I think the abolition of slavery after the war had more to do with Republicans taking advantage of the South’s compromised position. They used the opportunity to really stick it to the South, for awhile anyway like you said. It was for good reasons of course, slavery had to go sooner or later.
I still say the North wasn’t fighting to end slavery but to keep the Union intact. How else can you explain the Corwin Amendment and Lincoln’s subsequent support of it?Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia
Except that doesn’t change the fact that it was the South who attacked the North, and not the other way around. A right to secession, even if it exists, does not give you the right to take other people’s property. The South seceded, and attempted to take Federal government. The Federal government has a right, arguably a duty, to defend its possessions.
I don’t see the relevance of this question.
I think everyone agrees that the North started out fighting the war to preserve the Union. (While noting that the overwhelmingly important reason for the South seceding in the first place was to preserve slavery. The North wasn’t ready in 1860 to go to war to end slavery, but the North had just elected an avowedly anti-slavery party to power–not a radical abolitionist party or a radical abolitionist President, but Lincoln and the Republicans were openly hostile to slavery–which terrified the supporters of slavery into secession, even though they clearly knew that secession all but certainly meant war.)
But the aims of the North changed in the course of the war. After four years of bloodshed, the North wasn’t just fighting to restore the status quo ante bellum–the war led to slavery being ended in a way only the most radical of abolitionists could have imagined in 1860–complete, uncompensated abolition; full and equal citizenship on a color-blind basis; and an additional guarantee of equal voting rights explicitly for the former slaves.
Unfortunately, within a few years the new American citizens were betrayed and many of these rights were effectively lost, and it would be another century before the Constitution was put into effect. Nonetheless, with the relatively minor exception of a ban on poll taxes as a condition of federal suffrage, not only had slavery been ended, but the constitutional framework for a racially egalitarian country had been laid within five years of the end of the war.
Rehash. I’ve already stated my opinion on this issue and you have furnished neither more evidence nor a new way of looking at the issue.
Under our Constitution, U.S. citizens are entitled to representation. Some people in this thread have suggested secession does not exist. If the states never seceded why did they not have representation?
Alright I don’t see any point of major disagreement there.
It’s probably found in Article IV, Section IV.
For one, they didn’t send delegations. In fact, the federal governemnt accepted delegations from the Kanawa region of Virginia as legitimate representatives, approved a separation of Virginia, and then accepted the new free state of West Virginia. So this actually turns out to be a very good peice of evidence against you: had the rebels been willing to send Congressmen, they would have been seated. Obviously, they weren’t.
It seems to me you want to have it both ways when it suits you. Either the rebels left the union, in which case they were a legitimate target of conquest having triggered the single greatest casus belli possible, or they did not, in which case they were rebels and legitimate targets for military suppression.
Indeed, the first attack on the Union came at Fort Sumter - an island created by the federal government. It was quite literally land made by the hand of the Union, not South Carolina, not the South, and not the Confederacy. And indeed, the attack on Sumter came about because Davis knew he had to start some kind of fight and get some kind of big PR victory or risk having the nascent COnfederacy fall apart.
Well, then, you misspoke. If the CSA had actually been a foreign nation occupying land previously held by the United States, reclaiming said land would no more be a war of US aggression than D-Day was a war of French aggression.
You are trying to muddy the waters again. It is hardly unusual for someone who unlawfully claims some prerogative to suffer the negative repercussions of the act while not being granted any of the positive benefits.
Did you read that or nah?
I didn’t say anything about West Virginia. What about after the war, some states couldnt’ seat congressmen until 1870, was statehood intact during this time or not? Nobody seems to be addressing this.
What are you talking about? I am saying they left the Union, if they did not why were they not treated as states during and after the Civil War?
Indeed the Radical Republicans of the time believed that statehood had been destroyed for the seceding states. If this is true then yes, the states had seceded.
Speculation. Do you have a cite for Davis believing that BS?
If we’re throwing around speculations here. I speculate that when the Union government refused to abandon the fort, this riled up South Carolinians who viewed the fort as part of their territory. What interest did the Union government have in occupying a fort meant to protect South Carolina? Maybe they were preparing for war?
What about the non-traitorous citizens? If they had always remained U.S. citizens why were they forced to face repercussions?
No. It was South Carolina occupying South Carolina land. Georgia occupying Georgia land. North Carolina occupying North Carolina land.
Did you read that or nah?
[/QUOTE]
I wrote it, at college, for my senior thesis, in Virginia, as an undergrad taking a grad-school course, receiving the highest possible mark; I later wrote my doctoral thesis on a different war-related topic, seeing no reason to revisit my earlier conclusion. I may have been incorrect; what’s your issue with that conclusion, apart from “or nah?”
Under the same principles, sir, that felons do not get to vote themselves lighter sentences. Likewise, as a domestic insurrection, the rights and priveleges of the peopple of those states were partially suspending, pursuant to the written, public, and known Consitutional provisions authorizing such. As the domestic insurrection was broken, Federal authority restored, and legal bodies began operating legitimately, they were seated in Congress.
My point, which you missed like the usual faulty aim of Confederate artillery, is that the Confederates seemed intent on locking up or shooting federal officials. This is a domestic insurrection, and required a military response. The states were free to make their case in Congress, and chose not to do so.
Obviously, they were in fact treated as states post-Civil War, and even during the Civil War.
No, it isn’t.
The theory, which was not favored by all Radicals Republicans, was that by engaging in a domestic insurrection the Southern States reverted to territorial status, or otherwise lost their legitimacy. This theory was not accepted even in its own time, and not accepted later on, either.
That’s not speculation. That’s the clear words, intent, and message re: the famous admonition: " Gentlemen, unless you sprinkle blood in the faces of the people of Alabama, they will be back in the old Union in less than ten days." Gilchrist, along with many other southern leaders, who realized that without some kind of action the southern states would quite likely fall apart and wind up back in the union. Likewise, Virginians weren’t planning to secede until they had the opportunity to kill some people and quite clearly told Davis so.
Davis accepted the point and immediately ordered Sumter attacked, breaking the understood truce and precipitating outright war.
All the land is American soil, and any American may venture to any state or territory within. A citizen of one is a citizen of all.
You wrote Article IV, section IV of the U.S. Constitution?
I wrote that it’s a terrific fig leaf to apply in this situation, which on a pedantic level happened to involve writing out Article IV, Section IV, word for word. Do you disagree with the former, or would you rather sidetrack the debate with a lengthy hijack over the latter? I’m free for either.
Wrong. States get representation in Congress.
No he ordered that the Union troops get out of the fort first. This belies your claim he was out for bloodshed. You are being intentionally misleading to prove your point and I find that questionable.
nm
Enlighten me: what do you think Article IV, Section IV does allow the federal government to do with regard to the states?