The Civil War ended 149 years ago, and here we are about to debate what caused it in the first place.
The fact that 149 years later there's probably going to be disagreement on the causes is a very clear indicator of what caused the war to begin with.
The fact that there is still disagreement after 149 years is likely a good indicator that the war really didn't settle much of anything. It is still ongoing to this very minute absent the shooting at each other which could, God forbid, resume at any time.
The fact that there is still disagreement after 149 years is likely a good indicator that the war really didn't settle much of anything. It is still ongoing to this very minute absent the shooting at each other which could, God forbid, resume at any time.
More later. The wife is hounding me to get going with her.
Actually, 1-5 should be slavery or the south's "peculiar institution," as it was known. States rights didn't become an issue until after the war when it came out in "justification" by southern papers. The issue of slavery was used by southern politicians and religious leaders to predict slave uprisings, rapes and murders of white women, blacks having equal rights and whatever else they could think of. Don't forget the Dred Scott decision said blacks had no rights the white man was bound to honor and the south took that as gospel. Though the vast majority of whites owned no slaves, they still felt completely superior to blacks and weren't about to give up the white privilege. They were mostly illiterate and had little to no understanding of states' rights other than what they were told.
Lincoln's part was overplayed by southern papers and politicians. They associated him with the abolition movement though he wasn't a member of it and he repeatedly said he could not do anything about it where it currently existed. By the time he was inaugurated, seven southern states already had seceded. The south was also keenly aware the U.S. Military was only about 17,000 and their militias were larger together than that. Further, the south had begun seizing U.S. military and supply stations to build their readiness. Since the southern militias had been training for slave uprising for years while northern militias were mainly friendly meetings by friends, they were aware they were superior in that area, too.
More later. The wife is hounding me to get going with her.
:facepalm:
The Civil War ended 149 years ago, and here we are about to debate what caused it in the first place.
The fact that 149 years later there's probably going to be disagreement on the causes is a very clear indicator of what caused the war to begin with.
. States rights didn't become an issue until after the war when it came out in "justification" by southern papers.
Actually, 1-5 should be slavery or the south's "peculiar institution," as it was known. States rights didn't become an issue until after the war when it came out in "justification" by southern papers. The issue of slavery was used by southern politicians and religious leaders to predict slave uprisings, rapes and murders of white women, blacks having equal rights and whatever else they could think of. Don't forget the Dred Scott decision said blacks had no rights the white man was bound to honor and the south took that as gospel. Though the vast majority of whites owned no slaves, they still felt completely superior to blacks and weren't about to give up the white privilege. They were mostly illiterate and had little to no understanding of states' rights other than what they were told.
Lincoln's part was overplayed by southern papers and politicians. They associated him with the abolition movement though he wasn't a member of it and he repeatedly said he could not do anything about it where it currently existed. By the time he was inaugurated, seven southern states already had seceded. The south was also keenly aware the U.S. Military was only about 17,000 and their militias were larger together than that. Further, the south had begun seizing U.S. military and supply stations to build their readiness. Since the southern militias had been training for slave uprising for years while northern militias were mainly friendly meetings by friends, they were aware they were superior in that area, too.
More later. The wife is hounding me to get going with her.
The debate continues because many still want to cling to the belief that the South had a moral rationale to secede, meaning it had to be something other than to preserve slavery. If one can believe that secession was caused by the South being taxed to death, then secession would be easier to accept as a historical truth. But of course, that wasn't the reason.
The debate continues because many still want to cling to the belief that the South had a moral rationale to secede, meaning it had to be something other than to preserve slavery. If one can believe that secession was caused by the South being taxed to death, then secession would be easier to accept as a historical truth. But of course, that wasn't the reason.
Those hastily written declarations were not and had no need to be detailed in scope and they all served their purpose very well!
As the article I posted above points out there were many causes, Chief among them the North's insistence on maintaining their tariffs!
* * *
The increased tariff didn't particularly help, but it wasn't even passed until months after South Carolina seceded. By that time, even Lincoln's promise If you like your slaves, you can keep your slaves didn't influence the Southern states.
:bigsilly:
The South had been resisting punitive tariffs imposed by the North since at least 1832 and knew that Lincoln's election would bring an even higher and more punitive version. But you go ahead and continue to delude yourself!
Take a load off. I'm laughing at MAC's subtle poke at Obama.
I'm from the South and I hate slavery, so I see both North and South as having been engaged in the most grotesque of greek tragedies, with more hubris than Oedipus ever possessed.
Here are a few quotes from those I have collected over the space of many years of studying this subject. Please note that not a single one of them is from a Southern source!
The South had been resisting punitive tariffs imposed by the North since at least 1832 and knew that Lincoln's election would bring an even higher and more punitive version. But you go ahead and continue to delude yourself!
:bigsilly:
Baloney! 100% USDA Grade A!
If anyone in authority had told Union Soldiers that they were fighting to end slavery the vast majority of them would have gone home immediately!
We see how it is!
(Actually, I look forward to your comments.) :beer:
Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
The declaration continued to talk about violations of what was considered "states' rights", as the Northern states were refusing to send back the property of the slave states, and were in fact making them citizens!
It was all about the ability of the South to continue to maintain the institution of slavery, require the North to recognize and respect its property rights, and to agree to allow territories not yet states to have the option to organize as slave states, referred to as popular sovereignty
It wasn't going to happen and the South knew it. Remaining in the Union would only assure that eventually free states would be able to have their way with the issue of slavery, as the various compromises, especially the 1850 Compromise were essentially falling apart. That was certainly true of the Fugitive Slave Act, even with the Dred Scott decision.
The increased tariff didn't particularly help, but it wasn't even passed until months after South Carolina seceded. By that time, even Lincoln's promise If you like your slaves, you can keep your slaves didn't influence the Southern states.
Baloney! 100% USDA Grade A!
If anyone in authority had told Union Soldiers that they were fighting to end slavery the vast majority of them would have gone home immediately!
That is true, and many did after the Emancipation Proclamation.
Would you be so kind as to point out the word or phrase in the Constitution that prevents any state from leaving the union by the same method they entered it? I.E. Just exactly they way those states of the Confederacy left!
The term “perpetual” found in the Articles of Confederation, deemed the Union indissoluble. The Constitution simply made the Union “more perfect”. It superseded the Articles of Confederation but did not change the permanent and “perpetual” nature of the Union.
The term “perpetual” found in the Articles of Confederation, deemed the Union indissoluble. The Constitution simply made the Union “more perfect”. It superseded the Articles of Confederation but did not change the permanent and “perpetual” nature of the Union.
"We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union..." Can you tell me why they included the word "form" there?
Why did every member of the N.Y delegation leave the convention (Hamilton alone later returned) when it became clear that they had no intention of working on the Articles of Confederation and were going to write a Constitution instead?
Why are the words "perpetual union" nowhere to be found in the Constitution?
What was the status of Rhode Island and North Carolina between the time the Constitution was ratified and the time they finally got around to ratifying it? Were they still governed by the articles of the Confederation, independent colonies again, or members union governed by the new Constitution despite the fact that they refused to ratify it?
And lastly if if the Articles of Confederation bound states to a perpetual Union how is it that we are now governed by a completely new Constitution and the articles are history?
More perfect from what? That's Luis' point. It wasn't a new country as the United States already existed, and did so under the Articles of Confederation. And as I think everyone agrees, the purpose for many of the delegates was to improve the Articles, and it simply merged into a whole new constitution, because there were just too many changes. In any case, one late change to the preamble put in the words "We the people" as a change to "We the people of the states of, etc."
Only a fraction of the delegates stayed for the whole convention for a variety of reasons. But Hamilton was one of the strongest proponents of a new constitution. A few wouldn't even sign the document at the end. But I'm not sure that means anything.
Well, since the Union already existed, the purpose as stated was to form a more perfect one. Those words simply show that it was a transition, first off to strengthen that Union and fix some issues involving state interactions. But it became obvious early on for a variety of reasons that there were simply too many issues to patch up the Articles.
Well they hadn't rejected the Articles of Confederation, and until they finally ratified the Constitution, would not have been governed by the Constitution. Still it was a relatively mute issue as I'm not aware of any conflicts resulting from it, just one more reason why the transition was principally aimed at a stronger government (more perfect) rather than the creation of a new Union. A reading of Anti-Federalist Papers is proof that the delegates were anything but united in there goals.
Asked and answered. And the USSC in Texas v White confirmed that secession is unconstitutional.
That's Baloney! Those men were very careful in what that said! If their purpose has merely been to perfect the union that is EXACTLY what they would have said! "We the people of the United States in order to perfect the union" ... would have been what they said! They purposefully included the word form to declare their intention to form a NEW union!
But the delegates from New York made it VERY plain as to why they were leaving and none ever returned save Hamilton! I'm quite sure that it means a great deal that some refused to sign the NEW document!
Yep! they threw out the old Perpetual union and FORMED a new one under the Constitution!
A very lawyerly response that completely avoids the question asked!
Yep! With Lincoln's very on former Treasury Secretary sitting as Chief Justice of a court crafted to ensure EXACTLY that result!
Well too bad they didn't say "NEW" isn't it?
Your point being? Not one delegate was satisfied. Some refused to sign it, and as you earlier pointed out, 2 states held out until after the First Congress was convened before ratifying it. I simply don't follow how two dissatisfied delegates determined something other than what actually took place. Again, look at the Anti-Federalist Papers to see how far apart the delegates were on every issue.
Again, too bad they used the term "more perfect". But that is really an aside to whether the changes agreed to between the Articles and the Constitution meant that specifically the delegates intended that it would no longer be perpetual. If they did, one would think they might have discussed that extremely important issue, and provided for an out.
A very obvious way of rejecting a point one can't argue with.
So any court decision YOU disagree with is by definition the result of some conspiratorial slight of hand?
My point being that they left because they had not been authorized to participate in a runaway convention that was bound and determined to do what they had not been authorized to do and they said so!
I have no idea what that has to do with the issue of whether or not a state could secede. The Constitution once ratified was a binding contract, and if it wasn't intended to be such, the committee of five that drafted it should have put something in to reflect that. In its absence, a way out required a constitutional amendment, or force of arms, the latter being the reality. Perhaps the delegates didn't intend the Union to be perpetual, none of us will ever know, but even if they didn't, they provided ways to amend it should enough states desire to do so. And South Carolina being first of several suddenly decided that states could come and go as they pleased, and that a contract is no longer a contract if any party decides to walk away from it.
The fact that you have no idea why it matters that all of the delegates for the then largest state in the union refused to participate in a convention that was bent on taking actions that it had been granted NO authority to take is not my problem but yours!
They can leave in the same manner they joined as they did in the case of the states that formed the Confederacy. And the Constitution would NEVER have been ratified had not all 13 of the states who did so not been sure that was the case!
So can you leave a contractual obligation you enter into the same way you entered into it without some language reflecting that choice?
As you well know you can legally get out of a contract for any number of reasons!
In the case of the Constitution there is not one word in it that would prevent a state that had freely joined the union for leaving in the same manner!
That's my point. You can legally get out of a contract only for specified reasons, either in the contract or in law. You cannot simply walk away from one without suffering whatever penalties are provided for.
As for the Constitution, the states didn't freely join, it was We the People. And again, the Constitution did provide for a way out through the amendment process. Breakaway sections of nations isn't uncommon, and the result is usually war. Sometimes peaceful solutions are found, and even Lincoln attempted that in this case. I do agree that it's likely not all ratifying states were on the same sheet of music on various issues, and given the communications available at the time, I also think most who already saw we were a union of states didn't give the transition anywhere near the thought people do today.
But the early debate on the New Jersey plan to fix the Articles was objected to by Madison who preferred the Virginia plan. Both agreed that the purpose was to preserve the Union, and to remedy the evils that existed. Madison didn't believe the New Jersey plan could go far enough in accomplishing that. And preservation of the Union wasn't in question, thus, forming a more perfect union could hardly have meant loosening what already existed to allow a state to simply walk if it chose to.
The people of individual FREE states! And that same group can leave the union at any time THEY determine that their membership in that union no longer serves their interests!
It's like a marriage and a subsequent divorce.
Yet they didn't adopt either plan and chose instead to FORM a completely new union under the Constitution!
It may be of interest that even Lincoln did not challenge the southern states' right to secede. He maintained the pretense that he had to defend federal forts, armories and installations, and he insisted that the union was entitled to compensation for owned property in the seceding states. Granted, it was a pretense, but it underscores the fact that the right of secession was accepted by most people in the 19th century.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." 14
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
It may be of interest that even Lincoln did not challenge the southern states' right to secede. He maintained the pretense that he had to defend federal forts, armories and installations, and he insisted that the union was entitled to compensation for owned property in the seceding states. Granted, it was a pretense, but it underscores the fact that the right of secession was accepted by most people in the 19th century.
This is from Lincoln's first inaugural address:
It may be of interest that even Lincoln did not challenge the southern states' right to secede. He maintained the pretense that he had to defend federal forts, armories and installations, and he insisted that the union was entitled to compensation for owned property in the seceding states. Granted, it was a pretense, but it underscores the fact that the right of secession was accepted by most people in the 19th century.
So can you leave a contractual obligation you enter into the same way you entered into it without some language reflecting that choice?
As you well know you can legally get out of a contract for any number of reasons!
In the case of the Constitution there is not one word in it that would prevent a state that had freely joined the union for leaving in the same manner!
Notice that he did say it could be unmade by all the parties. Presumably, congressional approval.
The Union was created by the Articles of Confederation, and by the text of the article signed by all involved, it was a perpetual Union. The definition of "perpetual is "never ending or changing". The Articles of Confederation do not say "perpetual until someone decides to leave".
The Constitution did not create the Union, the Union preexisted the Constitution and nothing in the Constitution dissolves the existing Union to create a "new" Union, it simply makes the already existing Union a "more perfect Union". The fact that "We the people" created a Constitution to make for a "more perfect Union" clearly indicates that the Constitution was created to improve, not dissolve and recreate, the already existing perpetual Union.
To wit, the Constitution did not create a Union. It further clarified the rules governing that Union.
Some would say that it created the Federal government.
This is from Lincoln's first inaugural address:
And thereby turning on it's head the Compact theory of the of the Constitution which had been almost universally endorsed for a very long time!
Presidential speeches carry weight of law Bigun?
And thereby turning on it's head the Compact theory of the of the Constitution which had been almost universally endorsed for a very long time!
Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.
Absolutely not!
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" - Texas v. White, April 12, 1869 Chief Justice Salmon Chase writing for the majority
We've already plowed this ground! Read the thread!
So what difference does Lincoln's speech make?
This however,carries weight of law:
Again, this from Patrick Henry in 1788:
But I can't argue that the compact theory was around. Was it universally endorsed? Not even close. South Carolina used it during the nullification crisis which actually went nowhere, and of course during the secession. There is much more history on the theory that the Constitution was created by the people and not by the states.
The southern states always fearing the loss of their labor, relied on the compact theory as a protective measure.
But I doubt we'll ever agree on that, any more than we do the meaning of "natural born citizen", lol.
So then, why are we still discussing the topic?
The fact that multitudes were wrong together doesn't make them right.
Would you be so kind as to point out the word or phrase in the Constitution that prevents any state from leaving the union by the same method they entered it? I.E. Just exactly they way those states of the Confederacy left!
They weren't fighting to end slavery, but to hold the Union together. Even after the Proclamation in January 1863, slavery was only made illegal in the secessionist states and only to foment action from within, and because of the importance of it to the South. The goal was still to keep the Union together.
The same way as they entered meant by popular vote if they wanted to leave. Lincoln saw the secession by political action nothing more than states in revolt and admitted if they had done it by popular vote, he would have had no leg to stand on to stop it.
"We, the People of the State of Texas, by Delegates in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, that the Ordinance adopted by our Convention of Delegates, on the Fourth day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into Union with other States and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America" be, and is hereby repealed and annulled; That all the powers, which by said compact were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government, are revoked and resumed; That Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate Sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the Government thereof."
The exact same way they entered the union and it was the same for all the others as well!
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" - Texas v. White, April 12, 1869 Chief Justice Salmon Chase writing for the majority
I didn't say they were right. I am merely pointing out it is historically inaccurate to assume that people held the same view on secession that we hold today. Jefferson wrote at length on the subject and it was discussed many times in many different contexts between the founding and the Civil War. It would be wrong to suggest that everyone who formed the original confederation was under the impression it could not be dissolved, or individual states could not opt out. Here is an interesting article on the subject from Walter Williams.
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/ (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/)
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. - The Supremacy Clause
The Constitution was the restatement of the Articles of Confederation. The Union was/is perpetual and indissoluble.
If Texans thought they could enter the Union at will and leave it in the same fashion, they were wrong.
If they think they can still do it today, they are still wrong.
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party."
The United States was a party in Texas v. White.
Secession, whatever anyone else believed then or believes today to the contrary, was/is unconstitutional.
The Union can be only dissolved by the will of all its members, but no member shall establish an independent nation within the boundaries of the United States.
Period.
So you say!
I don;t think that is correct!
I didn't say they were right. I am merely pointing out it is historically inaccurate to assume that people held the same view on secession that we hold today. Jefferson wrote at length on the subject and it was discussed many times in many different contexts between the founding and the Civil War. It would be wrong to suggest that everyone who formed the original confederation was under the impression it could not be dissolved, or individual states could not opt out. Here is an interesting article on the subject from Walter Williams.
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/ (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/)
You are one 'pit-bull', Bigun! :laugh:
Thanks DC! I'll take that as a compliment!
I am not worthy on this thread! You guys are great.
I am not worthy on this thread! You guys are great.
I am not worthy on this thread! You guys are great.
Hey wait a minute...you started it!
Oooops...
I may jump in... just to provide the correct answers...
Hey wait a minute...you started it!
Here's to all the participants* :beer:
*even if you're all full of beans! :laugh:
Guys - I started to compose a post getting back to the "cause(s)" of the Civil War. Because of too many starts and stops, I failed. Carry-on. :patriot:
I guess we did sorta get away from the causes and on to the legality of secession. My bad. The devil made me do it. :shrug:
Oh man... I wasn't admonishing you or anyone. You guys have been terrific. I just can't find time to complete a sentence, let alone a complete thought.
Maybe I'm dense but I've always seen the attempted dissolution of the Union and the Confederacy's creation of a second nation on US soil as a major cause of the war.
Maybe I'm dense but I've always seen the attempted dissolution of the Union and the Confederacy's creation of a second nation on US soil as a major cause of the war.
Well yeah, though it was really the attack on federal government property that was the proximate cause. However, the real debate has always been what led to the attempted dissolution. The secession had become reality four months before hostilities began.
That is generally true and we could argue over the Ft. Sumter incident all day long as well but I'm not in the arguing mood today! :laugh:
That is generally true and we could argue over the Ft. Sumter incident all day long as well but I'm not in the arguing mood today! :laugh:
The American Civil War: Every Day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBr3QeVPv2M#t=299
The American Civil War: Every Day
At this point in time in the history of these United States, perhaps we should begin settling on the top five causes for the upcoming Civil War.
Actually that one has been going on for some time now. It's a cold war so far but probably won't remain so for much longer.
Here's photo evidence:
(http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk198/Bigun1948/2012Presidentialelectionbycounty.jpg?t=1414872490)
2012 Presidential election results by county.
Something's wrong with that pic. I thought "flyover" country was all conservative and the coasts were liberal?
In addition to the coasts you have the old industrialized, unionized north still a Democrat stronghold, and the Hispanic Southwest. New Mexico is already a blue state.
In addition to the coasts you have the old industrialized, unionized north still a Democrat stronghold, and the Hispanic Southwest. New Mexico is already a blue state.
I also see a swath through Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, Georgia and North Carolina. Minnesota too.
It's too simple a formula. It's waiting to be plucked with the right message.
Yes! Population centers along the Mississippi river. The next time it's not going to be the North vs South. It's going to be Urban vs Suburbs and Rural!