Question about the south

[Toad]

Holden, your argument is akin to saying that if the US government, without Constitutional amendment, barred all private ownership of firearms and that act caused an uprising and secession.... that it was the banning of guns that caused the insurrection and secession.

That would hardly be the case. The true cause would be the unilateral abrogation of Constitutional rights by the government.


Let's look at your quote with different bolding:

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860

Seems likes it's all about abiding by the Constitution or, failing to abide by the Constitution.

IF the Northern States had followed the Constitution as written, would SC have had to issue this proclamation?

NOPE.

[uvwpvW]

Originally posted by Brenjen
The Confederate flag represents no crime. The only crime committed was by the federal government

You don’t consider slavery a crime?

Originally posted by Brenjen
Also if someone wants to fly the Nazi German flag...more power to 'em. It's only illegal in Germany, not in the U.S. Besides, the swastika was around long before the Nazis adopted it.  As a nation the U.S.A. was buddies with two of the worst mass murderers in history - Stalin & Mao. Each of those two guys killed more of their own people than the Nazis were responsible for in total. The conservative estimates of Stalins murders were in the 60 million range & Mao's were in the 100 million range....sort of pales the Nazis 6 million Jews in comparrison, yet no one says it's wrong to fly the chinese flag or the U.S.S.R.'s flag do they.

Ah, the good old “we’re not bad because they did even worse crimes than us” excuse, defending the crimes of the Nazis (for a change).

Originally posted by Brenjen
Comparing the Confedrate flag or the Confedrate Union to Nazism is ubsurd.

Says the CSA guy who just defended Nazism.

[uvwpvW]

Originally posted by E25280
Check your facts.  Slavery still exists in many parts of the world today.  Just from memory, slavery didn't end in Cuba until 1886 and Brazil until 1888 (or are you saying Carribean and Latin American countries are not "civilized"?).  Britain itself didn't actually outlaw slavery until I believe the 1830s, hardly "long before" the US in historical terms.

No, the reason the US gets a "black eye" is because some groups in the USA have made an industry out of being constantly offended and pot stirring in order to receive what amounts to shake-down payments and special perks.  They thrive by inciting one group of people and attempting to make another group of people feel guilty for actions that are not theirs.

You will note that I said “last (arguably) civilized nation)”. I said “arguably” because I really don’t consider a nation civil if it condones slavery. So yes, I was and am saying that Caribbean and Latin American countries were not civilized when they condoned slavery. Nor was the USA (arguably).

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
Holden, your argument is akin to saying that if the US government, without Constitutional amendment, barred all ...

The document lists slavery and servitude more than a dozen times.

My argument is that slavery was the penultimate issue in the secession and thereby the Civil War.

The reason we have a constitutonal prohibition against warrentless search and seizure is not because we have a constituional prohibition, it's because unwarranted search pissed off the colonials.  The issue existed and then the amendment was written.

The issue was slavery, the legal argument was unconstitutionality.

[Speed55]

This coming from a yankee.

I'm sick of hearing about slavery in the south and the reparations (sp.)  that should be paid. I'm sick of people that blame just the south or early americans for the slave trade in general.

Why aren't these same peope going back to africa, and demanding compensation from the wazooki tribe, or whoever for actually selling these people for coats, horses ect. in the first place.

Why also is it ignored that there is a very strong slave trade in africa right now. And how about the countless eastern european women that are picked up off the street, and sold into the sex trade as i write this.

Fly whatever flag you want.. and if people get offended.. F-um.

Here in ny i see people waving flags from countries that couldn't give two chits about America or what it stands for.  These same people will tell you how beautiful and great there country is, while slagging ours, and they WILL look out for there own above all others. My question to them is, why the hell are you here?

Maybe we should start looking out for OUR own above all others.
   

[Toad]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The issue was slavery, the legal argument was unconstitutionality.

The issue was the Constitution and the fact that it was not being honored/observed.

I ask again:

IF the Northern States had followed the Constitution as written, would SC have had to issue this proclamation?

Clearly, the answer is "NO!".

Real simple.... 13 colonies agreed on a Constitution that reserved some rights to the individual States. Some States failed to honor the agreement, deliberately violating the aforementioned rights. As a result, other States decided to withdraw from the "compact".

The issue was the Constitution.

If the Federal Government took over all aspects of the media in the US would the issue be the Constitution or would the issue be speaking against the government?

The issue would be the Constitution.

Agree or I'll be forced to invade.

[RightF00T]

Stang, I saw it, but something that wrong shouldnt even need a reply.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
I ask again:

IF the Northern States had followed the Constitution as written, would SC have had to issue this proclamation?

Clearly, the answer is "NO!"

Much the same answer exists to the question, "If the Southern States had abolished slavery, would SC have had to issue this proclamation?"

The slavery issue was very important and much discussed in the writing of the constitution. Compromises were reached to achieve political unity among the colonies.  Among other questions considered, even though slaves were not considered people, the south wanted slaves counted as 3/5 of a person so that their representation in the House would be more powerful.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, John Jay, all wrote in condemnation of slavery even though many were slaveholders.

Oliver Ellsworth, one of the signers of the Constitution wrote, a few months after the Convention adjourned, "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves."

Slavery was a huge issue about which the compromise of the constitutional convention saved the union in 1787.  Slavery was once again the issue in 1860.  

"I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."
-- Patrick Henry, Virginian, 1773

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Toad
The issue was the Constitution and the fact that it was not being honored/observed.

I ask again:

The issue would be the Constitution.

Agree or I'll be forced to invade.

ROFL!!

Damn.. sometimes I REALLY enjoy the discussion between the sharper minds.

Definition: Diplomacy. Failures of debate that usually lead to war.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Much the same answer exists to the question, "If the Southern States had abolished slavery, would SC have had to issue this proclamation?"

Obviously not.

However, the CHOICE to abolish slavery would have been made by the Southern States themselves, using their own authority. There would have been no Constitutional question about it, there would have been no external force or threat of force involved.

In fact, the case has often been made that the economic model supporting slavery was failing fast. It wouldn't have been many more years before slavery was not profitable in the South and all that unpleasantness could have been avoided. We'd probably still have much more in the way of State's Rights too.

On the other hand, the NORTHERN STATES were undeniably violating the Constitution and openly so.

SC called it like it was and exercised their STATE'S RIGHT to withdraw from the "compact" that made them part of the United States.

The first military actions of the war were by the South; they took back the Federal forts in their States. That was all they did until.....

....Winfield Scott ordered General Irvin McDowell to advance on Confederate troops stationed at Manassas Junction, Virginia.

The Union troops invaded Virginia.

Tell me Holden, did McDowell invade Virginia to "free the slaves"?  Nope.

The Union invaded Virginia to force that State back into the Union, a clearly Constitutional issue.

The Confederates resisted because they believed  

the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact.

We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other;

As free, independent and sovereign states the failure of the Northern States to follow the Constitution released the Southern States from the compact.

Constitutional issue. States Rights issue.



All.

The.

Way.

[Holden McGroin]

Okay, tell me what other "State Right" permeated the political wind in 1860?

The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, Kansas - Nebraska Act, Dred Scott...In 1846, Penn. congressman David Wilmot proposed that no territory be added to the Union as a slave territory. Southerners blocked his provision before it went to the senate.

All major issues leading up to war.  What did they have in common with the secession document of SC?

Was is unconstitutionality or was it slavery?  Which put food into the mouths of the south?

If you insult my wife, am I going to be angry due to your insult or that your may have violated ettiquette?

[Slash27]

Originally posted by Speed55


Why aren't these same peope going back to africa, and demanding compensation from the wazooki tribe, or whoever for actually selling these people for coats, horses ect. in the first place.

Why also is it ignored that there is a very strong slave trade in africa right now. And how about the countless eastern european women that are picked up off the street, and sold into the sex trade as i write this.

Because its easier to ignore those things and look down at people based on where they live. Makes them feel superior to something in their otherwise worthless existence.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

Was is unconstitutionality or was it slavery?
 

It was unconstutionality without question. Slavery wasn't the only State's Rights issue that threatened the Union, either. In 1832 this very same South Carolina passed the Nullification Ordinance that declared the Federal tariff of 1828 and 1832 null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. Clearly a State's Rights issue and one that saw Federal warships off Charleston. Jackson stated that SC stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason".  Had the Civil War started then and there, it would have been irrefutably a State's Rights issue.

So, similarly in 1860, it was the failure to abide by the Constitution by the Northern States that drove South Carolina to issue the above posted document.

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

Again, assume the current Feds unilaterally declared all firearms held in the hands of private citizens were to be turned in or confiscated. The western Red states tell the Feds to stuff it. Open conflict results, with the aforesaid red state citizens declaring they will not be stripped of 2nd Amendment rights without due process.

Is the cause gun confiscation or the failure of the Feds ot execute their Constitutional obligations?

Clearly, it's Constitutional.

[Holden McGroin]

Why didn't SC enumerate nullification in it's declaration? the words 'Tariff' and 'nullification' do not appear in the document, yet over a dozen times references to slavery occur.

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

Slavery was considered essential to the southern economy.  If the  unconstitutional behavior had to do with halting the growing of tobacco or cotton, the south would have rebelled on account of the outlawing of cotton or tobacco.

The base issue was slavery as your quote above admits. The legal justification was unconstitutionality, but if it were something not so intimately entwined in the southern culture and economy, it would have not been such a big issue.

I have fervent belief that your average illiterate* southern citizen spent a lot of his time discussing constitution behavior, but probably did discuss cotton prices and how he was going to get the crops in without slaves.

*I would doubt that the literacy rate in the USA at the time was over 50%

[Toad]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why didn't SC enumerate nullification in it's declaration? the words 'Tariff' and 'nullification' do not appear in the document, yet over a dozen times references to slavery occur.

Because THAT Constitutional issue arose in 1832, 28 years before secession. It was a close run thing, as I mentioned, with Jackson positioning a small fleet off Charleston and threatening to use force to enforce the tariff.

From Wiki but you can find the same info just about anywhere:

The crisis ended when Henry Clay and Calhoun worked to devise a compromise tariff. Both sides later claimed victory.

Calhoun and his supporters in South Carolinia claimed a victory for nullification, insisting that it, a single state, had forced the revision of the tariff.

Jackson's followers, however, saw the episode as a demonstration that no single state could assert its rights by independent action.

Calhoun, in turn, devoted his efforts to building up a sense of Southern solidarity so that when another standoff should come, the whole section might be prepared to act as a bloc in resisting the federal government.

Clearly, this Constitutional episode 28 years earlier prepared the ground for what was to follow. The South managed the tariff issue in Congress in the intervening years; they didn't abolish tariffs but they kept them at levels that allowed their economy to function. Note again that the Panic of 1857 generated Northern calls for higher tariffs that went essentially unanswered.

I have fervent belief that your average illiterate* southern citizen spent a lot of his time discussing constitution behavior, but probably did discuss cotton prices and how he was going to get the crops in without slaves.

[/b]

Less than a third of Confederate soldiers were slaveholders or from slaveholding families.

You also seem to ignore the fact that the Southern states were invaded by the North, not the other way around. After the secession of the state of Virginia, Benjamin W. Jones wrote that 'the determination to resist invasion-the first and most sacred duty of a free people-became general, if not universal".

A.P. Hill, chose to fight for the defense of his state, Virginia, even thought he was deeply opposed to slavery.

It's extremely simplistic to say that the other 70+ percent of the Confederate troops fought for slavery when the diaries and letters of so many indicate they owed duty to their State before duty to the Union.

You just have the cart before the horse. The Civil War was a Constitutional conflict that eventually came to a head over the slavery issue.

It had been building for quite some time as evidenced by the trade and tariff issues in 1828 and 1832. Then there was the Panic of 1857, which again brought the tariff issue to the forefront. The South was heavily dependent on imports while the North viewed imports as competition for their industry.

You never answered this question:

Assume the current Feds unilaterally declared all firearms held in the hands of private citizens were to be turned in or confiscated. The western Red states tell the Feds to stuff it. Open conflict results, with the aforesaid red state citizens declaring they will not be stripped of 2nd Amendment rights without due process.

Is the cause gun confiscation or the failure of the Feds to execute their Constitutional obligations?