PDA

View Full Version : Civil War




eted
09-19-2007, 12:54 PM
I was listening to the first Bill Maher interview of Ron Paul and I became aware of Dr. Paul's views on the Civil War. I have become somewhat well-versed in my Lincoln history over the last few years working at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum and my resulting change of attitude toward him was one of the reasons I was drawn to Ron Paul.

But I can't believe that Paul, who I thought was supposed to be a political expert, would think that Lincoln fought the war for centralized power of the Fed. I know this is a hotly debated issue in some circles but I have to point out a few facts surrounding this.

Lincoln did not want the war. In his second inaugural address he clearly states that the people wanted the war:

"On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."

Plus consider that the war was orchestrated by a band of traitorous senators, Senator Jefferson Davis chief among them. Many compromises had been attempted over the years preceding the war. Certainly no one was *for* the Civil War, and Paul's point is true that other countries had peacefully abolished slavery but an unholy union of senators and Southern businessmen intending to secure future profits from slave labor had conspired to overthrow the government by contesting Federal authority and convinced seven states to secede as soon as Lincoln had been elected. The war broke out officially due to the attack on Fort Sumter by Southern rebel forces.

Ironically, there wasn't anything Lincoln could do about slavery until war broke out. Essentially, the Judicial branch interprets the law: Justice Tawney said that slavery was law during the Scott case and that slaves were property without rights under the law, the Executive branch implements the laws, cannot break them or change them, and the Legislative makes and/or changes them. Lincoln utilized his war powers granted him by the Constitution to seize the property of rebellious citizens as an "act of military necessity," which are the exact words in the Emancipation Proclamation.

Later he wrote a new amendment to the Constitution which Congress passed after the war, abolishing slavery once and for all. I don't think it's fair at all to say that Lincoln was a tyrannical president who lusted for federal power. He simply felt, as I believe all citizens of the United States do, that the states should not be separate autonomous countries and that human rights matter more than states rights. That is, that the rights of the individual should not be infringed upon by state government and that states do not have the inherent right of secession. Had Congress chosen to listen to him as a Representative, and perhaps if they had acted with more resolve to peacefully end slavery, the treasonous senators would not have been so successful in nearly toppling our then 60-year-old country.

Abobo
09-19-2007, 01:08 PM
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." -- Abraham Lincoln

Spirit of '76
09-19-2007, 01:13 PM
Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes
Which Have Impelled Them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the
Confederate States of America.

When circumstances beyond their control compel one people to sever the ties which have long existed between them and another state or confederacy, and to contract new alliances and establish new relations for the security of their rights and liberties, it is fit that they should publicly declare the reasons by which their action is justified.

The Cherokee people had its origin in the South; its institutions are similar to those of the Southern States, and their interests identical with theirs. Long since it accepted the protection of the United States of America, contracted with them treaties of alliance and friendship, and allowed themselves to be to a great extent governed by their laws.

In peace and war they have been faithful to their engagements with the United States. With much of hardship and injustice to complain of, they resorted to no other means than solicitation and argument to obtain redress. Loyal and obedient to the laws and the stipulations of their treaties, they served under the flag of the United States, shared the common dangers, and were entitled to a share in the common glory, to gain which their blood was freely shed on the battlefield.

When the dissensions between the Southern and Northern States culminated in a separation of State after State from the Union they watched the progress of events with anxiety and consternation. While their institutions and the contiguity of their territory to the States of Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri made the cause of the seceding States necessarily their own cause, their treaties had been made with the United States, and they felt the utmost reluctance even in appearance to violate their engagements or set at naught the obligations of good faith.

Conscious that they were a people few in numbers compared with either of the contending parties, and that their country might with no considerable force be easily overrun and devastated and desolation and ruin be the result if they took up arms for either side, their authorities determined that no other course was consistent with the dictates of prudence or could secure the safety of their people and immunity from the horrors of a war waged by an invading enemy than a strict neutrality, and in this decision they were sustained by a majority of the nation.

That policy was accordingly adopted and faithfully adhered to. Early in the month of June of the present year the authorities of the nation declined to enter into negotiations for an alliance with the Confederate States, and protested against the occupation of the Cherokee country by their troops, or any other violation of their neutrality. No act was allowed that could be construed by the United States to be a violation of the faith of treaties.

But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions. The number of the Confederate States has increased to eleven, and their Government is firmly established and consolidated. Maintaining in the field an army of 200,000 men, the war became for them but a succession of victories. Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted by the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of the Northern States themselves to self-government is founded, of altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties.

Throughout the Confederate States we saw this great revolution effected without violence or the suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts. The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men to serve or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.

But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.

Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past, to complain of some of the Southern States, they cannot but feel that their interests and their destiny are inseparably connected with those of the South. The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government.

The Cherokee people and their neighbors were warned before the war commenced that the first object of the party which now holds the powers of government of the United States would be to annul the institution of slavery in the whole Indian country, and make it what they term free territory and after a time a free State; and they have been also warned by the fate which has befallen those of their race in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oregon that at no distant day they too would be compelled to surrender their country at the demand of Northern rapacity, and be content with an extinct nationality, and with reserves of limited extent for individuals, of which their people would soon be despoiled by speculators, if not plundered unscrupulously by the State.

Urged by these considerations, the Cherokees, long divided in opinion, became unanimous, and like their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, determined, by the undivided voice of a General Convention of all the people, held at Tahlequah, on the 21st day of August, in the present year, to make common cause with the South and share its fortunes.

In now carrying this resolution into effect and consummating a treaty of alliance and friendship with the Confederate States of America the Cherokee people declares that it has been faithful and loyal to is engagements with the United States until, by placing its safety and even its national existence in imminent peril, those States have released them from those engagements.

Menaced by a great danger, they exercise the inalienable right of self-defense, and declare themselves a free people, independent of the Northern States of America, and at war with them by their own act. Obeying the dictates of prudence and providing for the general safety and welfare, confident of the rectitude of their intentions and true to the obligations of duty and honor, they accept the issue thus forced upon them, unite their fortunes now and forever with those of the Confederate States, and take up arms for the common cause, and with entire confidence in the justice of that cause and with a firm reliance upon Divine Providence, will resolutely abide the consequences.

Tahlequah, C. N., October 28, 1861.

:cool:

eted
09-19-2007, 01:14 PM
Finish the quote though, I can do it from memory:

"I have here stated my view of official duty, but I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal desire that all men everywhere should be free."

What about individual rights? Should the States be allowed to infringe on individual rights by allowing slavery? The states made the decision to start killing rather than change the laws so that no man, woman, or child should have to be chained up and beaten into submission to do other's work for no pay and against their will.

Southern congressmen conspired to start the war with the help of Southern generals.

Should States be allowed to be separate countries if they want? Should they be allowed to enslave people?

apropos
09-19-2007, 01:16 PM
The thing about Lincoln is that his decisions set us on the path of a centralized federal government - one more powerful than any individual state. Arguably, without Lincoln there could be no Bush, no Patriot Act, no Fed, etc.

Abobo
09-19-2007, 01:19 PM
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." -- Abraham Lincoln

ARealConservative
09-19-2007, 01:21 PM
I was listening to the first Bill Maher interview of Ron Paul and I became aware of Dr. Paul's views on the Civil War. I have become somewhat well-versed in my Lincoln history over the last few years working at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum and my resulting change of attitude toward him was one of the reasons I was drawn to Ron Paul.

But I can't believe that Paul, who I thought was supposed to be a political expert, would think that Lincoln fought the war for centralized power of the Fed. I know this is a hotly debated issue in some circles but I have to point out a few facts surrounding this.

Lincoln did not want the war. In his second inaugural address he clearly states that the people wanted the war:

"On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."

Plus consider that the war was orchestrated by a band of traitorous senators, Senator Jefferson Davis chief among them. Many compromises had been attempted over the years preceding the war. Certainly no one was *for* the Civil War, and Paul's point is true that other countries had peacefully abolished slavery but an unholy union of senators and Southern businessmen intending to secure future profits from slave labor had conspired to overthrow the government by contesting Federal authority and convinced seven states to secede as soon as Lincoln had been elected. The war broke out officially due to the attack on Fort Sumter by Southern rebel forces.

Ironically, there wasn't anything Lincoln could do about slavery until war broke out. Essentially, the Judicial branch interprets the law: Justice Tawney said that slavery was law during the Scott case and that slaves were property without rights under the law, the Executive branch implements the laws, cannot break them or change them, and the Legislative makes and/or changes them. Lincoln utilized his war powers granted him by the Constitution to seize the property of rebellious citizens as an "act of military necessity," which are the exact words in the Emancipation Proclamation.

Later he wrote a new amendment to the Constitution which Congress passed after the war, abolishing slavery once and for all. I don't think it's fair at all to say that Lincoln was a tyrannical president who lusted for federal power. He simply felt, as I believe all citizens of the United States do, that the states should not be separate autonomous countries and that human rights matter more than states rights. That is, that the rights of the individual should not be infringed upon by state government and that states do not have the inherent right of secession. Had Congress chosen to listen to him as a Representative, and perhaps if they had acted with more resolve to peacefully end slavery, the treasonous senators would not have been so successful in nearly toppling our then 60-year-old country.

Why didn't the earliest states have a right of secession though?

For the south, the civil war might as well of been named the Revolutionary War II. they fought for self determination.

Spirit of '76
09-19-2007, 01:22 PM
Southern congressmen conspired to start the war with the help of Southern generals.

False.

The states of the Confederacy exercised their right to dissolve the political bonds that held them to another and to institute a new government of their own choosing.

The US militarily occupied South Carolina's territory, and they were given every opportunity to leave peacefully. Having refused to do so, they were then fired upon.

klamath
09-19-2007, 01:42 PM
I used to think that there was a clear cut right and wrong about the civil war however there was both good and bad on both sides. It did become These United States from The United States. States lost a lot of power which I hate but in the end I think that the right of the individual to not be a slave outweighs the rights of states. I will choose individual rights over States rights any day.

Abobo
09-19-2007, 01:47 PM
States lost a lot of power which I hate but in the end I think that the right of the individual to not be a slave outweighs the rights of states. I will choose individual rights over States rights any day.

But that's not why the war was fought! Over half a million people died, and entire cities were burned to the ground, and for what? It sure as hell wasn't to end slavery, that was just a happy accident.

Believing the civil war was about slavery is worse than thinking the Iraq war is about freeing the people of Iraq. It's simply false.

hmurchison
09-19-2007, 01:52 PM
Lincoln "was" for the preservation of the Union thus the usurpation of authority over the states.

I don't remember anything in the BoR or Constititution that stated a State could not leave the Union. Regardless of whether slavery was an ill or not the issue of the Civil War was definining what power comes under the auspices of State Govt and what powr comes under Federal control.

katao
09-19-2007, 01:53 PM
What part of:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

did Lincoln not understand?

ARealConservative
09-19-2007, 01:55 PM
Lincoln "was" for the preservation of the Union thus the usurpation of authority over the states.

I don't remember anything in the BoR or Constititution that stated a State could not leave the Union. Regardless of whether slavery was an ill or not the issue of the Civil War was definining what power comes under the auspices of State Govt and what powr comes under Federal control.

The original states should of certainly had the right to leave the union. I believe Virginia even made sure of this prior to approving the constitiution.

The question is how to handle the later states? Land was bought using tax dollars - so should a state that came into existance after ratification of the constitution be allowed to leave when their land was paid for by citizens that wish to remain in the union?

jblosser
09-19-2007, 01:56 PM
Lincoln did not want the war. In his second inaugural address he clearly states that the people wanted the war:

Lincoln was a master politician who said what would favor him most depending on the situation. You can find as many quotes from him saying he opposed slavery as you can saying he didn't care. The fact he said both tends to point toward the latter being true.

Of course the southern states had the right to secede. They entered into a Union of states voluntarily as sovereign states and gave no indication they were signing over that sovereignty. Trying to stop them from leaving was an act of war by itself.

Lincoln "changed the deal" to suit his own ends, at best went along with the escalation this set in motion and more likely pushed the escalation along, brought the slavery issue in and out of the war as suited his own PR ends (if you work at a Lincoln museum surely you know the EP didn't free a single slave in Northern territory), and presided over the largely illegal ratification of the amendments that made his notions of central government permanent. And never forget that the winners write the history books.

ctb619
09-19-2007, 01:56 PM
What part of:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

did Lincoln not understand?

But...but...Lincoln freed the slaves!

eted
09-19-2007, 02:03 PM
The Cherokee question is a little off topic I think. There was a huge division among them and Watie chose the South. They continued to fracture after that just like the U.S. would have if the rebels would have gotten what they wanted.

If Paul's individual rights are something we can agree on, then it is wrong to have laws taking those rights away. If we are interested in our national sovereignty, then states leaving the Union is as bad as us joining Canada and Mexico.

I don't see anyone on here addressing these points.

ARealConservative
09-19-2007, 02:06 PM
The Cherokee question is a little off topic i think. There was a huge division among them and Watie chose the South. They continued to fracture after that just like the U.S. would have if the rebels would have gotten what they wanted.

If Paul's individual rights are something we can agree on, then it is wrong to have laws taking those rights away. If we are interested in our national sovereignty, then staes leaving the Union is as bad as us joining Canada and Mexico.

I don't see anyone on here addressing these points.

I'm waiting for you to defend the indefensible.

Why is a state not free to leave the union?

ps. - Paul is a constitutionalist - your rights can be taken away. You ever here Paul complaining about local zoning laws?

Abobo
09-19-2007, 02:12 PM
If Paul's individual rights are something we can agree on, then it is wrong to have laws taking those rights away. If we are interested in our national sovereignty, then states leaving the Union is as bad as us joining Canada and Mexico.

I don't see anyone on here addressing these points.

So, being able to leave a union is just as bad as being forced into the one ( the NAU ) in your mind?

eted
09-19-2007, 02:14 PM
Fragmentation of the United States would and will lead to our downfall. Lincoln did not start the war. The States left as soon as he was elected, seven of them. Why? Because they knew he didn't like slavery and wanted to do something about it. Ironically, when they began to kill U.S. soldiers, they legally lost the rights to their property. Before that, the executive had no power to confiscate property or change laws.

I can't believe so many posts on here defend States leaving the Union. Divided we fall . . . and if a State was going to leave, then doing it for a better reason than to continue to enslave people would be more defensible.

ctb619
09-19-2007, 02:16 PM
Do you disagree with the premise of the Declaration of Independence?

WCR
09-19-2007, 02:17 PM
But doesn't a President take an oath to defend the constitution, thus allowed to use force to preserve the union? Also, didn't the states attack the Federal Fort, first?

klamath
09-19-2007, 02:18 PM
But that's not why the war was fought! Over half a million people died, and entire cities were burned to the ground, and for what? It sure as hell wasn't to end slavery, that was just a happy accident.

Believing the civil war was about slavery is worse than thinking the Iraq war is about freeing the people of Iraq. It's simply false.

No it wasn't but what was the reason the south seceded? Because they thought that the North was about to force them to get rid of slavery. There are lots of reasons for the civil war but that is one of the main ones. I think that Lee was a great man and I hate Sherman. Sherman and Custer were the worse tyrants to the indians of all.

Corydoras
09-19-2007, 02:19 PM
eted, you might find Lincoln's correspondence more revealing than his speeches. Early in the war, he wrote to Horace Greeley a letter to the effect of, look, I'm slowly coming along toward emancipation, but I really don't think it's that urgent, and the people aren't ready for it, and preserving the United States is more important.

I don't have a citation for that letter, but it accords with much that I read in his correspondence.

drednot
09-19-2007, 02:21 PM
It's wrong to say that Lincoln opposed the War and that Southern leaders were for it. Both sides chose personal political survival over Peace.

Certainly Southern leaders chose secession.

But both sides knowingly chose to precipitate war in the Sumpter incident, rather than lose face among their consituents.

The South could simply have let Lincoln resupply the starving holdouts at Sumpter while still claiming to be a seperate sovereign entity. (eg, Cuba and Gunatanamo).

Similarly, Lincoln could have yielded Sumpter, like all the other federal forts, while working toward the goal of reconstruction.

But Lincoln bowed to northern political pressure and sent resupply boats to Sumpter, to save the credibility of his administration, fully expecting the South to fire the first shots. It was more important for him to deflect nothern ire toward the South than to avoid war.

Similarly, Southern leaders sealed their own fate by preemptively attacking Sumpter in response, destroying their cause in the process.

ARealConservative
09-19-2007, 02:21 PM
Fragmentation of the United States would and will lead to our downfall. Lincoln did not start the war. The States left as soon as he was elected, seven of them. Why? Because they knew he didn't like slavery and wanted to do something about it. Ironically, when they began to kill U.S. soldiers, they legally lost the rights to their property. Before that, the executive had no power to confiscate property or change laws.

I can't believe so many posts on here defend States leaving the Union. Divided we fall . . . and if a State was going to leave, then doing it for a better reason than to continue to enslave people would be more defensible.

Do you believe we went to war with England over a tiny tax?

Do you believe that Lincoln ordering armed troops into the states that left the union was a good idea?

Are you aware that Lincolns decision to do just that caused border states to also leave the union and side with the south?

Self Determinination was the cause of both the Revolutionary War and the so called civil war. I believe your time in the Lincoln museum indoctrinated you well.

katao
09-19-2007, 02:21 PM
If Paul's individual rights are something we can agree on, then it is wrong to have laws taking those rights away. If we are interested in our national sovereignty, then states leaving the Union is as bad as us joining Canada and Mexico.


Good questions, but it comes down to understanding that rights aren't granted by the Government (that is what the Declaration is communicating). They are inherent in our very existence. We, the People, choose the form of Government we decide best protects our rights. If it is not, the People have every right to leave it and form their own. For the North to not allow the South to do this very thing, was an offense to EVERYTHING this nation was built upon.

eted
09-19-2007, 02:21 PM
I believe it states that freedom of the individual is paramount. And this is what the United States government should have the power to do, protect the rights of the individual.

eted
09-19-2007, 02:23 PM
So rights of individual black slaves don't count? And when we are tired of discussing it democratically, then war is OK?

jblosser
09-19-2007, 02:28 PM
Fragmentation of the United States would and will lead to our downfall.

Not relevant, but prove it. Many smaller countries than most of our states do just fine.


Lincoln did not start the war. The States left as soon as he was elected, seven of them. Why? Because they knew he didn't like slavery and wanted to do something about it.

If they knew it they were the only ones, since his own words indicate at best indifference to their freedom. The man wanted to make them leave the country. There were riots against blacks in NY after the EP was released because the North was absolutely opposed to the idea they were fighting and dying for the sake of black slaves they didn't even want in the states.


Ironically, when they began to kill U.S. soldiers, they legally lost the rights to their property. Before that, the executive had no power to confiscate property or change laws.

I can't believe so many posts on here defend States leaving the Union. Divided we fall . . . and if a State was going to leave, then doing it for a better reason than to continue to enslave people would be more defensible.

You have yet to demonstrate or even argue why secession was not legal or was a legal casus belli for the north. Or do the ends merely justify the means?

drednot
09-19-2007, 02:28 PM
Fragmentation of the United States would and will lead to our downfall. ....
I can't believe so many posts on here defend States leaving the Union. Divided we fall . . . and if a State was going to leave, then doing it for a better reason than to continue to enslave people would be more defensible.

So presumably being seperate from Canada has led to the downfall of Canada and the US?? What makes the Mason-Dixon line so different from 54'40? (Or the Rio Grande for that matter)

What "downfall" are you suggesting? Calamitous interstate war with half a million dead and the destruction of half of the capital of the nation? Oh wait, we acheived that through "Union".

Furthermore, I dont think it's unreasonable to belive that with the elimination of the Fugitive Slave Law and the possibility of manumission, that Slavery would have been abolished in the 19th century regardless and the states would have reuinited with a less centralized federal government.

ARealConservative
09-19-2007, 02:30 PM
So rights of individual black slaves don't count? And when we are tired of discussing it democratically, then war is OK?

Women in Saudi Arabia have a real lack of freedom - do you support going to war with them over it?

This is the same mindset. Lincoln marched on the south - not the other way around

jblosser
09-19-2007, 02:32 PM
So rights of individual black slaves don't count? And when we are tired of discussing it democratically, then war is OK?

No one is arguing slavery is good. But the ends do not justify the means, and if every other civilized country managed to free their slaves without bloodshed, one has to ask why we couldn't. The fact is we were well on the way when Lincoln pushed centralization and used this as a PR issue, the same way the current left uses welfare, education, health care, etc scares as a PR and electorate control issue. It would have cost us less to buy the freedom of every slave than to wage that war, and that's only the monetary cost.

And we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. Seceding was a valid and legal constitutional republican response to being told your sovereignty as states was void. The proper question is "when we are tired of discussing it as a constitutional republic, then war is ok", but that question has to go to Lincoln, not Davis.

Corydoras
09-19-2007, 02:33 PM
There were people writing to Lincoln talking about how he did not have to take the political risk of emancipating the slaves and infuriating both pro-slavery Northerners and all of the South. These correspondents felt that slavery was becoming economically infeasible; it was widely believed that slavery was becoming so expensive that market forces would push it out of existence by the 1930s at the latest. And of course there were other people, like John Brown, who felt that a single more day of slavery was too many.

It's not either/or, the individual versus the government. Heck, that's been discussed since, what, when the ancient Greeks were watching "Antigone"? It is in the nature of human society that there will always be a struggle between the government and the person. And things today in the United States have gone too far toward the government, and Ron Paul is pushing things back. And part of pushing back against the government is by retrieving some powers back from the federal government and returning them to the states.

katao
09-19-2007, 02:35 PM
So rights of individual black slaves don't count? And when we are tired of discussing it democratically, then war is OK?


Absolutely, the rights of those slaves matter. The South, just as in the rest of the World, was finally coming to see this important principle. The rest of the world accomplished it without bloodshed.

Just as the means to help Iraqi women get freedom isn't through warfare, but through example, the same was true of the North.

drednot
09-19-2007, 02:48 PM
I believe it states that freedom of the individual is paramount. And this is what the United States government should have the power to do, protect the rights of the individual.

This highlights the fundemental Libertarian divide.

Generally speaking, libertarians believe that rights should be enforced locally.

Sacrificing oneself for the perceived liberty of others is counterproductive, unless you yourself are threatened.

Thus it's better to let Iraqi's fight for their own liberty than to spend trillions to liberate them by force. (Opposing Hitler was appropriate for Europe on the other hand, as Hitler was a credible threat to much more than just the Sudatenland.)

Many antebellum abolitionist libertarians argued to let the South go. In fact, some argued that the Fugitive Slave Law was so heinous that the North should secede from the South rather than abide by it.

katao
09-19-2007, 02:55 PM
This highlights the fundemental Libertarian divide.

Generally speaking, libertarians believe that rights should be enforced locally.

Sacrificing oneself for the perceived liberty of others is counterproductive, unless you yourself are threatened.

Thus it's better to let Iraqi's fight for their own liberty than to spend trillions to liberate them by force. (Opposing Hitler was appropriate for Europe on the other hand, as Hitler was a credible threat to much more than just the Sudatenland.)


Agreed, with the clarification that if you feel strongly that their rights need defending, then please go personally fight that battle.

Mordechai Vanunu
09-19-2007, 03:36 PM
In the documentary "The Money Masters" I saw a most interesting theory.

It said that international bankers were manipulating economic conditions on the U.S. with the ultimate goal of making states secede from the union, and eventually gain total economic control of the states through division. Divide and conquer strategy. Lincoln knew this and going to war was the only way to beat them.

recess
09-19-2007, 03:49 PM
Lincoln and the republicans(whigs) were just waiting to into power and push their entire economic agenda of protectionism,Central bank,and corporate welfare.The only thing in their way were Jeffersonian Democrats. Going to war enabled Lincoln to push this agenda through a one sided congress

drednot
09-19-2007, 03:51 PM
In the documentary "The Money Masters" I saw a most interesting theory.

It said that international bankers were manipulating economic conditions on the U.S. with the ultimate goal of making states secede from the union, and eventually gain total economic control of the states through division. Divide and conquer strategy. Lincoln knew this and going to war was the only way to beat them.

That's an incredibly bizarre and counterintuitive claim.
I'd love to see the details, even if only for entertainment value.

axiomata
09-19-2007, 04:51 PM
There's been at least a couple threads in this forum where various people have claimed a constitutional right to secession. And in each one I have asked for it to be clearly stated and no one has.

Madison, who I am pretty sure knew a little about the original intent, said:


The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?

There is no doubt, people and states have a natural right to revolt. But to contend that secession and nullification is a right of states is absurd. And if you don't realize this then you must be of the opinion that the great American Experiment is a failure.

Daveforliberty
09-19-2007, 04:53 PM
I am in a library right now, and don't have the book in front of me, but I've been reading "America's Constitution" by Akhil Reed Amar. I haven't read more than 75pages yet, but Amar makes the case that it was very clear in the minds of the founders that states could NOT "just leave the union". He sites several passages from the Federalist papers and other writings of the founders.

He contends the Federalist papers and speeches made by Hamilton, Madison and others made it clear to states considering joining the union that it would be a one-way street, UNLESS the entire nation wanted to change their form of government. He even says check the wording in the Virginia ratification document. It does NOT say Virginia reserves the right to secede, but that the PEOPLE (as a nation) reserve the right to change their form of government.

Why would the founders not want states to be able to leave? Because they feared the fate of Europe -- many countries on one continent -- constantly at war with one another. His citations by the founders talk about states on their own making treaties with other countries, inequities in tariffs, etc., and that if you join this union, you are giving up your right to do so.

I realize this may not be very popular with the libs but he makes a pretty compelling argument. I encourage you to read the book yourselves and comment.

katao
09-19-2007, 05:01 PM
In the documentary "The Money Masters" I saw a most interesting theory.

It said that international bankers were manipulating economic conditions on the U.S. with the ultimate goal of making states secede from the union, and eventually gain total economic control of the states through division. Divide and conquer strategy. Lincoln knew this and going to war was the only way to beat them.

I really doubt these claims and would love to see the evidence. The economic conditions that WERE relevant were the tariffs designed to benefit the Northern states at the expense of the Southern states.

See: http://www.mises.org/story/952

katao
09-19-2007, 05:03 PM
Lincoln and the republicans(whigs) were just waiting to into power and push their entire economic agenda of protectionism,Central bank,and corporate welfare.The only thing in their way were Jeffersonian Democrats. Going to war enabled Lincoln to push this agenda through a one sided congress

Ding, Ding, Ding - the nail on the head!

katao
09-19-2007, 05:10 PM
There's been at least a couple threads in this forum where various people have claimed a constitutional right to secession. And in each one I have asked for it to be clearly stated and no one has.

Madison, who I am pretty sure knew a little about the original intent, said:



There is no doubt, people and states have a natural right to revolt. But to contend that secession and nullification is a right of states is absurd. And if you don't realize this then you must be of the opinion that the great American Experiment is a failure.

It is not a constitutional right, but a natural right (outlined in the Declaration of Independence) to withdraw support from a government.

Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

Do States Have a Right of Secession?

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543

fsk
09-19-2007, 05:11 PM
The US Civil war was about *LEGALIZING* slavery.

The US Civil war said that states don't have the right to refuse to continue supporting the Federal government.

If you don't have the right to withdraw your support for a government, you're a slave.

Spirit of '76
09-19-2007, 05:23 PM
...

jblosser
09-19-2007, 05:29 PM
People need to keep in mind when quoting the Federalist that it was only half of the opinion. Yes, it was the half in favor of ratification, and ratification is what happened, but one of the main points of the Anti-Federalist response was that Hamilton and co. assumed too much and weren't covering their corners correctly. This was what got us the Bill of Rights, for one thing. Hamilton didn't think we needed that either.

To the question of "where does the Constitution allow seceding", the Constitution doesn't have to allow it, it only has to not forbid it. Read the 10th amendment again. Is the power of a State to leave the Union delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States?

axiomata
09-19-2007, 05:38 PM
Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

Do States Have a Right of Secession?

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543

You are simply reading it as you want to hear it, in accordance with your preconceived notions. The quote I listed explicitly mentions the act of secession. You must disagree with it to hold your position.

On the other hand, I agree with Jefferson's statements that you listed.

I think you ought to read it more carefully.

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve [not secede from] this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it. [he is saying the concept of dissolution is an error of opinion that can be reasoned with]

As far as the second quote goes, it is true that you can make a quote say what you want by the use of extracting it from its context and the generous use of ellipses. What, you want the full quote with context?


In your letter to Fisk, you

have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose : 1,

licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for

the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If

any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first

alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in

saying, "let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw, which are

for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for

peace and agriculture.

axiomata
09-19-2007, 05:46 PM
To the question of "where does the Constitution allow seceding", the Constitution doesn't have to allow it, it only has to not forbid it. Read the 10th amendment again. Is the power of a State to leave the Union delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States?

You know who wrote the 10th Amendment?

The same person who said:


The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?

jblosser
09-19-2007, 06:10 PM
He didn't operate in a vacuum you know. He wrote the Bill of Rights as a Federalist appeasing anti-Federalists.

You are also aware he wrote the Virginia Resolution, one of the core documents in the tradition of States' rights and nullification? Yet you said "to contend that secession and nullification is a right of states is absurd". In fact, the letter you quote specifically references that resolution and tries to draw a line separating the two ideas, but you dismiss both. So do we agree with Madison, or do we not?

The supporting documents and opinions of individual founders are definitely indispensible in determining original intent and in resolving interpretation questions but if and when the two are at odds you have to go with what the Constitution actually says. That's why they required conventions of multiple people to approve the language and why we have reports of different wording being discarded.

Which is a good thing, because if Hamilton wrote it entirely himself we'd no doubt have gotten Lincoln and the Fed a lot sooner.

dseisner
09-19-2007, 06:15 PM
Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus! 'Nough said!

Mesogen
09-19-2007, 06:24 PM
But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded.
Yeah, but in the South all people were free!

Huh? :confused:

And what the hell is civilized warfare?

ctb619
09-19-2007, 06:28 PM
And what the hell is civilized warfare?

Stupid term, but I assume it refers to warfare conducted under customary international law and principles of warfare accepted as legitimate by "civilized" states (proportionality, not targeting civilians etc.).

Mesogen
09-19-2007, 06:36 PM
I don't get it.

On one hand I hear some people saying Lincoln was a great president for standing up to those evil bankers with his greenbacks.

On the other I hear he was in cahoots with those evil bankers to centralize power in the federal government.

Which is it?

Spirit of '76
09-19-2007, 07:22 PM
Yeah, but in the South all people were free!

Freer than in the North, where we must note that slavery was legal even after the Emancipation Proclamation, which only "freed" the slaves in territories not under the control of the United States government.

Couldn't have General Grant off invading the Southland with no slaves at home to cater to his wife and kids, now could we?


And what the hell is civilized warfare?

It includes things like not burning down civilian homes and crops and turning civilians out to starve and freeze to death, which were common practices of the Union army.

Daveforliberty
09-19-2007, 07:28 PM
This is not a defense of Abraham Lincoln. Personally I think he was neither completely bad nor completely good. I disagree with him on many things, but agree on some.

The question at hand is about secession. I'm at home now and have the book I mentioned by Amar. Here are some excerpts:

Page 33: "Although the States would enter the Constitution as true sovereigns, they would not remain so after ratification. The formation of a "more perfect Union" would itself end each state's soverign status and prohibit future unilateral secession..."

Pages 34-35: "Simply put, Article VII recognized the soverign right (or at least the soverign power) of different states in a flawed confederacy to their separate ways, but articles V and VI extinguished the right and power of unilateral secession for each state populace that joined the Constitution's new, more perfect union, thereby merging itself into the continental soverignty of the American people.

Anti-Federalists across the continent got the message and sounded the alarm. In Massachusetts, Samuel Nasson pointed to the Preamble as proof that the Constitution would effect a "perfect consolidation of the whole Union" that would "destroy the Bay State's status as "a soverign and independent" entity... New York's Brutus complained that the Constitution would not be "a compact" among states but rather would create a "union of the people of the United States considered" as "one great body politic."...

...Patrick Henry, true to form, was one of the bluntest of all as he led the charge against the Constitution in Virginia... "The question, Sir, turns on that poor little thing--the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America."...

Page 36: But on the fateful question of whether states would continue to be truly soverign, with rights of unilateral exit, the Federalists agreed that the Anti-Federalists had not exaggerated... Madison at Philadelphia stressed that one of the essential differences between a "league" and a "Constitution" was that the latter would prevent subunits from unilaterally bolting whenever they became dissatisfied...

Hamilton/Publius in The Federalist No. 11 spoke of the need for a "strict and indissoluble" union...

Page 36-37: Pennsylvania's Wilson contrasted traditional "confederacies" that istorically "have all fallen to pieces" with the proposed Constitution, in which "the bonds of our union" would be "indissolubly strong." Samuel Johnston declared that "the Constitution must be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, it would be in the power of any one state to counteract the other states, and withdraw itself from the Union."...

Page 37: In Virginia, the distinguished legal scholar George Wythe forcefully explained what was at stake, blending language from the Declaration (which he had signed in 1776), and the Preamble. "To perpetuate the blessings of freedom, happiness, and independence", Americans must form "a firm, indissoluable union of the states" and thereby avoid "the extreme danger of dissolving the Union."

Notably, Virginia's convention spoke of the right of the people of the United States, not the people of Virginia, to reassume power through future acts of popular soverignty..."


What's the bottom line? It sounds like the founders ruled out secession. What does it mean to us?

1) Elect Ron Paul and the argument is put on hold indefinitely
2) Failing that, keep the freedom movement alive and reclaim our Republic and our Constitution
3) Failing that, the People of the United States rise up and throw off the tyrants

Spirit of '76
09-19-2007, 07:35 PM
Where was their "indissoluble union" when New England was supporting and feeding British troops invading the South in 1812?

O, Jonathan, Jonathan! vassal of pelf,
Self-righteous, self-glorious, yes, every inch self,
Your loyalty now is all bluster and boast,
But was dumb when the foemen invaded our coast.

In vain did your country appeal to you then,
You coldly refused her your money and men;
Your trade interrupted, you slunk from her wars,
And preferred British gold to the Stripes and the Stars!

Then our generous blood was as water poured forth,
And the sons of the South were the shields of the North;
Nor our patriot ardor one moment gave o'er,
Till the foe you had fed we had driven from the shore!

Long years we have suffered opprobrium and wrong,
But we clung to your side with affection so strong,
That at last, in mere wanton aggression, you broke
All the ties of our hearts with one murderous stroke.

Mesogen
09-19-2007, 07:45 PM
Freer than in the North, where we must note that slavery was legal even after the Emancipation Proclamation, which only "freed" the slaves in territories not under the control of the United States government.
So a slave on a plantation was freer than anyone in the North?
:rolleyes:
And all midwest states were slave-free from their inception. In the rest of the North slavery was outlawed by 1800. I think New Jersey was a straggler so it took them a few more years.


Couldn't have General Grant off invading the Southland with no slaves at home to cater to his wife and kids, now could we?
http://www.granthomepage.com/grantslavery.htm
It's funny that he made like he was against slavery.
I guess he did set his one slave free in 1859, but that could be for many reasons.


It includes things like not burning down civilian homes and crops and turning civilians out to starve and freeze to death, which were common practices of the Union army.
If it includes mass killing then it is not civilized.
There is no such thing as civilized war.

Spirit of '76
09-19-2007, 08:02 PM
So a slave on a plantation was freer than anyone in the North?

A slave on a plantation in the South was just as free as a slave on a plantation under Northern control, and he was just as free as a journalist thrown in prison for criticizing Lincoln's war.



And all midwest states were slave-free from their inception. In the rest of the North slavery was outlawed by 1800. I think New Jersey was a straggler so it took them a few more years.

And the movement was underway to do away with slavery in the South, before militant abolitionists in the North started agitating for war and that notion was put on the back burner.

Furthermore, the importation of slaves had long been outlawed throughout the United States, but the shipping companies of New England made quite a lucrative profit by violating those laws all the way up to the outbreak of the war.



http://www.granthomepage.com/grantslavery.htm
It's funny that he made like he was against slavery.

I guess he did set his one slave free in 1859, but that could be for many reasons.

I don't think it's very funny. Besides, he said that many years after the war in order to justify his actions.

Yes, he set his own slave free but his wife did not set hers free until forced to do so by the 13th Amendment.

Also, we must not forget that there were free blacks in the South, and that they were often slave owners themselves.


"The sole object of this war is to restore the union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side."

--Ulysses S. Grant

Spirit of '76
09-19-2007, 08:16 PM
By the way, for anyone wanting to see beyond the myths and indoctrination perpetuated by the federally-governed public schools and understand the true nature of this period, there's a great resource over at LewRockwell.com:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html

drednot
09-19-2007, 08:20 PM
While I see a lot of debate about the constiutionality of secession (and there was certainly a great deal of debate at the time), I think this is mostly missing the point.

The populace of the Confederate states (excluding slaves presumably), were clearly fed up with the Union. They wanted to preserve their own economic system regardless of constitutional semantics.

The question is was the North justified in military conquest of the South over a constitutional argument. I would say the terrible consequences suggest otherwise.

The argument that the US would otherwise end up fighting like Europe seems odd given that just to achieve "union" a half a million people had to be sacrificed.

I don't see Canada in ruins, ruing the day it turned down union with the US.

A better solution than civil war was a weak central government that prevented protectionism between the states, defended the territory against invasion, and otherwise left the states alone.

Mesogen
09-19-2007, 08:29 PM
A slave on a plantation in the South was just as free as a slave on a plantation under Northern control, and he was just as free as a journalist thrown in prison for criticizing Lincoln's war.
That's not what you said. You said people in the south were freer than people in the north.


And the movement was underway to do away with slavery in the South, before militant abolitionists in the North started agitating for war and that notion was put on the back burner.
Yes, the abolitionists were evil and only wanted war and the southern plantation owners were good and only wanted peace.

Let's see what Karl Marx had to say about it. :)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/11.htm


Now, in the first instance, the premiss must be conceded. The war has not been undertaken with a view to put down Slavery, and the United States authorities themselves have taken the greatest pains to protest against any such idea. But then, it ought to be remembered that it was not the North, but the South, which undertook this war; the former acting only on the defense. If it be true that the North, after long hesitations, and an exhibition of forbearance unknown in the annals of European history, drew at last the sword, not for crushing Slavery, but for saving the Union, the South, on its part, inaugurated the war by loudly proclaiming “the peculiar institution” as the only and main end of the rebellion. It confessed to fight for the liberty of enslaving other people, a liberty which, despite the Northern protests, it asserted to be put in danger by the victory of the Republican party and the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidential chair. The Confederate Congress boasted that its new-fangled constitution, as distinguished from the Constitution of the Washingtons, Jeffersons, and Adams’s, had recognized for the first time Slavery as a thing good in itself, a bulwark of civilization, and a divine institution. If the North professed to fight but for the Union, the South gloried in rebellion for the supremacy of Slavery. If Anti-Slavery and idealistic England felt not attracted by the profession of the North, how came it to pass that it was not violently repulsed by the cynical confessions of the South?

I'm looking at Karl Marx as a pundit/reporter in this piece.


Furthermore, the importation of slaves had long been outlawed throughout the United States, but the shipping companies of New England made quite a lucrative profit by violating those laws all the way up to the outbreak of the war.
K. What does this have to do with how free people were in the North?


I don't think it's very funny. Besides, he said that many years after the war in order to justify his actions.

Yes, he set his own slave free but his wife did not set hers free until she was required to do so by the passage of the 13th Amendment.
They were two women and their young sons. I wonder what happened to two single black women after they were freed.


Also, we must not forget that there were free blacks in the South, and that they were often slave owners themselves.And the price of tea in China is...wait, what were we talking about?

Oh yeah. The south was more free than the north, right?

jblosser
09-19-2007, 08:33 PM
Freer than in the North, where we must note that slavery was legal even after the Emancipation Proclamation, which only "freed" the slaves in territories not under the control of the United States government.

Including excepting Northern-controlled counties in Southern states! How could he have been more obvious!


It includes things like not burning down civilian homes and crops and turning civilians out to starve and freeze to death, which were common practices of the Union army.

One of the ridiculous warmongering videos the Republican Party of TX showed during the straw poll festivities actually held up Sherman as venerable on the proper doctrines of war. Sherman. In Texas. I'm a little surprised no one rushed the stage...

jblosser
09-19-2007, 08:49 PM
And all midwest states were slave-free from their inception.

Not just slave-free, they tried to be black-free entirely. They maintained laws forbidding contracts with blacks, forbidding blacks to enter their states, and fining whites who encouraged blacks to move to their states. The north hated blacks for the economic competition they represented to them (sound familiar?) and this is the primary reason they fought the extension of slavery into other states.

Tocqueville wrote "the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known". I have lived in the north and the south and it's painfully true to this day that the north speaks of equality while remaining racist in behavior while the south treats people more equally regardless of the history and popular opinion. I grew up in IN (the land of Lincoln-envy) but am raising my kids in TX instead of IN party because even though both have a large immigrant population, TX won't raise my kids hating non-white people like IN will.

Mesogen
09-19-2007, 08:51 PM
One of the ridiculous warmongering videos the Republican Party of TX showed during the straw poll festivities actually held up Sherman as venerable on the proper doctrines of war. Sherman. In Texas. I'm a little surprised no one rushed the stage...

Maybe they meant Sidney Sherman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Sherman) and not Scorched Earth Sherman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman)?

wasn't there, obviously

jblosser
09-19-2007, 08:54 PM
Yes, the abolitionists were evil and only wanted war and the southern plantation owners were good and only wanted peace.

If you're going to discuss things try to avoid strawmen.


Let's see what Karl Marx had to say about it. :)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/11.htm

I'm looking at Karl Marx as a pundit/reporter in this piece.

Why? Marx was not remotely impartial, he loved the Civil War as evidence of his doctrine of hitsory driven by class struggle, facts be damned. He was a huge admirer of Lincoln because of what Lincoln represented to the Marxist worldview pattern of thought.


Oh yeah. The south was more free than the north, right?

Slavery existed. It was bad. Killing people to get rid of it when peaceful options existed was also bad. Using it as an excuse to divide people to the point of killing each other as a means to extend executive authority and illegally change the nature of a national government for one's own ends was beyond criminal.

Sic semper tyrannis.

jblosser
09-19-2007, 08:56 PM
Maybe they meant Sidney Sherman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Sherman) and not Scorched Earth Sherman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman)?

wasn't there, obviously

If only. The context was praising scorched earth policies in Iraq, civilians and ethical objections be damned. The whole thing was talking about how great the civil war was. Actually the bald basic premise was "democrats hate black people, Lincoln was a Republican, Lincoln saved black people, democrats made the KKK, democrats hate black people". It was disgusting. Anyone who knows any party history knows the parties traded platforms not long after the war, but I guess that doesn't include the GOP leadership.

Mesogen
09-19-2007, 09:09 PM
Not just slave-free, they tried to be black-free entirely. They maintained laws forbidding contracts with blacks, forbidding blacks to enter their states, and fining whites who encouraged blacks to move to their states. The north hated blacks for the economic competition they represented to them (sound familiar?) and this is the primary reason they fought the extension of slavery into other states.
That kind of thing never ceases to amaze me.

Everyone is an economic rival to you (if you want it that way).

http://www.slavenorth.com/ohio.htm

Ok, so blacks were far from free in the Midwest.


Tocqueville wrote "the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known". I have lived in the north and the south and it's painfully true to this day that the north speaks of equality while remaining racist in behavior while the south treats people more equally regardless of the history and popular opinion. I grew up in IN (the land of Lincoln-envy) but am raising my kids in TX instead of IN party because even though both have a large immigrant population, TX won't raise my kids hating non-white people like IN will.
Maybe. Texas is not what I would consider part of the Old South. In Mississippi in the 1920's blacks were still essentially treated like slaves. There was sharecropping and if something needed to be done that required lots of physical labor (especially in an emergency) the sheriff or whoever had the most guns would round up all the blacks and put them to work under the barrel of his gun.


So it seems I keep getting this argument. That the North was worse than the South and that despite the institution of slavery, there was less racism in the South?

And even if the law was racist and those assholes in Ohio and Illinois didn't want blacks living next to them, the blacks that ended up there had the choice of leaving. They could find a more inviting home (Canada, apparently). Slaves in the South did not have this choice.

Mesogen
09-19-2007, 09:16 PM
If only. The context was praising scorched earth policies in Iraq, civilians and ethical objections be damned. The whole thing was talking about how great the civil war was. Actually the bald basic premise was "democrats hate black people, Lincoln was a Republican, Lincoln saved black people, democrats made the KKK, democrats hate black people". It was disgusting. Anyone who knows any party history knows the parties traded platforms not long after the war, but I guess that doesn't include the GOP leadership.

WOW! Were they really praising scorched earth policies in Iraq? :eek:

And the southern racists were all Democrats until something happened in the 1960s (I think it was the endorsement of the civil rights movement by northern democrats like the Kennedys) and then all those racist Democrats went to the Republicans. (Except Robert Byrd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Participation_in_the_Ku_Klux_Klan)). Why was the Republican Party so inviting?

katao
09-19-2007, 09:20 PM
There is no such thing as civilized war.

This belief has been the justification for the worst atrocities in human history. War is hell, although sometimes a necessary hell. But deliberately targeting innocent civilians is evil, as well as myriads of other war crimes.

"Sherman himself admitted after the war that he was taught at West Point that he could be hanged for the things he did. But in war the victors always write the history and are never punished for war crimes, no matter how heinous. Only the defeated suffer that fate. That is why very few Americans are aware of the fact that the unspeakable atrocities of war committed against civilians, from the firebombing of Dresden, the rape of Nanking, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the World Trade Center bombings, had their origins in Lincoln’s war."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo8.html


One other important point in this discussion:

"Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."

Lincoln's war was kinda the antithesis of Ron Paul's message, eh?

jblosser
09-19-2007, 09:21 PM
So it seems I keep getting this argument. That the North was worse than the South and that despite the institution of slavery, there was less racism in the South?

I am not trying to argue that one was worse than the other. The point is merely that the notion the war was overy slavery in any substantial way is obviously false given the sheer hatred of the slaves in the north and the apathy or animosity expressed by Lincoln himself. Arguments that the war was necessary or proper - or that holding the union together was necessary and proper - because it was needed to end slavery are completely bogus.

The argument usually goes like this, and I think this is how it's gone here as well:

"Lincoln"

"Lincoln was bad, he centralized the government"

"But we needed that to free the slaves"

"No, slaves would have been freed without it"

"But this was faster, and slavery was bad, so it needed to be done as fast as possible"

The whole chain is full of non sequiturs that flail between discussing the nature and history of American government, the civil rights considerations, and ends justifying means.

Even if the war *was* about freeing the slaves it would still have to stand up to the criteria of the Just War theory to be preferable over other alternatives, and it would likely fail even here. That Lincoln didn't even choose that course on the notion it was the quickest way to free the slaves but instead used them as PR pawns when it was convenient and advocated forcibly deporting them all to South America otherwise exposes him as one of the most evil men in human history.

jblosser
09-19-2007, 09:27 PM
WOW! Were they really praising scorched earth policies in Iraq? :eek:

The warmongering propaganda they showed the delegates in TX advocated anything and everything in the name of keeping any fence-sitters from thinking for themselves and voting for a non-war candidate. The scorched earth video wasn't the worst of it, but there are plenty in the party that want to nuke the middle east to glass and be done with it.


And the southern racists were all Democrats until something happened in the 1960s (I think it was the endorsement of the civil rights movement by northern democrats like the Kennedys) and then all those racist Democrats went to the Republicans. (Except Robert Byrd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Participation_in_the_Ku_Klux_Klan)). Why was the Republican Party so inviting?

Well... the big party platform switch started in the 1896 election, but it was more economically oriented at first.

axiomata
09-19-2007, 09:27 PM
That is why very few Americans are aware of the fact that the unspeakable atrocities of war committed against civilians, from the firebombing of Dresden, the rape of Nanking, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the World Trade Center bombings, had their origins in Lincoln’s war.

It's quotes like these that make it very hard to take DiLorenzo seriously.

Austrian
09-19-2007, 10:36 PM
It's quotes like these that make it very hard to take DiLorenzo seriously.

You have to read his book. He lays out how Lincoln was the first to breach the rules of civilized warfare according to international law by targeting citizens instead of just soldiers. Lincoln helped pioneer the way for total war in our day.

Here's one of my favorite DiLorenzo quotes:

“Had the south been permitted to go in peace, as was the wish of the majority of Northern opinion makers before Fort Sumter according to historian Joseph Perkins, a democracy would have continued to thrive in the two nations. Moreover, the act of secession would have had exactly the effect the founding fathers expected it to have; it would have tempered the imperialistic proclivities of the central state.

The federal government would have been forced to moderate its high-tariff policies and to slow down or abandon its quest for empire. Commercial relationships with the South would have continued and expanded. After a number of years, the same reasons that led colonists to form a Union in the first place would likely have become more appealing to both sections, and the Union would probably have remained.”

And heres Tocqueville in Democracy in America:

“The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims either by force or right.”

Lincoln would agree with that:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.

Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” - Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848

katao
09-19-2007, 10:44 PM
You have to read his book. He lays out how Lincoln was the first to breach the rules of civilized warfare according to international law by targeting citizens instead of just soldiers. Lincoln helped pioneer the way for total war in our day.



Welcome to the forums Austrian!

Cliff
09-19-2007, 11:28 PM
Lincoln was a liar and a traitor.

Man from La Mancha
09-19-2007, 11:44 PM
Who are the manipulators of most wars for the last 300yrs? Who owned the money supply and the slave trade and slave ships, financed their political puppets. Most major wars in the northern hemisphere were fought by stupid white Christians killing other stupid white Christians all fired with this stupid team spirit like sport teams now that my side is right and your side is wrong while the manipulators just laugh and profit no matter what the dumb jerks do to each other. Just my dumb jaded outlook. IMO:)

.

Hook
09-20-2007, 12:06 AM
Fragmentation of the United States would and will lead to our downfall. Lincoln did not start the war. The States left as soon as he was elected, seven of them. Why? Because they knew he didn't like slavery and wanted to do something about it. Ironically, when they began to kill U.S. soldiers, they legally lost the rights to their property. Before that, the executive had no power to confiscate property or change laws.

I can't believe so many posts on here defend States leaving the Union. Divided we fall . . . and if a State was going to leave, then doing it for a better reason than to continue to enslave people would be more defensible.

Boy that sounds just like Huckabee in the last Republican debate. Divided we fall indeed.
Some of the founders thought that since states agreeed to join the union that they should be allowed to leave. Others were against that idea. Since they didn't agree, you can't argue on that basis.
When the South wanted to leave, they were trying to negotiate the terms of seccesion including things like agreeing to pay their share of the national debt, etc. Lincoln would have nothing to do with it like any politician, because it would diminish his power.
The ultimate question is how many peoples lives are political boundries worth? If the South had just been let go, the market would have gotten rid of slavery within a generation anyway. So is a half million dead Americans worth it? If so, how about 2 million? 5 million? How about the million Iraqis that have died in our attempt to "set them free". What are political markers worth to you?

foofighter20x
09-20-2007, 12:24 AM
But doesn't a President take an oath to defend the constitution, thus allowed to use force to preserve the union? Also, didn't the states attack the Federal Fort, first?


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Nope... nothing about "preserving the union" in there.

Interestingly enough, no presidents since Lincoln have really sought to enforce the 10th Amendment.

PennCustom4RP
09-20-2007, 03:55 AM
Spirit...

Let us not forget my coal chuckin' lil' brother, that WV was created from the Western counties of Old Dominion in 1863 because the economic values of slavery were not in line with what was going on there at that time. Yes I know, we had loyalties on both sides....unavoidable, with my family anyway, some Blue some Grey, thats how it is with border states...blood is thicker than political borders...

GnR
What is so Civil about War Anyway?

~M

Spirit of '76
09-20-2007, 05:54 AM
That's not what you said. You said people in the south were freer than people in the north.

And it's true. Slaves were still being held in both the Union and the Confederacy, so that aspect is balanced out. Beyond that, it was in the North where journalists were being imprisoned and their presses destroyed for criticizing the war, critics of the administration were being held without respect for habeas corpus, and martial law had been declared in a number of states.


The quote to which you responded initially came from a document issued by the Cherokee Nation explaining why they chose to side with the Confederacy (as did many other Indian nations) in the conflict.

Furthermore, what it said was, "But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded", which was true.

The remainder of the passage, and the rest of the document which you conveniently ignored, sets the context. It explains how because secession was the People's desire in the South, it was accomplished without government repression, whereas the war effort in the North was so unpopular that the tyrannical Lincoln administration resorted to what essentially amounted to martial law in order to carry it out.

Of course, they don't teach that in government schools, so I guess you can be excused for not knowing it. Still, let's drop the "freer in the South than in the North" strawman, shall we?



Yes, the abolitionists were evil and only wanted war and the southern plantation owners were good and only wanted peace.

Well, the sensationalist wording of your argument aside, the essence is true. The abolitionist movement was essentially a religious one, and it advocated what amounted to a crusade, a war on slavery that in many ways can be likened to today's "war on terror", whereas the agrarians of the South desired economic freedom, which they knew would be interrupted by war.

By the way, the fact that you keep referring reflexively to "plantation owners" demonstrates your conditioning, and your lack of understanding of Southern society at the time. Only a small percentage of Southern society owned slaves, yet nearly the entirety of Southern society supported secession. There was obviously much more at play than just the desire to continue the institution of slavery.



Let's see what Karl Marx had to say about it. :)


Yeah, there's a respectable source! :rolleyes:


I'm looking at Karl Marx as a pundit/reporter in this piece.

Well, that's a silly thing to do, considering Marx was hardly an impartial observer, but tirelessly worked to agitate pro-Lincoln/anti-Confederate sympathies throughout Europe.



K. What does this have to do with how free people were in the North?


What it has to do with is the hypocrisy and utter lack of historical understanding of those who claim that the North was inherently "good" and collectively had as its aim the freedom of slaves in the South; again, the northern merchants were almost entirely responsible for perpetuating the slave trade even after it was outlawed and slaves were still held in the territory of the United States even after the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation.



They were two women and their young sons. I wonder what happened to two single black women after they were freed.

In many cases, they would continue to live with their former owners as employees, rather than slaves. In other cases, they would marry and move away.

You make it sound like it was uncommon.

Spirit of '76
09-20-2007, 06:01 AM
One of the ridiculous warmongering videos the Republican Party of TX showed during the straw poll festivities actually held up Sherman as venerable on the proper doctrines of war. Sherman. In Texas. I'm a little surprised no one rushed the stage...

You've got to be kidding. :(

Spirit of '76
09-20-2007, 06:03 AM
Tocqueville wrote "the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known". I have lived in the north and the south and it's painfully true to this day that the north speaks of equality while remaining racist in behavior while the south treats people more equally regardless of the history and popular opinion.

Yeah, demographic maps clearly indicate that the North remains to this day entirely more segregated along racial lines than does the South.

Spirit of '76
09-20-2007, 06:10 AM
Let us not forget my coal chuckin' lil' brother, that WV was created from the Western counties of Old Dominion in 1863 because the economic values of slavery were not in line with what was going on there at that time. Yes I know, we had loyalties on both sides....unavoidable, with my family anyway, some Blue some Grey, thats how it is with border states...blood is thicker than political borders...


Yeah, the war was very messy indeed here in the hills, where it wasn't so much a matter or armies arrayed on the field of battle as it was brutal guerilla warfare among a divided populace.

redpillguy
09-20-2007, 07:57 AM
The US was the only country to have a war over slavery. In all other countries slavery collapsed economically on its own. If Lincoln had allowed the Southern States to secede, the slaves would have escaped to the North which would have hastened the collapse of slavery.

I got this from the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to American History":
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-American-History-Guides/dp/0895260476/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-7174010-8362841?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190296456&sr=1-1