Author Topic: Question about the south (Read 4102 times)

nirvana · « **Reply #195 on:** June 10, 2006, 04:13:17 AM »

Mmmmm

Jackal1 · « **Reply #196 on:** June 10, 2006, 06:40:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by nirvana
Shut up, the tpic is grits. Share your favorite grit recipes or why grits are unconsitituoional on the basis of the ## amendment.

You just let em try and make grits unconstitutional. That`s when you will see the south rise again........................ ......suh.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #197 on:** June 10, 2006, 09:08:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tumor
Secession: formal withdrawal from an association by a group discontented with the actions or decisions of that association.

And in order to formally withdraw, (on account of slavery) one must conspire to do so. This planning must happen before withdrawl (on acconut of slavery) takes place. This would be an organized opposition to an established authority (on account of slavery). This would be insurrection, (on account of slavery) which of course the federal congress has the authority to extinguish.

lazs2 · « **Reply #198 on:** June 10, 2006, 09:23:18 AM »

Read the links Holden... before the civil war it was common and majority opinion that states had the right to secede.

The articles of confederation are not talking about sucession... they are talking about insurection.

Obviously.. you believe the two to be the same but they are not... Insurection is defying the government you belong to while staying a part of it.... in other words... staying in the union and making your own coinage and laws that are unconstitutional.

The southern states did not wish to rebel or start a revolution... they merely wished to disolve the union and the contract they had voluntarily entered into... a move that was considered to be quite in their rights to do.

There was nothing even new or earth shaking about the south doing this.... West Virginia had seceded from virginia... there was a movement that went on for years where the Eastern states were talking of secedeing... they did not but only narrowly was the move voted down... at no time during those times did anyone ever say in any public forum that it was not constitutional for them to do so.

Nope... the South was within their rights to dissolve their union with the government. States rights and the spirit of the constitution was destroyed by a powerful central government and a brutal show of force.

Oh... Lincoln would never have attacked the South over slavery. He attacked them in order to continue to rule them by force. so... in that respect... slavery had nothing to do with it. If the south had agreed to stay in the union if they could keep slaves... Lincoln would have oblidged. He would have ignored slavery... everyone in the world including the south knew that slavery was on the way out... on it's last legs.

Waves of cheap labor were on the horizon much better than any expensive and pampered slave could ever be... You could rent cheaper than own and.... If the rental died, or got crippled or old.... no big deal... you weren't out anything. fire him and get another.

Lincoln nor any northern politician gave a crap about the rights of slaves... certainly not enough to go to war over.

lazs

lukster · « **Reply #199 on:** June 10, 2006, 09:24:35 AM »

The only meaningful difference between those who rebelled against their rulers in the war of independence and the war of northern aggression

was that those who were looking for change were successful in the first and not in the second.

lazs2 · « **Reply #200 on:** June 10, 2006, 09:43:43 AM »

Holden is splitting hairs lukster...It is the kind of hair splitting that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and pretty much allowed the tyranny we have today.

What it boiled down to is simply that the intent of the constituion and declaration of independace was usurped by a strong central government...

In other words... as you say... It was right against england but wrong when it was against them.."We had the right to leave tyranical england because it is a humans right to be governed only by his own consent but..... now that we are in power we feel that might makes right and a strong central government usurps the right of the people to choose their government." The exact opposite of what America was all about.

It is hair splitting in the extreme to call the dissolution of a union voluntarily entered into..... "insurection". The South never broke any of the articles of confederation (making it's own coinage etc.) until after it had lawfully seceded from the union.

Slavery is just a pathetic attempt to put a good face on the whole act of central government tyranny..

If slavery were the issue they could have allowed the South to secede and then declared war on them with slavery as an issue (a plan that was considered).

lazs

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #201 on:** June 10, 2006, 04:49:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
The articles of confederation are not talking about sucession... they are talking about insurection.

The insurrection clause I site is in the Constitution, as that was the document in question in 1860.

The Constitution replaced the weaker government of the Articles of Confederation with a stronger Constitutional government in 1787.

As Mississippi said, in addition to "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--", the also say,

Quote

The hostility to this institution (slavery) commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

So even the south realised that the cause of "unconstitutional behavior" was hostility to slavery, and due to this hostility to slavery, they committed insurrection by an organized opposition to an established authority, the Union of which they were still a part.

The organized opposition came in the form of voting for seccesion from a Union they percieved as opposing slavery.

The root cause analysis was one side opposed slavery and the other side wanted to keep it.

lazs2 · « **Reply #202 on:** June 11, 2006, 09:02:50 AM »

the fact that one or two states used slavery as an issue does not mean that the civil war was about slavery. The civil war came about because the constitution did not define the right to sucede and every person and every public forum before the civil war believed in the states rights to sucede.

Now you are telling me that the war was about slavery and not sucession? that is very short sighted. If you do some reading you will see that the eastern states attempted to sucede earlier... the process took several years and was eventually voted down.

At no time did anyone from either side say that there was a constitutional issue with sucession other than that it was a states right to sucede from the volutary union.

What was different was that the southern states suceded and then evicted the federal troops... the civil war was about the south attacking the north.... not about slavery.

You will admit that lincoln would have been happy to allow slavery if the south said... "ok..we'll stay in the union but we want to keep our slaves." ?

Hell yes... lincoln and the federal government didn't care a whit about slavery.

lazs

Tumor · « **Reply #203 on:** June 11, 2006, 02:07:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The insurrection clause I site is in the Constitution, as that was the document in question in 1860.

So... the States proceeding with secession, an idea at the time currently believed to be the right OF the State, were still bound by the Constitution not to form a confederation? If this is the case, why do we still use the term secession?

nirvana · « **Reply #204 on:** June 11, 2006, 02:26:32 PM »

HEY! WE WERE TALKING ABOUT GRITS:furious

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #205 on:** June 11, 2006, 03:20:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
You will admit that lincoln would have been happy to allow slavery if the south said... "ok..we'll stay in the union but we want to keep our slaves." ?

Hell yes... Lincoln and the federal government didn't care a whit about slavery.

I will admit that, however SC (and 6 other states) decided to seceed while Buchanan was still president. It was the self proclaimed 'slave states' expectation of the Lincoln adminstration's attitude toward slavery to which they objected. They did not give Lincoln the chance.

SC cared deeply about slavery, and said so in their declaration. The other three states (making four, not two, that wrote down their reasons) also noted slavery as their primary motivation.

Not one free state seceeded.

lazs2 · « **Reply #206 on:** June 12, 2006, 09:18:37 AM »

well... there you go.... only three or four slave states gave slavery as their reason for sucession. The fact is...

They didn't even need a reason. At that point in our history... we were free people who were governed by choice and not force. The civil war changed all that. We still have it better than most countries but the civil war removed a lot of what the constitution and declaration of independence was all about.

The civil war came about because the federal government was growing and needed funds. It could not rationalize nor iompose the kinds of taxes and oppressive rule that it wanted when the precident was for states to disolve the union..

At some point there had to be a showdown between freedom and big, centralized government.

As has been pointed out... We won the first test against the oppessive brits but lost the second. Bad thing about freedom is...

You can't win most of the fights.... you have to win all of em.

lazs

lukster · « **Reply #207 on:** June 12, 2006, 09:59:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
You can't win most of the fights.... you have to win all of em.

lazs

Or at least the last one. In our case, it may be the next one.