regulate slavery is unconstitutional.
2. The establishment of free territories is an insult to slave holding states.
3. Only people residing in a territory at the time a state constitution was framed could vote to prohibit slavery. Future generations have no right to consider the issue of slavery.
4. Missouri would cooperate with other slaveholding states for their mutual protection against northern fanaticism.
The Jackson Resolutions, as these were known passed in both houses of the Missouri legislature by an overwhelming majority and signed by Governor Austin King on March 10, 1849. Within a few years, Benton was out of politics.
http://www.friendsar.org/civilwar.html
Jackson was MO governor in 1861.
quote:
Jackson assumed the governor's office on January 2, 1861, and despite a state convention that voted more than 3-1 in favor of Union, vowed to continue the policy of his predecessor Robert M. Stewart, whereby Missouri would be an "armed neutral," refusing to give arms or men to either side in the approaching Civil War, though Jackson personally favored joining the South, and surreptitiously provided both men and arms to the Confederate army.
Claiborne Fox Jackson - Wikipedia
You want to continue with MO or move on?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 3:38 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 19 of 193 (584123)
09-30-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Artemis Entreri
09-30-2010 10:04 AM


Re: Tennessee
If you cannot debate in a civil manner I request you not post to this thread. This was meant to be a thread that would allow you to back your assertions. If you are going to be a abusive I will ask that this thread be closed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-30-2010 10:04 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 23 of 193 (584135)
09-30-2010 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by NoNukes
09-30-2010 2:48 PM


It is very complex
I agree with your viewpoint.
There are people like Artie that will claim Slavery had nothing to do with it. The reasons for this view should be looked into by psychologists. Even if you believe it was primarily a states rights issue, there has to be an acknowledgment that slavery was the catalyst for the states rights issues. To do anything else would be a display of extreme denial of facts and outright revisionism of the historical record. A few posters have shown that the states rights issue is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst. The CSA Constitution did not make a marked change in the relationship between the states and the federal government.
I'd love to hear an argument of what those major changes were that alleviated the problems they had with the US with states rights. The only major one I can see is the right to own slaves. The ability to suspend habeus corpus is still there.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2010 2:48 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2010 11:05 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 28 of 193 (584221)
09-30-2010 10:14 PM


CSA General said Slavery cause
quote:
The causes of the war will be found at the foundation of our political fabric, in our complex organism, in the fundamental law, in the Constitution itself, in the conflicting constructions which it invited, and in the institution of slavery which it recognized and was intended to protect. If asked what was the real issue involved in our unparalleled conflict, the average American citizen will reply, "The negro"; and it is fair to say that had there been no slavery there would have been no war. But there would have been no slavery if the South's protests could have availed when it was first introduced; and now that it is gone, although its sudden and violent abolition entailed upon the South directly and incidentally a series of woes which no pen can describe, yet it is true that in no section would its reestablishment be more strongly and universally resisted. The South steadfastly maintains that responsibility for the presence of this political Pandora's box in this Western world cannot be laid at her door. When the Constitution was adopted and the Union formed, slavery existed in practically all the States; and it is claimed by the Southern people that its disappearance from the Northern and its development in the Southern States is due to climatic conditions and industrial exigencies rather than to the existence or absence of great moral ideas.
Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woeful American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the passions of the sections had long been gathered--the tallest pine in the political forest around whose top the fiercest lightnings were to blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake shocks of war.
"Reminiscences Of The Civil War", (Chapter I)
By John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA
Source

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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 31 of 193 (584237)
09-30-2010 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Blue Jay
09-30-2010 11:05 PM


Re: It is very complex
So, I basically agree with your position, but I think you may have made an error here.
If I did it isn't based upon your argument.
They started to secede before Lincoln was even inaugurated. Therefore, the argument that they seceded because of abuses falls flat.
Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, the Confederate Constitution was adopted on March 11, 1861. How much abuse could have happened in that week?
The cry we hear from Confederate apologists is states rights. If that is so why does CSA Constitution not substantially increase the rights of states?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2010 11:05 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2010 11:35 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 34 of 193 (584244)
09-30-2010 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Blue Jay
09-30-2010 11:35 PM


Re: It is very complex
My point still stands: it wasn't the Constitution that they took exception to, so why should we expect them to have changed it?
They are claiming states rights issues. The exact Constitution just invites the same abuses. Doesn't add up.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2010 11:35 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 12:59 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


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: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


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