What's so bad about secession, in general?

[Hostile_Dialect]

If you can’t condemn the UK for torture in the middle ages, jtgain, I’m glad I don’t have to go through life with your set of morals.

[UltraVires]

@fetus

If you can’t condemn the UK for torture in the middle ages, jtgain, I’m glad I don’t have to go through life with your set of morals.

So, who do we condemn? Should Gordon Brown give a formal apology? Or should we criticize the 100s of years old dead UK leaders in the middle ages?

Sure, medieval torture in the UK was wrong, looking at it with a 500 year hindsight. But how could you criticize an individual, or even a state, at that time when the UK, France, Spain, Portugal, and even the Vatican committed the same offenses?

It would be like a society 200 years from now that has houseflies as pets and thinks of us as barbarians for swatting them, or poisoning them with chemicals…

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@jtgain

And, as you admit, the south was right to disbelieve the north when it “disavowed abolition” considering what happened at the end of the war.

I don’t understand. Two posts ago, you said that “in 1860, no politician had any notion of ending slavery where it already existed”, and used that to downplay the importance of slavery as a cause of the Civil War. Now you’re saying that Southerners didn’t believe these denials. Have it your way . . .

@jtgain

Right or wrong, the southern states were guaranteed at the Constitutional Convention that the states had a right to have legal slavery. Do we agree on that? Surely.

Yes.

@jtgain

Then, agreeing on that, if the south thought (and rightfully so, as you point out) that the north was attempting to enroach upon that, then that would have been a violation of the agreement in 1787? Do we agree there?

Absolutely not. Northern politicians were not encroaching on the constitutionally guaranteed status of slavery in slave states. They were attempting to bar it in federal territories, as they had the constitutional power to do.

@jtgain

If, say, South Carolina thought that by ratifying the constitution that they would NEVER have a right to secede, can we agree that they would not have ratified it?

I don’t know. Ten years earlier, they had ratified the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union without any argument.

@jtgain

If we agree, so far, and we should, then why shouldn’t the southern states have had a legal and moral right to secede?

I’m not much interested in the legal issue. The Constitution is silent on secession. I don’t think they had a moral right to secede because their grievances were based on the perpetuation of slavery, which was an unmitigated evil.

[UltraVires]

@Freddy the Pig

I don’t understand. Two posts ago, you said that “in 1860, no politician had any notion of ending slavery where it already existed”, and used that to downplay the importance of slavery as a cause of the Civil War. Now you’re saying that Southerners didn’t believe these denials. Have it your way . . .

It is sort of a two-edged sword. When you are being lied to, and know that you are being lied to, you have to balance your options. On one hand, the south could have believed the north, and saw slavery fade away. They didn’t want that.

On the other hand, they did what they DID, and fought and lost, and saw slavery abolished.

So, I guess you are admitting that the statements of Lincoln and the other Republicans at that time were complete and utter lies?

@Freddy the Pig

Absolutely not. Northern politicians were not encroaching on the constitutionally guaranteed status of slavery in slave states. They were attempting to bar it in federal territories, as they had the constitutional power to do.

But we’ve already said that the Lincoln position was bullshit, and that the “real” cause of the war was slavery. So, the Union was, de facto, violating their constitutional promises from 1787.

@Freddy the Pig

I don’t know. Ten years earlier, they had ratified the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union without any argument.

You are seriously mentioning the Articles of Confederation? It has no legal value in any modern debate, and even if that word “perpetual” were used, it could have been as legal language was in that time (for instance a property deed, for use of John Smith and his heirs for ever)…

@Freddy the Pig

I’m not much interested in the legal issue.

Obviously not, or you would agree with me.

@Freddy the Pig

The Constitution is silent on secession. I don’t think they had a moral right to secede because their grievances were based on the perpetuation of slavery, which was an unmitigated evil.

Since the Constitution is silent, the tenth amendment applies. Powers not delegated to the feds (secession not mentioned, as President Buchanan agreed) nor prohibited to the states (again, no secession prohibited) are reserved to the STATES or to the PEOPLE. Each of which in the south decided to leave.

As for slavery being an unmitigated evil, that, again, is seen through our modern eyes. I agree with my modern eyes. But you can blame a southerner in 1860 for wanting slavery any more than you can blame a man in Delaware in 1864 for wanting slavery. Nor can you blame a Roman citizen for a crucifiction. Or a bishop for burning someone at the stake in 1411.

Nor can you blame a person in 2007 being judged for killing a housefly by someone in 2237 where houseflies are protected by federal law…

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@jtgain

So, I guess you are admitting that the statements of Lincoln and the other Republicans at that time were complete and utter lies?

Absolutely not. Lincoln said in 1860 that he had no intention of interfering with slavery in the states where it already existed, and there is no reason to doubt that he spoke the truth. There was no organized political movement in 1860 to force abolition upon the South, no support for such a move in Congress, no prospect that the Supreme Court would ever allow such a thing, and no means short of war by which it could have been enforced.

Of course, in 1862 Lincoln did force abolition upon the South. (Good for him. He should have done it sooner.) Does that mean he was lying in 1860? Of course not. When you secede and wage war against the federal government, you change the nature of the game, and you take your chances on what follows.

But we’ve already said that the Lincoln position was bullshit, and that the “real” cause of the war was slavery. So, the Union was, de facto, violating their constitutional promises from 1787.

No. The Union made no constitutional promise in 1787 to support slavery, or to say that it was a good thing, or to support its extension into the western territories. They made one positive promise (shame on them)–not to interfere with the slave trade until 1808–and one negative promise, by not granting the federal government the power to abolish slavery in the states. These promises were honored. That’s all that was promised.

@jtgain

As for slavery being an unmitigated evil, that, again, is seen through our modern eyes. I agree with my modern eyes. But you can blame a southerner in 1860 for wanting slavery any more than you can blame a man in Delaware in 1864 for wanting slavery.

I don’t “blame” them for wanting it, but if I’m asked to judge the morality of their action in 2007, I’m damn sure going to take it into account.

I read the Declaration of Independence today, and read grievances like taxation without representation, and quartering troops in people’s homes, and a lack of an independent judiciary. And I think, yeah, that still rings true 200 years later. The colonists had some legitimate beefs, and they had moral grounds to secede.

Then I read the South Carolina Causes of Secession, and I read a list of laments about how the federal government was insufficiently assiduous in promoting slavery. And I think, that’s a load of crap, and these guys didn’t have moral grounds to secede. I can’t imagine any reason I would think any differently.