Question about the south

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
You also seem to ignore the fact that the Southern states were invaded by the North, not the other way around.

It was the south that fired the first shot in anger.  A federal installation was besiged and attacked.  Is it your contention that there should have benn no federal response?

Originally posted by Toad

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?

"From my cold dead hand" sounds like the loss of guns that would piss off Charelton Heston.

If someone enters your home and steals your TV, is it the fact that your TV is gone and some son of a B---- took it that makes you mad, or is it that he violated provision 325.24 of the state penal code?

I think a better parallel would be if the eastern states decided that the western states could not use petroleum.  Even though it would be unconstitutional based on interstate commerce, the issue would be the useless car in the driveway, the lack of electric heat, light, and A/C, and the shutting down of industry.

[Toad]

You dance divinely.

The South, viewing themselves as sovereign, independent states took back their own land from what had become a Foreign Power...the Federal government.

I'm sure they expected a Federal response but were probably hoping their right to withdraw from the Union might be honored instead.

Can you refer me to any of the Founder's documents that say that by ratifying the Constitution a State was checking into the Hotel California?  They could check out anytime they liked but they could never leave?

I don't think you can. The Southerners knew this; heck, a lot of the original Constitution/government of the US was designed BY Southerners. I'm sure they knew their history.

The South did not invade the North until Lee moved north in September of 1862. The first years of the Civil War were fought on Southern ground, by Southerners resisting an invader. It was this pending and actual invasion of their Sovereign State that led the majority of the Confederate soliders to the army. Lee's memoirs provide an excellent example.

The issue, in both cases (2nd Amendment/Slavery), is that the offending parties are proscribed from doing what they did by Constitutional law.

If the government honored the Constitution in either case, there'd be no fight at all. That is the issue.

There's a link between the Emancipation proclamation and the NYC draft riots too. Kinda odd for folks that set out to "free the slaves" to only riot over enlistment shortly after the proclamation, don't you think?

If there were no provision 325.24 of the state penal code you might be mad about losing your TV but you'd have no real recourse. It'd be a common fact of everyday life.

The fact that there IS such a code and that we all agree to abide by it is what makes "civilized society" possible. However, once the "compact" is broken there has to be accountability.

A better view of your example would be some druggie steals your TV set and the Government refuses to prosecute him. You'd be angry at the druggie but you'd want to replace your government even worse.

Voila. The Civil War. The Northern states were complicit in "stealing slaves" by not returning them according to the Constitutional provisions to do so. I'm sure the Southerners were angry at the involved states but they were more set on getting out of a broken compact.

Constitutional.

All.

The.

Way.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
Constitutional.

All.

The.

Way.

ok let's look at your constituional argument a little more closely...  SC sited in its grievance,

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."

Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, but not all of the southern founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery.

The fourth article was written as a compromise to allow the unification of the colonies.  The 3/5 provision was written that way as well.

The constitutional provisions you site were written into the constitution in support of.... Slavery.

If there were no slavery there would have been no reason for the south to rebel.  No slavery, no constitutional protection of same, no rebellion, no "invasion", no civil war.

Hence which ever way you slice it, slavery was the driving issue.  That's why SC said so in it's document.

[Toad]

Nope.

Just like your example of the stolen TV set. If the government knew who stole it and where it was and knowingly failed to fulfill it's obligations to protect your property,you'd be most angry at the government, not the thief.

Read what you just posted. In order for the US to even exist, there had to be an acceptance of Southern slavery, a compromise in the very basic fabric of the Constitution itself.

The North then fails to honor it's obligations under the Constitution, ie: return the slaves that have been designated and agreed to as Southern property since the very beginning of the Union.

It is this violation of the compact, this failure to honor the agreement that leads to secession.

Note again that the tariff issue of 1832 nearly led to conflict between SC and the Federal government. No slavery issue there at all.. pure Constitutional disagreement. The resolution led to Calhoun

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.

That's exactly what happened too. The next Constitutional disagreement happened to be over slavery and the South DID "act as a bloc in resisting the Federal government".

As I said, you have the cart before the horse. Had the North followed it's Constitutional obligations there would have been no Civil War.

Had Lincoln allowed the South to withdraw from the broken compact of the Constitution there would have been no Civil War.  (I see you have also been unable to find  any of the Founder's documents that say that by ratifying the Constitution a State was checking into the Hotel California. They could check out anytime they liked but they could never leave.)

The South didn't invade the North. They withdrew from the Union, reclaiming their independence as sovereign, free states. They also reclaimed land used by the Federal government (the forts) as would be their right.

It was Lincoln and the North that invaded the South.

And there was absolutely no mention by Lincoln of freeing the slaves for TWO YEARS. When he did issue the Emancipation Proclamation.....stating that that on January 1, 1863, he would free all the slaves in those states still in rebellion, what happened?

The draft riots happened. Why? Because, the guys who would have to die to Emancipate didn't want to fight for that. They would fight for the Union but not Emanciaption.

(And speaking of Constitutionality...Lincoln, in September 1862, suspended the writ of habeas corpus and impose martial law on those who interfered with recruitment or gave aid and comfort to the rebels.

And people bash Bush for his wartime acts. He hasn't even come close to THAT!)

Again the simple undeniable truth is that had the North honored it's Constitutional obligations there would have been no Civil War. Had the South been allowed to withdraw from the Union, there would have been no Civil War.

Both of those are clearly, solely Constitutional issues.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
And there was absolutely no mention by Lincoln of freeing the slaves for TWO YEARS. When he did issue the Emancipation Proclamation.....stating that that on January 1, 1863, he would free all the slaves in those states still in rebellion, what happened?

The draft riots happened. Why? Because, the guys who would have to die to Emancipate didn't want to fight for that. They would fight for the Union but not Emanciaption.

Maybe the north didn't want to fight for that, but the south sure did.

Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

Mississippi

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.

And the last quote that most proves my point,

originally posted by Toad
The issue upon which the Northern states failed to execute their Constitutional was slavery.

So if you think that the cause of the civil war was unconstitutional behavior of the Union, and as you wrote, the cause of that unconstitutional behavior was slavery, then the peculiar institution of slavery was the cause of the Civil War.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Maybe the north didn't want to fight for that, but the south sure did.

Au contraire, mon ami! The NORTH wanted to fight... they invaded Virginia to "restore the Union".

The SOUTH wanted to leave the UNION; they didn't invade anyone. I think the case can be made that had they been allowed to leave the Union, there'd have been no fighting at all.



Allow me to rebold:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic

Mississippi

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.

So if you think that the cause of the civil war was unconstitutional behavior of the Union, and as you wrote, the cause of that unconstitutional behavior was slavery, then the peculiar institution of slavery was the cause of the Civil War.

First, you forget there were other issues. The tariff issue which was grounded in the differences between a manufacturing-based society and an agrarian society also came into play. Recall the Panic of 1857.

Second, you have the cart before the horse with slavery. Again read this: the simple undeniable truth is that had the North honored it's Constitutional obligations there would have been no Civil War. Had the South been allowed to withdraw from the Union, there would have been no Civil War.

Copnversely, if the Constitution did not include all the compromises made to ensure initial ratification in the South....there would never have been a Union.

Clearly, it's Constitutional from the very beginning.

[Hangtime]

I have learned much here!  

1. Due process and the constitution can be ignored by the Feds when they see fit... up and including initiating an illegal war on states attempting to exercise their constitutional rights.

2. The Feds can be expected to do it again. And again.

3. To win against the Feds will require dissolution of Federal Power.

Ok... now how do we accomplish THAT?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Hangtime

Ok... now how do we accomplish THAT?

I have been pondering upon this.

No one wants to see another "Civil War". More than a few are convinced there is no way to truly reform the present ownership of Congress by the lobbyists or to curb the increasingly intrusive nature of the Federales.

Of course, some DESIRE one part of the Federal intrusiveness while decrying the other parts (Yeah Nanny State, Boo Star Wars Empire). Then theres the others that cheer the part the others decry and boo the parts the others cheer. So, we're divided anyway (Dare I mention red/blue?)

Lincoln set the precedent; even though there is nothing I can find in the founding documents that prohibits a State from withdrawing from the Union, I don't think the Feds will let that happen and will cite Lincoln as the justification.

So..no Civil War and the Federales won't let a State leave while there are clearly divisions amongst the States as to which way we should steer the ponderous ship of the Federal Government.

Leaves me with.... Tax Rebellion.  

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
First, you forget there were other issues. The tariff issue which was grounded in the differences between a manufacturing-based society and an agrarian society also came into play. Recall the Panic of 1857.

That must be why Mississippi put in their document "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--"  "agrarian society" in 1860 ...  That must be why "tarrif" does not appear in the SC document but slavery does.

All that tarriff stuff really got them so pissed off they were without words when it came time to proclaim it to the world.

And the cart before the horse?  The constutution dates to the 1780's.  Slavery in America dates a few centuries prior to that.  Slavery was an issue at the consitutional convention, hence the political compromises.

Again I post my favorite quote:

Originally posted by Toad
The issue upon which the Northern states failed to execute their Constitutional was slavery.

Do you now disagree with yourself?

[Brenjen]

Everyone knows the war of northern aggression was about states rights except the O'club. Lincoln didn't free any people, he saw slaves as property of rebellious territory & would have been willing to keep slavery as he said himself prior to the war.

 Folks always hit on slavery as a hot button topic to get emotions running high, just like what happened in the 1860's

 Here are some interesting facts that don't involve the issue of states rights or it's underlying issue of slavery.

 Statistics for the Federal Union Vs. the Confederacy:

 - 2,200,000 men under arms Vs. the Confederacys 1,064,000. That's a one million one hundred & thrity six thousand soldier difference


 - K.I.A., 110,000 Vs. the Confederacys 93,000


 - Total dead (disease/wounds/accidents etc.):
    360,000 Vs. the Confedracys 258,000

 - Surviving wounded, 275,200 Vs. the Confederacys 137,000

 All the numbers were rounded to the nearest hundred

 The Confederacy had no navy to speak of (they began acquiring one)
no cannon factories or iron works few sources for any war fighting materials or household goods that were not produced in the South itself (& few were)

 The south devised the first submarine that succeeded in sinking an enemy ship.

 The South sunk the first ship to ever be attacked with an electronically detonated mine & the ironclad can be seen in Vicksburg natl. military park, it was raised & put on display. Worth a look if you're ever in the area.

 On 9 May, 1864 a confederate sniper took what was to be considered an incredible shot at that time. During the Battle of Spotsylvania, Sgt. Grace of the 4th Georgia Infantry, took aim and fired at a distant Union officer. Grace was using a British Whitworth target rifle and the distance was 800 yards. Grace's target, Major General John Sedgwick, fell dead after uttering the words "Why, they couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."

 Many states had areas that were sympathetic to the other side & "mini-wars" were fought in these areas. Arkansas has a town along the Missouri border that is seperated by a small river (glorified creek) the inhabitants of one side of the town were pro Confedracy & the other side were pro union. They fought on & off throughout the entire war & still file motions to this day to seceed from each other & form seperate towns.

 The Confederate flag has more stars than it did states! The Confederate congress added stars to honour Kentucky & Missouri because the two states feilded armies for the Confederacy but the two never secceeded from the Union making the troops from both states "armies in exile".

 It was common for Confederate & union troops to meet & trade with each other under informal cease fires in the dead of night. They would exchange corespondence & trade tobacco (hard to get in the north) for coffee (hard to get in the south) & generally just lament the situation.

 That war saw shermans march to the sea, the first United States military attack that was designed from the begining to be against non-combatants; a brutal attack on civillian populations that was never justified in the eyes of many Southerners. It also saw the invention or institution of many new weapons & types of combat like trench warfare,revolving gun turrents,rifle scopes,mine fields,camoflage,hand grenades,The Medal of Honor & many, many other things too wild to print here (like anti-aircraft fire & aircraft carriers) without the proper sources for defense against flamers.

 So let's talk about the interesting aspects of a blemish on Americas history instead of dwelling on one facet of one arguement before the thread gets locked. There are many fascinating things about that war that could be discussed for months without getting boring.

 Not edited for spelling - sorry

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Toad
I have been pondering upon this.

Leaves me with.... Tax Rebellion.  

How? For the lower half of the 'middle class', every year nets a refund. The Government gets paid before we do via withholding tax.

That would mean we'd have to inspire a 'tax revolt' amongst the upper middle class and the very well-to-do.... and the very well-to-do are the governments favorites.. big time tax cuts for them.

That leaves the upper middle class... and I kinda doubt we can inspire anything that would put their homes and kids security in a position for seizure..

would they?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Again I post my favorite quote:

originally posted by Toad
The issue upon which the Northern states failed to execute their Constitutional obligations was slavery.

Do you now disagree with yourself?

No one has said slavery wasnt' involved. Clearly, however, it was an issue that precipitated a Constitutional Crisis: Can a free, independent, sovereign state join a compact (Constitution) that results in a Union and then at some later date choose to remove itself from that compact and leave the Union if the other parties to the compact fail to uphold the terms of the compact[/b].

The South believed it had the right to secede from a compact not honored by the other signatories.

There is nothing in the original founding documents that says they could not nor is there a specific process cited on how to do return to the status of a free and independent sovereign state.

Lincoln disagreed and made his opinion stick by force of arms.

It was a Constitutional crisis.

Slavery was an issue, just as tariffs were an issue. Remember Jackson threatened South Carolina earlier and put Federal warships in Charleston harbor over a Constitutional issue.

Clearly, this Constitutional crisis had been brewing for a long time. You might say it was embedded into the fabric of the Union from the beginning. The Northwest Ordinance is a prime example but that Ordinance is woven into the very fabric of the Constitution making it a Constitutional issue. Without the Ordinance and other concessions to the South there would have been NO UNION for Lincoln to preserve.

You focus to narrowly and fail to take in the entire scope of the North/South problems. They stem from the design of the Constitution.

Changes in the Constitution at the beginning would have avoided the Civil War. A clear procedure for withdrawing from the Union for example. A refusal by the North to compromise on slaves counting as votes and fugitive slave laws would have meant no Union, no Civil War.

No matter how you slice it, the Civil War has it's roots, it's cause, in the very nature of the Constitution. It's a Constitutional issue.

[ASTAC]

That war saw shermans march to the sea, the first United States military attack that was designed from the begining to be against non-combatants; a brutal attack on civillian populations that was never justified in the eyes of many Southerners.

Never Justified in the eyes of ANY southerners. It was a most dispicable act that served no purpose but to destroy the lives of everyone in his path. Senseless distruction.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by Toad
It was a Constitutional crisis.

Of course it was, and the reason was slavery. Take a look at Crittenden Compromise which didn't flew well with North...

A joint resolution (S. No. 50) proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Whereas serious and alarming dissensions have arisen between the northern and southern states, concerning the rights and security of the rights of the slaveholding States, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States; and whereas it is eminently desirable and proper that these dissensions, which now threaten the very existence of this Union, should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions, which shall do equal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to all the people that peace and good-will which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States: Therefore,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring,) That the following articles be, and are hereby, proposed and submitted as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution, when ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the several States:

Article 1: In all the territory of the United States now held, or hereafter acquired, situate north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territory south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance. And when any territory, north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a member of Congress according to the then Federal ratio of representation of the people of the United States, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, with or without slavery, as the constitution of such new State may provide.

Article 2: Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves.

Article 3: Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do not consent to such abolishment. Nor shall Congress at any time prohibit officers of the Federal Government, or members of Congress, whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them their slaves, and holding them as such during the time their duties may require them to remain there, and afterwards taking them from the District.

Article 4: Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to another, or to a Territory, in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable river, or by the sea.

Article 5: That in addition to the provisions of the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, Congress shall have power to provide by law, and it shall be its duty so to provide, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave in all cases where the marshall or other officer whose duty it was to arrest said fugitive was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest, said fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of his fugitive slave under the said clause of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. And in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such fugitive, they shall have the right, in their own name, to sue the county in which said violence, intimidation, or rescue was committed, and to recover from it, with interest and damages, the amount paid by them for said fugitive slave. And the said county, after it has paid said amount to the United States, may, for its indemnity, sue and recover from the wrong-doers or rescuers by whom the owner was prevented from the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner as the owner himslef might have sued and recovered.

Article 6: No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding articles; nor the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution; nor the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of said Constitution; and no amendment will be made to the Constitution which shall authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is, or may be, allowed or permitted.

And whereas, also, besides those causes of dissension embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the Constitution of the United States, there are others which come within the jurisdiction of Congress, and may be remedied by its legislative power; and whereas it is the desire of Congress, so far as its power will extend, to remove all just cause for the popular discontent and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country, and threaten the stability of its institutions; Therefore,

1. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution, and have been sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States.; that the slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance and execution of those laws, and that they ought not to be repealed, or so modified or changed as to impair their efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the punishment of those who attempt by rescue of the slave, or other illegal means, to hinder or defeat the due execution of said laws.

2. That all State laws which conflict with the fugitive slave acts of Congress, or any other constitutional acts of Congress, or which, in their operation, impede, hinder, or delay the free course and due execution of any of said acts, are null and void by the plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States; yet those State laws, void as they are, have given color to practices, and led to consequences, which have obstructed the due administration and execution of acts of Congress, and especially the acts for the delivery of fugitive slaves, and have thereby contributed much to the discord and commotion now prevailing. Congress, therefore, in the present perilous juncture, does not deem it improper, respectfully and earnestly to recommend the repeal of those laws to the several States which have enacted them, or such legislative corrections or explanations of them as may prevent their being used or perverted to such mischievous purposes.

3. That the act of the 18th of September, 1850, commonly called the fugitive slave law, ought to be so amended as to make the fee of the commissioner, mentioned in the eighth section of the act, equal in amount in the cases decided by him, whether his decision be in favor of or against the claimant. And to avoid misconstruction, the last clause of the fifth section of said act, which authorizes the person holding a warrant for the arrest or detention of a fugitive slave, to summon to his aid the posse comitatus, and which declares it to be the duty of all good citizens to assist him in its execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly limit the authority and duty to cases in which there shall be resistance or danger of resistance or rescue.

4. That the laws for the suppression of the African slave trade, and especially those prohibiting the importation of slaves in the United States, ought to be made effectual, and ought to be thoroughly executed; and all further enactments necessary to those ends ought to be promptly made.

...That was the "compromise" offered by the South  

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
No one has said slavery wasnt' involved.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery"

You are right about that...

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

So is it your opinion that it is the second domino in line that starts the fall?