# Which of the following best describes the Confederate cause? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 1, 2018, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374 "2018-12-01T04:40:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/221 "2018-12-08T00:56:44Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > In was in that it violated the State’s right to assume that bringing a slave voluntarily into a Free state made him free. That was a legit ruling and did not violate the Constitution. > > Actually there was a understanding that slavery would slowly go away as I quoted. The Constitution specifically included a provision to stop the slave trade in 1808. > > There was no “understanding” that slavery was going to be allowed forever. So it couldn’t be violated. And banning slavery in new States was completely legit. And yes, one of the things driving the “new States shall be free” policy was the Abolitionist movement. > > Yes, the South did. But instead of a slow, gentle path to the end of slavery over decades and decades, the South opted for violent rebellion. Agreed as to your first sentence. Dred Scott was patently wrong. It would be like if I bring fireworks into a state where they are illegal. I cannot claim a property right in them that invalidates a state’s police power to prohibit them. Disagree to the rest. First, a nitpick. The clause in the Constitution forbade Congress from outlawing the slave trade prior to 1808 and prohibited an amendment to the Constitution granting the Congress that power. Congress could, therefore, pass a law after 1808 outlawing the slave trade (which it did effective January 1, 1808 and signed by Jefferson) but nothing about that clause put slavery on a death spiral. Slaves could reproduce and the existence of slavery did not require importation. The debates and the text of the Constitution do not support the “new states are free states” policy. A fair reading of it would require the national government to be neutral on the policy and allow new states to decide that question just as existing states had done. To start that policy was rightfully seen by the south as a bad faith attempt to start the death spiral process. The south would have never agreed to a death spiral constitution whereby slavery only lasted so long as northern states could form enough territories into states to outlaw the practice internally. Lincoln even claimed support for the Corwin Amendment to make slavery permanent and irrevocable in states that already had it, in order to argue to the south that he had no intention to interfere with slavery. The south saw that for the bullshit that it was as only four years later, he wanted to outlaw it everywhere. Indeed, your very comments would be evidence that everything the south said was absolutely true. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/222 "2018-12-08T01:40:10Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Disagree to the rest. First, a nitpick. The clause in the Constitution forbade Congress from outlawing the slave trade prior to 1808 and prohibited an amendment to the Constitution granting the Congress that power. Congress could, therefore, pass a law after 1808 outlawing the slave trade (which it did effective January 1, 1808 and signed by Jefferson) but nothing about that clause put slavery on a death spiral. Slaves could reproduce and the existence of slavery did not require importation. > > The debates and the text of the Constitution do not support the “new states are free states” policy. A fair reading of it would require the national government to be neutral on the policy and allow new states to decide that question just as existing states had done. To start that policy was rightfully seen by the south as a bad faith attempt to start the death spiral process. > > The south would have never agreed to a death spiral constitution whereby slavery only lasted so long as northern states could form enough territories into states to outlaw the practice internally. > > Lincoln even claimed support for the Corwin Amendment to make slavery permanent and irrevocable in states that already had it, in order to argue to the south that he had no intention to interfere with slavery. The south saw that for the bullshit that it was as only four years later, he wanted to outlaw it everywhere. > > Indeed, your very comments would be evidence that everything the south said was absolutely true. Yes, but that was a indication that the writers of the Constitution agreed that Slavery would have some changes after a while. The Constitution doesnt say either way. But since actually, the new states didnt happen to have any significant number of slaves anyway, they would vote Free. In fact New Mexico,Minnesota and Utah did so. In fact, no state voted to become a slave state. The repeal of the Missouri compromise did lead to bleeding Kansas, which finally, after bad acts by both sides- voted to be a Free state. That indeed was the big issue with the slave staters, they desired to _force_ new states to be slave states, so that for every Free state, there’d be a Slave state. The South agreed to several compromises during the Constitutional convention, just needed to protect slavery at that time. Yes, he wanted to end it everywhere- after the South attacked the USA and left the Union. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/223 "2018-12-08T03:56:09Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This understanding was nearly immediately violated by the attempt to ban slavery in the territories and in newly admitted states. And, again, it was not because of some high morality of the northern states fighting the evils of slavery. It was so that federal policies would be more suited to the northern industrial trade than the southern agrarian trade. The first banning of slavery in the territories was under the Articles of Confederation, and came two years before the Constitution was even ratified. From the [Northwest Ordinance](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nworder.asp): > [@](#): > > **Art. 6.** There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid. (And yes, there was a compromise here, which prefigured the compromises of the Constitution itself: A proto-Fugitive Slave Clause.) The Northwest Ordinance, by the way, _did_ piss off [the Mississippians of 1860](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp): > [@](#): > > The hostility to this institution [of slavery] commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory. Again, though, we have this fixation on the supposed struggle between the “industrialists” and the “agriculturalists”. In truth, _in 1787_ there was a widespread belief that slavery was on its way out, which was a political and moral belief stemming from the Revolution that didn’t necessarily have anything to do with “industrialism” versus “agriculture”: Slavery was simply incompatible with the founding principles of the new American Republic. In 1787 the Revolution (in a broader sense) was in some sense still on ongoing affair; the various states were still experimenting with their constitutions, as was the new “United States”. The assertions that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” were still fresh; and yes, those words were written by a slave owner, but by one famously conflicted about the morality of slavery. No grand conspiracy of the “industrialists” is necessary to explain the Northwest Ordinance’s treatment of slavery; nor did that law lead in any straightforward way to an industrialized Midwest: As of 1860, the proportion of the labor force engaged in agriculture in the five Northwest Territory states ranged from 56% in Ohio; to over 60% in Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin; to 68% in Indiana. The opposition to the spread of slavery was about a belief in _free labor_, whether or not those free laborers worked in factories, or worked on their own farms. Later, Eli Whitney and the cotton gin gave rise to an enormously profitable plantation economy in the Deep South states, using slave labor to produce cotton as a commodity for export to the world _industrial_ economy (_textiles_ were the dominant industry of the early Industrial Revolution, not automobiles or smartphones). You went from slave owners wringing their hands about slavery being like “holding a wolf by the ears”; to slave owners proudly proclaiming slavery to be a “positive good”. Jefferson, the hypocritical slave owner who proclaimed “all men” to be created equal and to have a right to liberty, [thought slavery was immoral and tried, however ineffectually, to get rid of it](https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jeffersons-attitudes-toward-slavery). And it was _Thomas Jefferson_, the slave owner–and the arch-agriculturalist who wanted a nation of yeomen farmers, working their own farms–who proposed banning slavery in the Northwest Territory! By the outbreak of the Civil War, slave owners had been radicalized to the point where they were [triumphantly proclaiming](http://civilwarcauses.org/corner.htm) white supremacy to be a great truth on a par with the discoveries of Galileo, and slavery as something that should exist [“for all future time”](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp) (and in the process _explicitly_ repudiating the legacy of the conflicted and hypocritical Thomas Jefferson). Hence a bloody civil war over slavery. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/224 "2018-12-08T14:47:27Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > The South Carolina position was that federal lands in the state were held in trust by the federal government, but actually property of the state … not an unreasonable position… they did make efforts to pay for the federal lands being confiscated, but they were officially rebuffed (although privately discussions continued) There must be some documentation of those alleged property claims and those alleged attempts at negotiation, mustn’t there? Note: The fact that you hold a position does not make it reasonable. > [@](#): > > There was also quite a bit of disagreement on whether the federal government violated its word by moving troops to Sumter. They believed that the government had promised not to fortify Sumter and it obviously did. What promise was that? Where is that documented? > [@](#): > > It was not ‘we don’t want to accidentally get in a fight.’ It was “We’re preparing for a fight.” It was “We’re preparing to get attacked”. Which, as you may know, is what happened, no matter what post-hoc rationalizations and other blame-diverting you may indulge in. > [@senoy](#): > > we’re multiple STATES within an overarching Federation (hence ‘Federal’ government.) Better check the Constitution on that, with special emphasis on the Supremacy Clause. There was a federation like you describe under the Articles of Confederation, but not in 1861. > [@senoy](#): > > Eighty five soldiers were not, the fear of an approaching fleet is what precipitated the conflict. The location of Sumter was the problem. Google Map it. It completely closed off Charleston harbor. If it were allowed to reach a full complement of soldiers, it would have effectively barricaded the harbor to all boat traffic, cutting off Charleston’s trade routes and any resupply from sea. So geography itself constituted “Northern aggression”. Gotcha. > [@](#): > > If it were just 85 guys and not a threat, why didn’t the Union abandon it? And validate treason and insurrection? Why would they do that? > [@senoy](#): > > They were leary of appearing to be the aggressors. They were leery of _failure_. With good reason, too. But they fired anyway, didn’t they? The excuses followed, and they still continue today, don’t they? > [@](#): > > He was told not to resupply the fort. He was told to withdraw his troops. By whom? And who had both the authority and the responsibility, if not the President? > [@](#): > > I think that the decision to do so was an inherently hostile action See above comments about manufacturing excuses. > [@](#): > > he should have stalled for time allowing Southern Unionists time to quell the hotheads in the secession movement As if that were possible. Come on now. ---
**Author:** ![postpic200](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@postpic200](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postpic200)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/225 "2018-12-08T14:48:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This argument has already been raised and rebutted in this thread. But I’ll shoot it down again. > > If the divide in the United States had been between agricultural states and industrial states, the mid-western and western states - which were agricultural - would have sided with the southern states against the northeastern. > > But they didn’t. The agricultural states of the mid-west and west sided with the industrial states of the north east against the agricultural states of the south. Or, to make it really obvious, the free states of the mid-west, the west, and the northeast were all opposed to the slave states of the south. > > During the war, when Jefferson Davis was asked if he would welcome any northern states into the confederacy is they chose to secede, he said he wouldn’t - he said only slave states belonged in the Confederacy. > > This the same kind of pseudo-legal nonsense you usually hear from Sovereign Citizens. My reply didn’t seem to have made it to the board. so sorry for the late response. In the states you listed, they didn’t have slavery, so that was a non-issue for them. As for the states in the Midwest they didn’t directly import goods in the quantities that the south did. Again it was a non-issue with them. Think of it this way, if I taxed boats, and you don’t own one why would you care about how much that tax is? In the Midwest, many of the good were made locally, and imported goods were expensive, again a non-issue. As far as what state the south would or would not let in, was up to the south. Just the US I’m sure there are places that would like to become the 51st state, but would the US let them in? Again a non-issue. How could the point of a state leaving the Union be pseudo-legal nonsense? The Supreme court didn’t rule on the issue until Texas v. White 1869 about 3 years after the war, and decided a state couldn’t leave the Union. Until that ruling it wasn’t pseudo-legal nonsense, but a legitimate legal question. It was probably one of the reasons the Union didn’t try the leaders of the confederacy, had the court rule the south could secede, the Union could have been on the hook for damages. Again I didn’t say slavery wasn’t an issues, to to say it was the ONLY issue isn’t true, it would be like saying the ONLY reason WWI stated was because of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. It might have been the match that started the war but there were many issues in place beforehand. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/226 "2018-12-08T16:15:44Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > If you look at the secession precedings in Virginia immediately following Sumter, they clearly paint Lincoln as the aggressor and desiring war I’m reminded of Kaiser Willy whining about how the Allies wanted to put the onus of starting WWI on him, by somehow forcing him to invade Belgium and attempt to crush France. > [@senoy](#): > > I don’t think they were provocations, but it wasn’t unreasonable for the southern states to want (federal forts and arsenals) back either. A neat trick to “want them back”, since these installations were never Southern property in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/227 "2018-12-08T16:31:07Z")
> [@postpic200](#): > > How could the point of a state leaving the Union be pseudo-legal nonsense? The Supreme court didn’t rule on the issue until Texas v. White 1869 about 3 years after the war, and decided a state couldn’t leave the Union. _There never was_ a case to be made for the Constitution to allow secession, but there’s quite a bit in there to deny it. The Southern pro-slavery hotheads never even tried to make a letter-of-the-Constitution case, either, because they couldn’t - their arguments and speeches were entirely bluster about the spirit of the Founding Fathers and love of independence etc. _Texas v. White_ was filed for the specific purpose of getting the Supreme Court to formally put a stake in the heart of that nonsense, to prevent it from coming up again. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/228 "2018-12-08T18:33:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > _There never was_ a case to be made for the Constitution to allow secession, but there’s quite a bit in there to deny it. The Southern pro-slavery hotheads never even tried to make a letter-of-the-Constitution case, either, because they couldn’t - their arguments and speeches were entirely bluster about the spirit of the Founding Fathers and love of independence etc. _Texas v. White_ was filed for the specific purpose of getting the Supreme Court to formally put a stake in the heart of that nonsense, to prevent it from coming up again. Of course there was an argument for it. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with it, but there is certainly an argument. Why can a group not leave an organization that it voluntarily joined? Is the United States a kind of Hotel California? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/229 "2018-12-08T18:36:36Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Of course there was an argument for it. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with it, but there is certainly an argument. Why can a group not leave an organization that it voluntarily joined? Is the United States a kind of Hotel California? Actually if the other states agree, you can leave. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/230 "2018-12-08T18:43:39Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Of course there was an argument for it. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with it, but there is certainly an argument. Why can a group not leave an organization that it voluntarily joined? Is the United States a kind of Hotel California? Maybe there’s an argument for it, but they didn’t make it – they didn’t hold any real vote or referendum of all adults; they didn’t allow those who disagreed to secede from the Confederacy themselves; they had been wildly inconsistent on states’ rights in general (as the massive overreaching injustice of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act demonstrated), and much more. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/231 "2018-12-08T19:05:07Z")
> [@postpic200](#): > > In the states you listed, they didn’t have slavery, so that was a non-issue for them. Which was the point I was making. The mid-western states didn’t join the Confederacy (and the Confederacy didn’t want them) because the mid-western states didn’t have slavery and slavery was the thing that bound the Confederacy together. > [@postpic200](#): > > As for the states in the Midwest they didn’t directly import goods in the quantities that the south did. Again it was a non-issue with them. Think of it this way, if I taxed boats, and you don’t own one why would you care about how much that tax is? In the Midwest, many of the good were made locally, and imported goods were expensive, again a non-issue. This is not correct. > [@postpic200](#): > > As far as what state the south would or would not let in, was up to the south. Just the US I’m sure there are places that would like to become the 51st state, but would the US let them in? Again a non-issue. And again. this is the point I was making. The Confederacy only wanted slave states in their country. Because they saw slavery as the reason why their country existed. > [@postpic200](#): > > How could the point of a state leaving the Union be pseudo-legal nonsense? The Supreme court didn’t rule on the issue until Texas v. White 1869 about 3 years after the war, and decided a state couldn’t leave the Union. Until that ruling it wasn’t pseudo-legal nonsense, but a legitimate legal question. It was probably one of the reasons the Union didn’t try the leaders of the confederacy, had the court rule the south could secede, the Union could have been on the hook for damages. The Supreme Court didn’t say the secession was illegal starting in 1869. It said that secession had always been illegal going all the way back to the start of the country. When you start declaring that somehow you know laws that the Supreme Court is unaware of, you’re in the gold fringed flag zone. > [@postpic200](#): > > Again I didn’t say slavery wasn’t an issues, to to say it was the ONLY issue isn’t true, it would be like saying the ONLY reason WWI stated was because of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. It might have been the match that started the war but there were many issues in place beforehand. It’s true that many issues besides the assassination were the causes of World War I. But that’s not true about the American Civil War. It had one issue and that was slavery. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/232 "2018-12-08T19:06:52Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > So the response is pretty overwhelming so far. We almost all agree that the Confederates were traitors and rebels, and most of us also agree that the cause that the South was fighting for was heinous. > > But a few people went the other way in the poll. I’d be very curious to hear their argument… If you’re voting for an option other than 5 or 6, I’d love to know why. > > If you’re voting for 5, I’d love to know why too, actually. I voted 4 > [@RickJay](#): > > Answers 3, 4 and 5 are all totally compatible with Answer 6, so technically anyone answering any of those is not in disagreement with someone answering 6. yup. I wrestled with whether to vote 4 or 6. I think the southern cause was wrong, and was all about continuing one of the most heinous forms of slavery in history. But I think there was fault on the side of the North, too. > [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > …Slavery was a horrible thing, but the south had every right to succeed. I don’t believe in “once married, always married” laws making divorce illegal, why should I support laws requring states to remain in unions formed before almost everyone currently living was born? So when the South wanted to succeed, the North should have let it. (The same goes for any future states that want to leave the union.) While I’m certainly sympathetic with the abolitionists who wanted to abolish chattel slavery in the South as well as the North, I don’t think that was the majority of the people who were fighting to maintain the union. I think, in fact, that many just wanted to maintain the union, slavery or no. And I am not a fan or that perspective. > [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Would you say the same thing for the large number of other cultures throughout history that used slaves? Pure evil? While I’m not a fan or any form of slavery, the slavery in the American South was an extremely evil form of slavery. It put effectively no limits on the brutality with which slaves could be treated. It didn’t allow slaves to accumulate property or buy their freedom. It didn’t really acknowledge that people who “looked like” slaves might be free and have legal rights. It allowed owners to sell their slaves even if that meant separating minor children from their mother, or husbands and wives. It didn’t recognize that slaves HAD relatives in any legal sense. Those are all unusual in the history of slavery, and all make US chattel slavery worse than, for instance, the slavery described in the old testament, or really, most slavery as practiced in most places around the world. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/233 "2018-12-08T19:18:31Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Of course there was an argument for it. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with it, but there is certainly an argument. Why can a group not leave an organization that it voluntarily joined? Is the United States a kind of Hotel California? You join the Army. A few months later, you decide you’re not enjoying it. So you tell your sergeant you’re quitting. Or you’ve been cast in a major motion picture. While the movie is being shot, you get word of another role. You tell the director you’ve decided not to finish the movie so you can go take this other role. Or you’ve been hired to drive a truck across country. Halfway across the country, you decide you don’t feel like driving anymore. So you leave the truck in a parking lot and walk away. In all these cases, you signed a contract and quitting in the middle of the job would be a breach of that contract. Now in all of these examples, there are probably ways in which you can bring up your desire to leave and negotiate an end to the contract. But you can’t just unilaterally decide to leave. You have obligations to the other party in the contract just as they have obligations to you. In a mutual legal agreement binding two parties together, both parties have to consent to a break up. And even if you have the right to quit anytime you want, you don’t have the right to set your workplace on fire. Even if the Confederacy had the legal right to secede and declare independence, the war didn’t start because of that. It started because the Confederacy declared war on the United States. If Canada had declared war on the United States, we would have fought against Canada. Why do people have such a hard time grasping why we fought against the Confederacy? Why do people want to pretend that the Confederate declaration of war was somehow not a factor in why the war started? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/234 "2018-12-08T23:01:15Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Of course there was an argument for it. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with it, but there is certainly an argument. Then make it for us. Enlighten us. What in the Constitution permits a state to secede unilaterally? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/235 "2018-12-08T23:34:34Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > I voted 4 > > yup. I wrestled with whether to vote 4 or 6. I think the southern cause was wrong, and was all about continuing one of the most heinous forms of slavery in history. But I think there was fault on the side of the North, too. I wrestled with whether the argument “they were both wrong” represents false equivalence or false balance. [I’ll let you decide](https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/false-equivalence-logical-fallacies/). ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/236 "2018-12-08T23:56:57Z")
Also: A majority of Americans in the run-up to U.S. involvement in WWII were against joining England in the fight against the Axis Powers (it took Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war on America for opinion to shift drastically). Does that mean in comparing anti-interventionist Americans and Nazis, we should say “Both sides were flawed”? \*I am not equating Confederates with Nazis. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/237 "2018-12-09T02:22:11Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You join the Army. A few months later, you decide you’re not enjoying it. So you tell your sergeant you’re quitting. > > Or you’ve been cast in a major motion picture. While the movie is being shot, you get word of another role. You tell the director you’ve decided not to finish the movie so you can go take this other role. > > Or you’ve been hired to drive a truck across country. Halfway across the country, you decide you don’t feel like driving anymore. So you leave the truck in a parking lot and walk away. > > In all these cases, you signed a contract and quitting in the middle of the job would be a breach of that contract. Now in all of these examples, there are probably ways in which you can bring up your desire to leave and negotiate an end to the contract. But you can’t just unilaterally decide to leave. You have obligations to the other party in the contract just as they have obligations to you. > > In a mutual legal agreement binding two parties together, both parties have to consent to a break up. In all of your examples, there is specified, either expressly or implied, a time certain duration to the length of the contract. That begs the question here as to whether the ratification of the Constitution means that you are required to remain in that union until the sun goes supernova. Further, in your examples, if the contract was breached, for example if you quit driving half way across the country, specific performance would not be ordered. You would owe the non-breaching party money damages, but nobody would force you at gunpoint to finish your drive. An apt analogy would be that secession was permitted but money would be owed to the other states to the extent that the national government paid for roads, bridges, post offices, forts, etc. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And even if you have the right to quit anytime you want, you don’t have the right to set your workplace on fire. Even if the Confederacy had the legal right to secede and declare independence, the war didn’t start because of that. It started because the Confederacy declared war on the United States. If Canada had declared war on the United States, we would have fought against Canada. Why do people have such a hard time grasping why we fought against the Confederacy? Why do people want to pretend that the Confederate declaration of war was somehow not a factor in why the war started? I think senoy has the better characterization of what happened that you do. I disagree that the Confederacy “declared war.” The south took the position that the federal troops had to leave and the north took the position that they did not, and indeed could not lest they give legitimacy to the idea of secession. Both sides were waving their dicks around. Lincoln sent a resupply ship to Ft. Sumter with instructions to turn away if refused, and right behind that ship was a supply ship and another with troops to fully staff the fort: creating a situation in which the south would have never taken it. Each side had a decent argument that the other started it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/238 "2018-12-09T02:32:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Then make it for us. Enlighten us. What in the Constitution permits a state to secede unilaterally? First, the Constitution is silent on the issue, so I don’t think the burden is on either side to prove its point by a preponderance of the evidence or otherwise. IOW, someone arguing for secession does not need to point to language permitting secession unilaterally. I mean, if you joined the Rotary Club, for example, there is no specified term of membership. I think you would be quite surprised if you tried to leave and were told that nothing in the charter permits it, therefore you must remain a member, and continue to pay dues, until the day you die. Obviously, governments are different, but this was an agreement between those who were previously sovereign in their own right. It is not unreasonable to think of the United States as an organization that since it was voluntary to join, it is equally voluntary to leave. Further, the 10th amendment reserves any power to a state not prohibited to it by the Constitution (it is silent on secession) or granted to the national government (does not apply), so a literal reading seems to permit it. I guess I would turn the question around and ask what provision of the Constitution prohibits secession. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/239 "2018-12-09T02:48:50Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > … > > I mean, if you joined the Rotary Club, for example, there is no specified term of membership. I think you would be quite surprised if you tried to leave and were told that nothing in the charter permits it, therefore you must remain a member, and continue to pay dues, until the day you die. … > . You are comparing Joining the Union to joining the Rotary Club…:rolleyes::eek: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/240 "2018-12-09T13:43:25Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > First, the Constitution is silent on the issue Except for everywhere it’s discussed. > [@](#): > > so I don’t think the burden is on either side to prove its point by a preponderance of the evidence or otherwise. YOU said “of course”. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I mean, if you joined the Rotary Club, for example, there is no specified term of membership. I think you would be quite surprised if you tried to leave and were told that nothing in the charter permits it, therefore you must remain a member, and continue to pay dues, until the day you die. Nothing forces you to pay dues or attend meetings. That’s a silly comparison. > [@](#): > > Obviously, governments are different, but this was an agreement between those who were previously sovereign in their own right. It is not unreasonable to think of the United States as an organization that since it was voluntary to join, it is equally voluntary to leave. It’s a contract with no rescission clause. You do have me wondering what law school you claim to have attended. > [@](#): > > Further, the 10th amendment reserves any power to a state not prohibited to it by the Constitution (it is silent on secession) Then it doesn’t apply. > [@](#): > > or granted to the national government (does not apply), so a literal reading seems to permit it. Huh? Clauses that you admit don’t apply nevertheless reach the conclusion you want? > [@](#): > > I guess I would turn the question around and ask what provision of the Constitution prohibits secession. Look up Texas v. White\* for a complete, and binding, explanation. It’s already been brought up\*, yanno. Do you wish to continue, or is it time to add to your Pit thread? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374.md?page=13)