AndreusMaximus
Master
Wait, couldn't they? Did any of them try? Where was it prohibited?Why couldn't Tennessee leave the Union of the CSA then?
Why did the Union of the CSA prohibit a state from prohibiting slavery?
Wait, couldn't they? Did any of them try? Where was it prohibited?Why couldn't Tennessee leave the Union of the CSA then?
Why did the Union of the CSA prohibit a state from prohibiting slavery?
Have you read the CSA constitution?Wait, couldn't they? Did any of them try? Where was it prohibited?
As far as I can tell the confederate constitution forbids outlawing slavery in territories that are not yet states, and forbids the confederate government from outlawing slavery, but I don't think it forbade states themselves from outlawing slavery? I'm not sure on this. Of course, though, the confederate constitution, like virtually all the writings and speeches from both sides at the time, make it abundantly clear that the foremost purpose of the confederate states in seceding was to preserve and protect slavery, but I think that's something that everyone has acknowledged at this point, and we're just debating the legalities of secession itself. And on that note, since the confederate constitution makes no mention of secession, and their argument at the time was supposedly that since the USA constitution doesn't mention secession it must be one of those powers left to the state, I guess the same would apply to the confederate states? It would have been real interesting to know what would have happened if one of them had tried it, though...
That's another book, written by an IU professor.It's almost like there was a concerted effort to recast the cause of the confederacy into a noble lost cause of some sort.....
Why could counties in the Southern states not leave the CSA?
Why could a Southern state not leave the CSA?
Why could a Southern state not prohibit slavery?
The writings of the Southern Historical Society get quoted verbatim by people that I doubt even know where it all originated. Jubal Early would be proud.It's almost like there was a concerted effort to recast the cause of the confederacy into a noble lost cause of some sort.....
Because only when associated with the US did states actually have states rights. Under the confederacy there was no such thing.Why couldn't Tennessee leave the Union of the CSA then?
Why couldn't Jones County secede from Mississippi?
Why did the Union of the CSA prohibit a state from prohibiting slavery?
The influence of the abolitionist on Congress's Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War is often overlooked when evaluating Lincoln. It was powerful enough that even the Union Generals pretty much caved into its demands. I tend to agree with you that as the war went on, he learned quite a bit and also grew in stature to the point that he could counterbalance the more radical elements in Congress. Ironically, Booth put them back in the driver's seat to fashion reconstruction which only led to further problems down the road.I don't see Lincoln as tyrant, but more as a politician in a new party being carried away by foolish rhetoric and not having the courage or maybe the ability to change direction. He did speak to the best military man available and sound his opinions. Winfield Scott understood early on that the war would be long and costly, just based on the logistics involved in projecting the power needed to achieve victory into the southern states. He also understood that it was going to have a huge butchers bill, just looking at the people involved and the advances in military technology. That Lincoln chose to follow the advice of abolitionists who thought that the war was just going to be a matter of marching to Richmond and planting a flag was one of the many tragic mistakes of the conflict.
I would like to think that he learned something as the war went on and that it had an affect on his decision to simply bring the vanquished southerners back into the union rather than persecute them for treason. I see him as a rather poor president early in his term, but improving.
It would take some exceptional leaders to have done that but I think you’re right about that as an outcome. The aristocrats conned the poor southerners into fighting for slavery under the guise of states rights.For me the only lost cause of the south was their agrarian economy being left behind by technology and society. They needed to change direction and needed assistance in doing that. Regardless of the moral aspect of the "particular institution" slaves were simply agricultural machinery, an asset paid for by the plantation owner to do a job. Getting past the fact that slaves were human beings they were to the southern economy the same thing as a tractor or combine today. Keeping the moral question in mind, northern leadership before Lincoln really should have approached this by helping Americans living in the southern states to change their economy rather than demonizing the group as a whole as not everybody owned slaves or were involved in that business. Once states rights was linked to slavery by John Calhoun, this became much harder.
While it's easy to say why should northerners help southerners change thier backward economy, we have to consider that a long, bloody, expensive war was the alternative. Only American lives were lost, and only American property was destroyed.
John Calhoun started his political career by hitching his wagon to big government proponents like John Quincy Adams. It wasn’t until he was criticized by Southern leaders tjat he decided his career needed a change, and then he became an advocate of states rights out of necessity.I am not convinced Calhoun's argument for states rights was based upon slavery.
I do think Calhoun understood the folly of expecting a central state to adhere to its limited delegated powers.
He made his position quite clear in his "A Disquisition of Government" which is well worth the read and study.
While I may disagree, what does that say for big government?John Calhoun started his political career by hitching his wagon to big government proponents like John Quincy Adams. It wasn’t until he was criticized by Southern leaders tjat he decided his career needed a change, and then he became an advocate of states rights out of necessity.
Calhoun spent time arguing in support of states rights, yes, but not until it became clear he’d lose his prominence as a leader if he didn’t. He dropped his fantasy of big government like a used rubber because of political expedience and not because he was a true believer in states rights. He also argued in the senate that slavery was a benefit to all. He was pro slavery and fiercely defended it.
John Calhoun didn’t give a rat’s ass about states rights other than the South’s “right” to allow rich men to own people.
While I may disagree, what does that say for big government?
We both agree that big government sucks.While I may disagree, what does that say for big government?
There are a great many genuine issues with how the Federal government under Lincoln prosecuted the war. The gradual shift from a conciliatory policy to one of a hard war is well documented and makes for fascinating reading. I'm not sure I even agree with the idea that restoring the Union was worth the cost in the first place; it kind of falls into the realm of how many people are you willing to kill while on a morale crusade? Questions that are tough to answer even in hindsight. It is what makes history so enjoyable to study.