Question about the south

[Toad]

Nope, quite simply, my position is that the Constitution is the first domino.

Answer this:

If Lincoln had allowed the Southern States to peacefully withdraw from the Union...and there's NOTHING in the Constitution that says they could not.... would there have been a Civil War?

The heart of the conflict lies in the Constitution. There can be no other answer.

[nirvana]

Thanks for taking a topic to 3 pages guys, first time ever!:aok

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
Nope, quite simply, my position is that the Constitution is the first domino.

Answer this:

If Lincoln had allowed the Southern States to peacefully withdraw from the Union...and there's NOTHING in the Constitution that says they could not.... would there have been a Civil War?

The heart of the conflict lies in the Constitution. There can be no other answer.

The conflict was present before the constitution was written. The compromise the constitutional framers came up with was a major flaw in the document, but the document was flawed because the society itself was flawed.  The flaw in the society, reflected in the constitution, was well documented by the founding fathers... slavery.

Lincoln was not empowered to allow withdrawal.  It would have been a decision voted on by the house and senate at least, probably 2/3 majorities of both houses and 2/3 of the state legislatures.

Lincoln stated before he took office he would not force abolition upon the south, and indeed he did not have the constitutional power to do so. Even though he believed that the country could not survive indefinitely half slave and half free, he also said in his inaugural address, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

So even though Lincoln had no inclination and no power to outlaw slavery,  because of the south percieved his rise to power a threat to the institution of slavery the south began it's withdrawl from the union (When Lincoln was a private citizen as he had yet to take office) and chose armed insurrection, only 5 weeks after Lincoln took the oath. There was no choice but to respond in kind.
 
Note that the crisis of the constitution is because of, once again, slavery.

Also note that a president is sworn "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" While he broke habeus corpus and the emancipation proclimation itself was probably extra constitutional, saving the Constitution and saving the Union is one and the same.  The oath isn't taking of the paper, it's talking about the stucture of government.  A structure that included Virginia and Alabama.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Lincoln was not empowered to allow withdrawal.  It would have been a decision voted on by the house and senate at least, probably 2/3 majorities of both houses and 2/3 of the state legislatures.

[/b]

Oh, so you found the Constitutional process for withdrawing from the Union? Where was it? Can you link it?  


I see you failed to answer the question again:

If Lincoln had allowed the Southern States to peacefully withdraw from the Union...and there's NOTHING in the Constitution that says they could not.... would there have been a Civil War?

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by Toad
If Lincoln had allowed the Southern States to peacefully withdraw from the Union...and there's NOTHING in the Constitution that says they could not.... would there have been a Civil War? [/B]

Definately not. But there would be war between Union and Confederation later on.
Confederate economy was based on slavery and the South was dead set to keep it that way. In few decades, due to industrialization and abolitionist movements in Union and Europe, world would stop buying confederate cotton and Confederates only chance would be to expand towards west, trying to capture new land and resources. That probably wouldn't go well with Union, which would have its own plans with new territories and the armed conflict would be inevitable.

If by some miracle war wouldn't happen, Confederation would face the fate similar to Apartheid in SA, rather sooner than later.

Either way, South is better off being part of the Union.

[ridley1]

I can still pick up a DKM (Duetch Kreigs Marine) flag from some dude selling flags out of his van in a parking lot. The swastika with tha black stripes and the iron cross in the corner.

I just think it looks cool.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad


Oh, so you found the Constitutional process for withdrawing from the Union? Where was it? Can you link it?  [/B]

Please quote the passage in my post(s) where you gleaned that...

I see you failed to answer the question again:

If Lincoln had allowed the Southern States to peacefully withdraw from the Union...and there's NOTHING in the Constitution that says they could not.... would there have been a Civil War? [/B]

Lincoln was not empowered to allow withdrawl, although he was sworn to defend the union, via defending domestic tranquility.... but not before he took the office, and all but maybe one confederate state withdrew before he was sworn in.

So your IF statement is generally moot, but yes there would have been civil war, but it would have taken a different form. John Brown at Harpers Ferry, slave rebellions of Prosser, Turner, Vesey, and some 300+ other documented slave rebellions showed the violence which was inevitable.  

There is no constitutional authority to for the president to allow withdrawl.

Once again, no place in the constitution is there a passage giving the  president the power to allow withdrawl.

One last time, Lincoln did not have constitutional authority as the people of the USA did not give an authority to the president to allow for the dissolution of the union.

The constitution is a document of birth.  Most birth certificates do not have a agreement outlining burial arrangements.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by 2bighorn
Definately not. But there would be war between Union and Confederation later on.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Please quote the passage in my post(s) where you gleaned that...

[/b]

Unkink your hair; it's a tongue in cheek statement. I KNOW you didn't find one because it's not there.

 

Lincoln was not empowered to allow withdrawl, although he was sworn to defend the union, via defending domestic tranquility.... but not before he took the office, and all but maybe one confederate state withdrew before he was sworn in.

[/b]


HMMM.. lot's here.  He was not empowered to declare war on the South while Congress was not in session. Congress declares war, not the President. Lincoln essentially declared war by ordering the blockade of Southern ports.

The South could have withdrawn. You'll recall

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The United States was never delegated the power to force a State to remain in the Union. Thus, withdrawing from the Union was a power reserved to the States respectively.

Nor were they restrained to any particular Presidential election timeframe when deciding to withdraw. It makes no difference whether or not he was sworn in; the State has the power to make it's own decisions on withdrawal and nothing in the Constitution says otherwise.

I also disagree that there eventually would have been a Civil War.

Had the sovereign states been allowed to withdraw and form their own Confederation free of Northern aggression:

John Brown would have been prosecuted...as he was... by the US Federal Government  since it occurred before Southern secession.

The slave rebellions after secession would have been dealt with by the military forces of the individual states or the forces of the Confederacy. Are you saying that after peaceful secession, as was their Constitutional right, the Northern Federal government would have invaded to aid a slave rebellion? I think not.

Would there have been violence? Probably.

In any event, slavery as an economic model was already failing the South in 1860. Left alone, it would have died a natural death. It would have taken longer but it would not have cost 5 years of bloodshed and ~630,000 lives. Most importantly, the Federal Government would never have achieved the conquest of States Rights that has turned it into the nosy, overbearing, dictatorial, bloated behemoth that it is today.

There is no constitutional authority to for the president to allow withdrawl.

[/b]

Again, for emphais, the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There's constitutional authority to for the president to allow withdrawl because the President never was given that authority, thus it is reserved to the States.

The constitution is a document of birth.  Most birth certificates do not have a agreement outlining burial arrangements.

Completely wrong. The Constitution is a document of marriage. There's always a procedure for divorce.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
The South could have withdrawn. You'll recall (quote of amendment 10)

But article 1, clause 15, section 8 about the power of Congress says,
 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

So congress has the power to call forth the militia to supress insurrection, and insurrection is what the confederacy was doing. In 1861, several resolutions of the 37th congress (before Lincoln was even president) gave the president the power raise an army and use it to supress insurrection.

Originally posted by Toad, about my birth certificate point
Completely wrong. The Constitution is a document of marriage. There's always a procedure for divorce.

Okay, lets look at a marraige licence: the parallel is still valid.  A prenup is a seperate document.

There is no power given to the president to allow for dissolution of the union, and the constitution he was sworn to uphold was the marraige licence.  Without a prenup, he was sworn to keep the marraige solvent.

Your position that slavery was not the pre-eminent issue and that it was the unconstitutional behavior of Lincoln and the North is contradicted by your own words that, as you so eloquently said,

Clearly, however, it was an issue that precipitated a Constitutional Crisis:

and earlier,  

The issue upon which the Northern states failed to execute their Constitutional was slavery.

So evidence shows that you believe, even though you deny it, that the first domino (the one that "precipitated the constitutional crisis") was slavery.

The Civil War was about slavery, Mississippi and SC agree, and so do you: Slavery "precipitated the constitutional crisis" which precipitated the Civil War.

[Toad]

Nah, twist it all you like.

I still disagree.

The South did not attempt to overthrow the government of the Union or the North. They attempted to withdraw from the Union, leaving the North's form of government unchanged for the North.

That is in no way insurrection. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provisoin making a State bound forever to the Union just because they ratified the Constitution.


Power to "allow" dissolution? Come on; you know that's a huge reach. The 10th says it very simply. If a power is not enumerated, the Federal Government (and the President of said Federal Government) DOES NOT HAVE THAT POWER.

So either way you cut it... if Lincolnd was not given the power to "allow" dissolution, if it was not enumerated, than THAT power is reserved to the States individually. Thus the power to "allow" dissolution belonged to the States.

Here's your first domino:

Had the North not opposed the Southern States withdrawing from the Union, there would have been, could have been NO CIVIL WAR. Period. End of story. Withdrawing from the Union is unequivocably a Constitutional issue, one in which the North was definitely on the wrong side.

[Neubob]

Know what's amazing?

I'm what's amazing... Me and my power of perception.

As soon as I saw the title of this thread(and the number of posts it's generated), I said to myself: "Self, this is surely another pissing contest about who's better, who's worse, who's a racist, who's righteous, who's educated and who's ignorant... Oh yeah, and about what the real cause of the war is."--No really, I actually said this.

Then I looked at the first post. A bit surprised to see it was a simple question about where to get the Confederate Flag. Scrolling down, I was relieved to find that my initial prediction, after what amounted to nothing more than a brief distraction involving battlefield symbology, had proven accurate.

Yes, I am indeed amazing.

Oh yeah, and I'm gonna agree with Toad on why the war was fought.

[FiLtH]

Newspapers start wars. Those wars they didnt start they are against.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by FiLtH
Newspapers start wars. Those wars they didnt start they are against.

So the Jerusalem Times was responsible for the Crusades? Or was it the Constantinople Monitor?

[Debonair]

how long before an armed international confilct results from a BBS flame war?