If the south had won the civil war or even just held off the north...

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by SenorBeef *

Originally posted by David Simmons
**
Are you really arguing here at the beginning of the 21st century, that the minority of the people in South Carolina who owned slaves should have been able to keep their slaves, and relocate with them to a free state in the west if they wanted to, on the grounds that a person should be able to freely transport his property wherever desired? **

**Where did I make that argument? I’m just trying to figure out where you interpreted that from - when you tell me, I’ll probably be able to answer that question. **

You didn’t specifically make that argument, however the position of the southern slave holders which you defend leads directly to that question. The slave holders claimed that the slaves were their property and they could move their property around to suit themselves. That was the crux of the argument about the admission of new states to the union. If they weren’t slave states then the south could see its political leverage, control of the senate, being lost. This led directly to the Missouri Compromise which preserved the political balance by admitting Maine and Missouri at the same time. However, that was only a stopgap and the question would surely have arisen if a southern slave holder wanted to take his slaves to California to raise cotton in Kern County.

I simply can’t see a defensible argument for the slave holders in insisting that since Lincoln and others wouldn’t consent to the perpetuation of the institution of slavery in the US then secession was justified. It cannot be claimed that today’s mores are being imposed back to a time when they don’t apply. Slavery had been largely abolished in Europe by the early 1800’s and the US practice was in accord only with with repressive regimes such as Tsarist Russia. This was known to the framers of the Constitution and they ducked the issue in order to get some sort of effective government to replace the Articles of Confederation. Even the Tsar abolished slavery in 1861, and without bloodshed.

A legalistic defense of secession on the grounds that the south was only trying to enforce the constitution won’t wash. They were trying to get the constitution to uphold an odious institution in spite of clear words in it that guaranteed liberty to Americans and was established for the purpose of “promoting the general welfare and … securing the blessings of liberty …”

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by David Simmons *
****Where did I make that argument? I’m just trying to figure out where you interpreted that from - when you tell me, I’ll probably be able to answer that question. **

You didn’t specifically make that argument, however the position of the southern slave holders which you defend leads directly to that question.

[/quote]
**

Tell me where I’ve defended southern slaveholders.

I’ve done nothing but attempt to fight propoganda.

**
The slave holders claimed that the slaves were their property and they could move their property around to suit themselves. That was the crux of the argument about the admission of new states to the union. If they weren’t slave states then the south could see its political leverage, control of the senate, being lost. This led directly to the Missouri Compromise which preserved the political balance by admitting Maine and Missouri at the same time. However, that was only a stopgap and the question would surely have arisen if a southern slave holder wanted to take his slaves to California to raise cotton in Kern County.

**

I’m not sure where this contradicts anything I said, or counters any arguments I made. It may be a valid point, but please connect it to what I said.

**
I simply can’t see a defensible argument for the slave holders in insisting that since Lincoln and others wouldn’t consent to the perpetuation of the institution of slavery in the US then secession was justified.

**

It’s not about lincoln “not consenting” to slavery, it’s about Lincoln willing to use the Federal government in an illegal fashion to push his agenda onto semi-sovereign states.

**

It cannot be claimed that today’s mores are being imposed back to a time when they don’t apply. Slavery had been largely abolished in Europe by the early 1800’s and the US practice was in accord only with with repressive regimes such as Tsarist Russia. This was known to the framers of the Constitution and they ducked the issue in order to get some sort of effective government to replace the Articles of Confederation. Even the Tsar abolished slavery in 1861, and without bloodshed.

**

I made no moral argument whatsoever on the institution of slavery.

**
A legalistic defense of secession on the grounds that the south was only trying to enforce the constitution won’t wash. They were trying to get the constitution to uphold an odious institution in spite of clear words in it that guaranteed liberty to Americans and was established for the purpose of “promoting the general welfare and … securing the blessings of liberty …” **

They weren’t trying to get the Constitution to do anything. They recognize that having the Federal government push states around to suit it’s agenda was a violation of the Constitution.

Of course, I may be factually inaccurate in some way, as I’m not an expert in the strictly legal aspects of the secession. However, from what I know, the States used to be semisovereign entities which were unified on a Federal level only in areas of national interest.

You’re looking from today’s perspective, perhaps. The federal government pushes the states around anytime it wants, and has declared itself the supreme authority in absolutely everything. Since they have tons and tons of illegal power now, it seems appropriate to assume that that was the case back then, and it was perfectly reasonable for the federal government to force it’s will on the states.

That wasn’t the case then. The idea of the united States relied heavily on minimal federal power over largely independent states. Back then, the states actually did have power, and that’s the way it was supposed to be. And so when Lincoln came around and tried to expand federal power and basically say that the federal government could kick the shit out of any states that dared challenge federal power, we set a precedent in motion which leads us to our strong, arguably oppressive central government today.

You can’t take the way things run today and apply them back then. It was a Big Fucking Deal that the federal government tried to force the states to do anything - it’s not like today when it’s common place and expected. And that’s what the war was about. It was a real issue. In today’s perspective, federal vs. state powers is so mundane that you would never think of it causing a war - and that’s why you might think it’s a lesser issue than slavery - but it was much different then.

[David_Simmons]

Originally posted by SenorBeef *
**
Tell me where I’ve defended southern slaveholders.*

Southern slaveholders were the main upholders of the idea of “states rights.” Their position however was a sham as far as I am concerned. They were not defending “states rights” as an abstract principle but rather for the purpose of maintaining an economic and social system that was based on human slavery. In fact, I can’t think of a single historic use of “states rights” that hasn’t been for the purpose of limiting the rights of some group of people and holding them in an inferior position. And all this time I though the US ideal was in the enlargement of people’s freedom.

You defend their secession over so-called “states rights” violations by the federal government. I call this defending them.

**I’ve done nothing but attempt to fight propoganda.

**

Well, Hubba Hubba!!

**

Of course, I may be factually inaccurate in some way, as I’m not an expert in the strictly legal aspects of the secession. However, from what I know, the States used to be semisovereign entities which were unified on a Federal level only in areas of national interest.
**

Well, I personally regard the use of state power to defend the power to buy and sell human beings as a national problem. I regard the use of state power to make it a crime to educate a large segment of the population as a national problem. I regard the use of state power to hinder the free movement of US citizens within the United States, as was the case with northern free blacks who might want to travel in the south, as a national problem. I regard the insistance that they could take their “property” with them into new, free states where slavery was illegal as a national problem.

In short, the whole issue of slavery was a colossal “national problem” and no sophistical hair-splitting about merely defending “states rights” will change that for me.

The federal government pushes the states around anytime it wants, …

Could you give a few examples of this?

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by David Simmons *
**Southern slaveholders were the main upholders of the idea of “states rights.”

**

That’s a pretty definitive statement. Cite?

No one would have a valid reason for believing in state rights other than those who had slaves?

**

Their position however was a sham as far as I am concerned. They were not defending “states rights” as an abstract principle but rather for the purpose of maintaining an economic and social system that was based on human slavery. In fact, I can’t think of a single historic use of “states rights” that hasn’t been for the purpose of limiting the rights of some group of people and holding them in an inferior position. And all this time I though the US ideal was in the enlargement of people’s freedom.

**

And no one at all fought for anything but the preservation of slavery? Everyone thought ‘damn, I’m to go out today and risk my death in order to preserve the institution of slavery’?

**
You defend their secession over so-called “states rights” violations by the federal government. I call this defending them.

**

I’m saying that states seceeded for other reasons than that they were big bad men who liked to do evil things. You’re trying to twist this into the idea that I’m defending slavery. I’ve made no value judgements on slavery whatsoever.

**

Well, I personally regard the use of state power to defend the power to buy and sell human beings as a national problem.

**

So as long as you find the problem to be sufficient to declare a national problem, the federal government should be allowed to ignore the Constitution and force states to comply with it?

**
I regard the use of state power to make it a crime to educate a large segment of the population as a national problem. I regard the use of state power to hinder the free movement of US citizens within the United States, as was the case with northern free blacks who might want to travel in the south, as a national problem. I regard the insistance that they could take their “property” with them into new, free states where slavery was illegal as a national problem.

**

You can see just about anything you want as a national problem. The end result is you get a big central government that dictates everything to local governments. The idea of semisovereign states is raped. The Constitution is scrapped.

I consider murder to be a national problem! Time for murder to become a federal crime!

**

In short, the whole issue of slavery was a colossal “national problem” and no sophistical hair-splitting about merely defending “states rights” will change that for me.

**

I consider illegal federal coercion to be a colossal “national problem”, and I think the federal government should coerce itself into not coercing anymore!

You can declare what you want to be a national issue. If the federal government is illegally dictating to states what they can and can’t do, you’re in violation of the Constitution, and the principles the country was founded upon. You wreck the united States and turn it into what we have now - a central government dictating what it wants, and state powers become nearly meaningless.

Btw, do you disagree that the federal government was using and is using illegal methods in order to enforce it’s will over states? You seem to be arguing that illegal federal action is irrelevant as long as something is deemed a national problem.

**
Could you give a few examples of this? **

What’s the drinking age in Louisiana?

[SenorBeef]

Rereading my post, it’s not as concise as it should be. It’s 6am. Sorry. Ask for clarification if you need it, but feel free to reply.

[Taboo]

Well, I guess slave labor is an economic system, so “economic reasons” were certainly one reason why the South seceded.
sry someone had this quote up earlier but couldnt find it again to post proper quote function…
but in light of this quote I need to say…lol…I dont think the north won this part of the battle…I can show you my paycheck…lmao

sry had to say that

Taboo

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by SenorBeef *
**
I’ve made no value judgements on slavery whatsoever.
**

!!!

**So as long as you find the problem to be sufficient to declare a national problem, the federal government should be allowed to ignore the Constitution and force states to comply with it?

**

If you think slavery is no more important a national affair than is whether or not something equivalent to a state allowing eggs to be scrambled, then I guess nothing is a national problem.

I don’t think Lincoln and the others were as far off in constitutional interpretation as has been claimed. Nor, I think, were they usurping powers not granted by the constitution.

Article IV, Sec. 4 state that "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government … "

I don’t see how you can call any state government a “republican form of government” when a large portion of its people are disenfranchised and without any legal rights whatever.

Now you can go back and cite ancient Greece where only a small number of those in the population were allowed to vote and claim that represents for all of time what is meant by a “republican form of government.” However, ancient examples are not always applicable to current affairs, and the arrangement among the American Colonies at the time of the Revolution and agreement among them in the Articles of Confederation can’t always be the ruling factor in current government.

After all, the Articles didn’t work and the whole purpose of the framers of the Constitution was to provide the US with a strong central government. One that could get things done on a national level. I think it was mainly to be held in check by a balance of power among the three branches of the national government and not by nullification of federal powers by actions of the individual states.

Way back when, transportation by land was exceedingly slow and each colony could by relatively autonomous in its internal affairs. Even by the time of the Civil War, travel was much easier (railroads) as was communication (telegraph) and the actions within a state had a lot more effect on the wefare of the whole than had previously been the case. So perhaps Lincoln et. al. can be justified on the ground that they were trying to get the states to adhere to Article IV.

I’m going to give this a rest now. Just about everything needed has been said at least twice. It seems to me the subject and other board participants are exhausted.

[kniz]

originally posted by David Simmons
I can’t think of a single historic use of “states rights” that hasn’t been for the purpose of limiting the rights of some group of people and holding them in an inferior position.

The idea of “states rights” comes from the fact that the Constitution says that all powers not given to the Federal Government in the Constitution belong to the states.

There are questions relating to education, health, welfare, highways, temperance, religion, commerce and many more that have been fought over in the Supreme Court that concerned “states rights”. The federal government gets around them by threatening to cut off federal funds.

[ul][li]For instance, they told the states what the speed limit should be under Nixon and we all had to slow down to 55 MPH.[/li][li]They have dictated the menus in school cafeterias [/li][li]They made rules concerning foster children[/li][li]Etc., etc.[/li]
[li]They also had to amend the Constitution for Prohibition and then amend it again to undo it.[/ul][/li]Doing a google on “states rights” one of the first cites listed is Medical Marijuana is a State’s Rights Issue

Since you said a single issue, please explain how your claim applies to someone in Montana who claimed 55 MPH was too slow on their straight and open highways and didn’t take into consideration the long distances between points of travel in their state.

I’m not debating the rights or wrongs of any of these or other states rights issues, just that they do not fit your statement on “states rights”.

[kniz]

originally posted by David Simmons
However, ancient examples are not always applicable to current affairs

Does that not also apply to looking at the past with the same yardstick used today? Things in ancient Greece may not apply to what happened in 1860, so what gives us the right to use the yardstick of today on 1860.

Can we claim such a high moral ground when we have not stood in anyone’s shoes (be it northerner, southerner or slave) during that period in history? Isn’t this all like telling someone who performed abortions in the 1940’s: “You were just ahead of your time?*”, only in reverse?

[sup]* No stand on abortion intended[/sup]

Saying the civil war was not about slavery is the same as saying antibellum slavery wasn’t about cotton; or that cotton had nothing to do with commerce and/or other such claims made or implied in this thread. This is in fact a very complicated subject that cannot be painted white or black. That is what I am saying, but I keep hearing “slavery was slavery was slavery” and if that sounds like my first post in this thread, it is because it comes from the same frustration.

[davidw]

If the southern states were so concerned about states rights, then how do you explain the Fugitive Slave Act?

[MEBuckner]

The pro-slavery side was hardly consistent in its advocacy of states’ rights. As davidw points out, a major bone of contention between the slave states and the free states was the fugitive slave issue. Some free states passed “personal liberty” laws, providing for the emancipation of slaves who reached their territories–these laws were sometimes explicitly upheld on “states’ rights” grounds, whereas the slave owners here championed the federal government’s power to return slaves to their masters under the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution and the federal fugitive slave laws.

As Confederate apologists often delight in pointing out, Lincoln was not a radical abolitionist. He was “anti-slavery”, but a proponent of “containment”, not “rollback”. What the seceding states were up in arms over was not an immediate plan to send federal troops to emancipate slaves in Mississippi, ubt over such issues as Congress acting to bar slavery in the territories (the pro-slavery side contended Congress had no authority, when making laws for the territories, to ban slavery). The mainstream anti-slavery Republicans in 1860 weren’t trying to use federal power to abolish slavery in the South, but only wanted to keep slavery from spreading. That alone was enough to drive the slave states to secede.

Comparisons to the CSA and the USA under the Articles of Confederation are a bit overdone. In the main, the C.S. Constitution followed the U.S. Constitution pretty closely. This page gives the text of the C.S. Constitution and shows where it deviates from the text of the U.S. Constitution; in addition to strong protections for slavery, there were a number of changes which, together with the historical legacy of secession itself, would no doubt have meant a weaker central government; but it was hardly a reversion to the Articles of Confederation

[kniz]

*Originally posted by davidw *
**If the southern states were so concerned about states rights, then how do you explain the Fugitive Slave Act? **

They were against the idea that if they traveled to a “free state” that a servant who accompanied them would not be automatically freed. It was not an admirable fear under today’s standards, but it goes along with the idea of states recognizing the laws of other states. The return of slaves who had made it to a fugitive state should probably work the same as extradition works today. This would also fall under “states rights”, and so they were wrong on this count.

A few years ago, Mississippi licensed drivers at the age of 15. I promise you that I was 100% against this. The point is that if they drove to Alabama, Tennessee or even out to California their license would have been recognized in those states.

originally posted by MEBuckner
As Confederate apologists often delight in pointing out, Lincoln was not a radical abolitionist.

If someone that doesn’t agree with you 110% is a Confederate apologist then I accept the label. In an earlier post, I cited some quotes and did not explicitly say they were Lincoln quotes. The reason was that I was shocked when I found those quotes and really couldn’t say “this is what one of my American heroes said”. But "Lincoln was not a radical abolitionist is such an understatement that I have no choice.

The following are quotes of Lincoln [sup](with links that work.)[/sup]

1.
But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours.

2.
If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth…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. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Read carefully it is obvious that his purpose of doing away with slavery was the fact that it caused the two races to be together. He also blamed the blacks for being the basis of this evil system. Having grown up in the south, I could always tell a racist by the statement “Let’s send them all back to Africa.” With friends like Lincoln the slaves sure didn’t need enemies.