"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[AndreusMaximus]

Makes sense.

Karl Marx and his followers were fans of lincoln as noted in his letter from January of 1865.

I just looked up an read Karl Marx's letter you reference.

Funny, not a single reference to tariffs or states' rights. All he talks about is slavery. Oh well, I guess back in those days they didn't have the enlightened understanding of the lost cause that we have nowadays, huh?

Okay, sorry, snarky jabs aside, I don't think it's fair to condemn Lincoln based on the fact that Marx took his side in the Civil War. Evil men are not typically evil in every single respect, and even if Marx's belief that the Civil War was primarily fought over slavery was a mistaken one, he was still right to condemn slavery, even if his condemnation of slavery is both twisted and ironic, given that his great life's work was to push for a new kind of slavery through the enslavement of the individual to the government under communism.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

A relevant example would be you make a contract with an agent. The agent then, through his actions, breaches the contract. You are now no longer bound to the contract breached by the agent.

Again, that's an argument I'm willing to give an ear to, though I see it as a separate and distinct line of reasoning from the argument that the Constitution reserved to states the right to secede.

The uncomfortable part comes when you try to narrow down exactly what the breaches in contract were that the Confederate States used as their justification for secession. So far in this thread, if my memory serves me, I've seen plenty of modern articles, and modern speakers, who list a variety of infractions on the part of the federal government in those times, but of sources from the actual time period I have seen exactly zero that offer as the primary justification anything other than the perceived right of the states to perpetuate the institution of slavery.

 

[BigRed]

given that his great life's work was to push for a new kind of slavery through the enslavement of the individual to the government under communism.

Much like lincoln did not destroy slavery.... it simply spread wider and further under a increasingly centralized government. It continues to do so to this day.

Little wonder marx admired him.

 

[HoughMade]

I might need a refresher in my memory on this one; but I think upthread someone mentioned the text of the ratification documents, and I had expressed some interest in hearing more details on this argument, but had to admit my ignorance of the text itself. If I recall, I did a quick search, but for some reason seemed to be having trouble finding the actual ratification documents.

Are there any particular states whose ratification documents you would recommend looking at first, and if so, a recommendation on a source to find them at?

If we're going to invoke legal theories that have nothing to do with Constitutional law, I'm going to apply the "four corners" doctrine to this "ratification document" argument.

 

[BigRed]

Again, that's an argument I'm willing to give an ear to, though I see it as a separate and distinct line of reasoning from the argument that the Constitution reserved to states the right to secede.

The uncomfortable part comes when you try to narrow down exactly what the breaches in contract were that the Confederate States used as their justification for secession. So far in this thread, if my memory serves me, I've seen plenty of modern articles, and modern speakers, who list a variety of infractions on the part of the federal government in those times, but of sources from the actual time period I have seen exactly zero that offer as the primary justification anything other than the perceived right of the states to perpetuate the institution of slavery.

The declaration of each of the seceding states is available at the Avalon Project maintained by Yale.

 

[BigRed]

If we're going to invoke legal theories that have nothing to do with Constitutional law, I'm going to apply the "four corners" doctrine to this "ratification document" argument.

Not necessary..... it is already covered in nine and ten.


The Ninth:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The idea that States were prohibited from walking away is an absolute joke.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Much like lincoln did not destroy slavery.... it simply spread wider and further under a increasingly centralized government. It continues to do so to this day.

Little wonder marx admired him.

Okay, as abhorrent as the government overreach we see in modern-day America is, surely you're not trying to make an honest comparison between that and the actual, literal slavery that blacks were subjected to in 1800's America, are you?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

If we're going to invoke legal theories that have nothing to do with Constitutional law, I'm going to apply the "four corners" doctrine to this "ratification document" argument.

But to be fair, if the ratification documents actually do say that the states can walk away from it at any time, don't we have to take that seriously?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The declaration of each of the seceding states is available at the Avalon Project maintained by Yale.

Thanks for the source! I don't have time this evening, but I shall look them up and read them before commenting further on this line of argument.

Are there any in particular that make it especially clear, which would be good to start out with?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Not necessary..... it is already covered in nine and ten.


The Ninth:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The idea that States were prohibited from walking away is an absolute joke.

So the Constitution really was meaningless from the get-go? What on earth good is even having a Constitution, or any sort of law, if all parties who supposedly agree to it, are free to start ignoring it the instant they feel the whim to?

 

[HoughMade]

Not necessary..... it is already covered in nine and ten.


The Ninth:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The idea that States were prohibited from walking away is an absolute joke.

That anyone thinks the 9th and 10th Amendments afford a "right" to secede is a joke. That is revisionist "history".

The Constitution that each and every state agreed to has a mechanism to join the Union and no mechanism to leave. They agreed to that. Claiming some vague right floating out there that no one talked about before they started to think about leaving is ludicrous.

...and the claim that federal overreach is equivalent to the actual enslavement of people is...fanciful...but a necessary position to take to maintain a fantasy view of the past, I guess.

 

[HoughMade]

Little wonder marx admired him.

This is pretty much the same argument that white supremacists like Trump, so Trump must be a white supremacist.

 

[BigRed]

That anyone thinks the 9th and 10th Amendments afford a "right" to secede is a joke. That is revisionist "history".

The Constitution that each and every state agreed to has a mechanism to join the Union and no mechanism to leave. They agreed to that. Claiming some vague right floating out there that no one talked about before they started to think about leaving is ludicrous.

...and the claim that federal overreach is equivalent to the actual enslavement of people is...fanciful...but a necessary position to take to maintain a fantasy view of the past, I guess.

The mechanism is right there in the 9th and 10th. ANY power not delegated to the central state is retained by the States.

Regarding slavery, it is a matter of degree.

When the fruit of one's labor is rendered from one by force at the barrel of a gun, one may call it what one wishes....but that person is living in a degree of slavery. Taxation of one's labor is slavery...it wasn't abolished...it was simply spread around.

 

[BigRed]

This is pretty much the same argument that white supremacists like Trump, so Trump must be a white supremacist.

I do not know if trump is a white supremacist. I would have to see evidence of it first.

Both marx and lincoln were centralizers.

 

[MinuteManMike]

Again, that's an argument I'm willing to give an ear to, though I see it as a separate and distinct line of reasoning from the argument that the Constitution reserved to states the right to secede.

The uncomfortable part comes when you try to narrow down exactly what the breaches in contract were that the Confederate States used as their justification for secession. So far in this thread, if my memory serves me, I've seen plenty of modern articles, and modern speakers, who list a variety of infractions on the part of the federal government in those times, but of sources from the actual time period I have seen exactly zero that offer as the primary justification anything other than the perceived right of the states to perpetuate the institution of slavery.

A little Google goes a long way.
UN-fortunately, I am disappointed that I seem to be in error that "a majority" did put that in their ratification documents. Of course, I believe certain parties edit "history" online ... I'd be interested in reading a book printed 100 years ago on the subject. I didn't look at all the states', yet.

Rhode Island's Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The documents pertaining to Rhode Island's ratification of the Constitution

www.usconstitution.net

III. That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.

Pretty straightforward. The whole thing is an interesting read. If you read most of the individual states' pages, the tone is the same anti-authoritative tone.

From NC's. Too bad that isn't in the US C:
12. That Congress shall not declare any state to be in rebellion, without the consent of at least two thirds of all the members present, in both houses.

Hard to do that if half your states left and don't show up.

 

[MinuteManMike]

I just looked up an read Karl Marx's letter you reference.

Funny, not a single reference to tariffs or states' rights. All he talks about is slavery. Oh well, I guess back in those days they didn't have the enlightened understanding of the lost cause that we have nowadays, huh?

Okay, sorry, snarky jabs aside, I don't think it's fair to condemn Lincoln based on the fact that Marx took his side in the Civil War. Evil men are not typically evil in every single respect, and even if Marx's belief that the Civil War was primarily fought over slavery was a mistaken one, he was still right to condemn slavery, even if his condemnation of slavery is both twisted and ironic, given that his great life's work was to push for a new kind of slavery through the enslavement of the individual to the government under communism.

I don't give a lick about Marx' or Stalin's words. The Commies have always lied to get power under the guise of no one having power. Why would you ever give their words credit?

 

[MinuteManMike]

Again, that's an argument I'm willing to give an ear to, though I see it as a separate and distinct line of reasoning from the argument that the Constitution reserved to states the right to secede.

The uncomfortable part comes when you try to narrow down exactly what the breaches in contract were that the Confederate States used as their justification for secession. So far in this thread, if my memory serves me, I've seen plenty of modern articles, and modern speakers, who list a variety of infractions on the part of the federal government in those times, but of sources from the actual time period I have seen exactly zero that offer as the primary justification anything other than the perceived right of the states to perpetuate the institution of slavery.

I hope I can dig up an article that addresses you last point. I don't recall where I read it, though. The jist was that the South felt compelled to not make any argument except slavery for a very good reason.

 

[MinuteManMike]

If we're going to invoke legal theories that have nothing to do with Constitutional law, I'm going to apply the "four corners" doctrine to this "ratification document" argument.

How can you say the ratifications have nothing to do with the Constitution? It's the "signature" on the "contract".

 

[MinuteManMike]

Okay, as abhorrent as the government overreach we see in modern-day America is, surely you're not trying to make an honest comparison between that and the actual, literal slavery that blacks were subjected to in 1800's America, are you?

I will. If you were ever able to compute the burden from regulations and taxes, it's likely well over half for anyone not on the government teats. That makes the involuntary servitude a question of degree and it's a valid point. Whereas slaves could and did buy their way out. Considering how much slaves cost, that doesn't sound very oppressive to me.

But no matter how much you earn, you can't ever buy your way out of every owing taxes again. So you could literally spend 3/4 of your life as a slave. Different when you think of it that way.

Doubtful to be a popular opinion, but I think many slaves probably did far better as a slave than scraping by in the aftermath of Lincoln's butchery. And they certainly lived better as slaves than they did in Africa.

Mohammed Ali said after seeing Africa for himself: "I'm glad my granddaddy got on that boat."

But I also think military conscription is slavery, which isn't a popular opinion either.

 

[BigRed]

Again, that's an argument I'm willing to give an ear to, though I see it as a separate and distinct line of reasoning from the argument that the Constitution reserved to states the right to secede.

The uncomfortable part comes when you try to narrow down exactly what the breaches in contract were that the Confederate States used as their justification for secession. So far in this thread, if my memory serves me, I've seen plenty of modern articles, and modern speakers, who list a variety of infractions on the part of the federal government in those times, but of sources from the actual time period I have seen exactly zero that offer as the primary justification anything other than the perceived right of the states to perpetuate the institution of slavery.

If you go back and read John C. Calhoun's "A Disquisition on Government" you may gain a clearer understanding of what led certain States to walk away. Calhoun saw it coming decades before.