On Preservation of the Union at Any Cost

[Kutnupe14]

You've completely missed his point.

Maybe I did. I'd appreciate someone enlightening me how the understanding of the word "slavery" is "complicated," and in any way comparable to abortion. What, is there some form of involuntary bondage, that requires the enslavement of people due to the health of the mother?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't even know why I bother, but just in case there is someone with an open mind reading this: South Carolina gave a declaration of the numerous causes that led them to secede. The entire text can be found here.

Here is a summary of the many and varied reasons that they listed:

1) The Northern states are refusing to return escaped slaves and the federal government isn't doing anything to force them to.

2) The Northern states are encouraging slaves to escape and the federal government isn't doing anything to stop them.

3) The Northern states are elevating former slaves to the status of citizenship.

4) The government is appointing judges that want to end slavery.

5) The Northern states have permitted the existence of abolitionist societies that want to end slavery.

6) Finally, they have elected a man President that has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,"

Yes, as you can see, they had a whole bunch of reasons, but none of them involve tariffs. You can also see how much they truly loved states' rights considering how first on their list of complaints is that the federal government isn't forcing the Northern states to return the escaped slaves. You can also see how much they loved individual liberties since they are also upset at the mere existence of voluntary abolitionist societies.

The same with Mississippi.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession

The list their main reason of secession as slavery. So that's 2 that make no bones about why they left the union. Who gots the next state? Texas anyone?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Texas someone said? Oh, look, slavery and White Supremacy is front and center in the Texas ordinance. Huh, who would have thought that?

Texas Ordinance of Secession

BTW, the Texas state museum is a great place to visit. But they put this right up front in the Civil War section as Texas knows why the South fought the Civil War, to defend slavery (and Sam Houston called them fools):

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquillity and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

 

[rob63]

Georgia on my Mind

The first few sentences:

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic"

Once again, those darned Northern states doing what they want with our slaves and the Federal Government not forcing them to do what we want.

 

[rob63]

Arkansas

[FONT=&amp]RESOLUTIONS[/FONT]​

[FONT=&amp]
Passed by the Convention of the People of [/FONT][FONT=&amp]Arkansas[/FONT][FONT=&amp], on the 20th day of March[/FONT][FONT=&amp], 1861.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&amp]We, the people of the State of Arkansas, in Convention as*sembled, in view of the unfortunate and distracted condition of our once happy and prosperous country, and of the alarming dissensions existing between the Northern and Southern sec*tions thereof, and desiring that a fair and equitable adjustment of the same may be made, do hereby declare the following to be just causes of complaint on the part of the people of the Southern States against their brethren of the Northern, or non-slave*holding States:[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]1. [/FONT][FONT=&amp]The people of the Northern States have organized a poli*tical party, purely sectional in its character, the central and controlling idea of which is hostility to the institution of African slavery, as it exists in the Southern States; and that party has elected a President and Vice President of the United States, pledged to administer the Government upon principles inconsist*ent with the rights and subversive of the interests of the Southern States.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]2. [/FONT][FONT=&amp]They have denied to the people of the Southern States the right to an equal participation in the benefits of the common Territories of the [/FONT][FONT=&amp]Union[/FONT][FONT=&amp] by refusing them the same protection to their slave property therein that is afforded to other property, and by declaring that no more slave States shall be admitted into the [/FONT][FONT=&amp]Union[/FONT][FONT=&amp]. They have, by their prominent men and lead*ers, declared the doctrine of the irrepressible conflict, or the as*sertion of the principle that the institution of slavery is incom*patible with freedom, and that both cannot exist at once; that this continent must be wholly free or wholly slave. They have, in one or more instances, refused to surrender negro thieves to the constitutional demand of the constituted authority of a sove*reign State.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]3. [/FONT][FONT=&amp]They have declared that Congress possesses, under the Constitution, and ought to exercise, the power to abolish slavery in the Territories, in the [/FONT][FONT=&amp]District of Columbia[/FONT][FONT=&amp], and in the forts, arsenals and dock-yards of the [/FONT][FONT=&amp]United States[/FONT][FONT=&amp], within the limits of the slaveholding States.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]4. [/FONT][FONT=&amp]They have, in disregard of their constitutional obligations, obstructed the faithful execution of the fugitive slave laws by enactments of their State Legislatures.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]5. [/FONT][FONT=&amp]They have denied the citizens of Southern States the right, of transit through non-slaveholding States with their slaves, and the right to hold them while temporarily sojourning therein.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]6. [/FONT][FONT=&amp]They have degraded American citizens by placing them upon an equality with negroes at the ballot-box.[/FONT]

 

[spencer rifle]

A look at the differences between the US and Confederate Constitutions is enlightening.
Constitution of the Confederate States of America- what was changed?

The main differences that are not procedural have to do with slaves, especially Article 1, Section 9.

 

[Compatriot G]

Maybe I did. I'd appreciate someone enlightening me how the understanding of the word "slavery" is "complicated," and in any way comparable to abortion. What, is there some form of involuntary bondage, that requires the enslavement of people due to the health of the mother?

Let me see if I can help you, Kut.

Slavery was a hot button topic of its day. It was divisive. There were many opinions on the topic. It was used as a political football by politicians.

Abortion is a hot button topic today. It is divisive. There are many opinions on the topic. It is used as a political football by politicians.

As an example, in 1860 if I said slavery should be abolished, I would be met different opinions on the subject. I would have some in slave states screaming that slavery is legal. I have no business telling them what they can do with their property. I need to mind my own business and worry about things in my state.

Today, if I say abortion should be prohibited, I will be met with different opinions on the subject. I will have liberal women screaming abortion is legal. I have no business telling them what they can do with their body. I need to mind my own business and worry about myself.

In 1860, if I said slavery should be abolished, abolitionists would agree with me. They would say slavery is immoral. They would use the Bible to support their position. They would say it is a heinous practice that must be stopped.

Today, if I say abortion should be stopped, pro-life people would agree with me. They would say abortion is immoral. They would use the Bible to support their position. They would say it is a heinous practice that must be stopped.

I could go on, but I hope you understand better where I was going with the comparison.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Sweet Georgia, and Arkansas all leaving the Union over slavery?

Do you think this is a pattern or something?

Should we look at other states?

 

[rambone]

Slavery "wasn't cut and dry"? And how is abortion even related to the issue. Are you say that there is ever a time when the enslavement of a human being ISN'T wrong?

People have a tendency to rationalize evil when everybody is doing it. Even today. Abortion is not a bad analogy.

Have you ever heard someone make the following argument? "If you don't like what cops are doing, change the law."

Let's brainstorm to think of something that police do that is WRONG. Here's one: breaking down doors and imprisoning people for growing plants. I think it is appalling. But it is the cultural norm, legal, and accepted by the majority.

The same happened with slavery for six thousand years -- all over the world. It was the cultural norm, legal, and accepted by the majority. Owning slaves was celebrated as a status symbol!!

It was always morally wrong, but that conclusion comes from a philosophy that was rejected by the world.

 

[rambone]

South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Sweet Georgia, and Arkansas all leaving the Union over slavery?

Do you think this is a pattern or something?

Should we look at other states?

The confederate states left. They could have left for any reason. They could have formed a monarchy, or a communist state, or a dictatorship, a feudalist society. They could have rejoined the British. They could have formed another republic identical to the USA. They could have been slavers or sovereign citizens. They could have upheld their traditional laws or made radical new ones.

It is irrelevant. Its their nation, their destiny, their problem. Good bye and good luck!

The remaining Americans could barely control the corruption of their own government, let alone dictate the morality a foreign country.

 

[HoughMade]

I kinda think it would be fun to get the neo-confederates in the same room with the agitators for latter-day slave reparations and let them discuss, ad nauseum, why rehashing 150+ year old events is so exciting.

Anyhoo,

Still looking for some cites:

- If the founders put an explicit "how to join the Union" clause in the Constitution? Why not a "how to unjoin the Union" clause? (if your answer in any way resembles: "it was so obvious that it didn't even NEED to be stated," go sit in the corner)
- I would like to see some citations to the inalienable right to secession from the time around the debate of, adoption and ratification of the Constitution.
- If Congress must consent for a state to join the Union and partake of the benefits (why else would it join?) then why wouldn't Congressional consent be needed for it to unjoin?

I know that confining a debate to the Constitution, you know, the one the States all pledged to follow, protect and defend, is not as exciting as rights and privileges that float around in the ether.

So how do one "dissolve the political bands" if secession isn't legal? (tortured silence=law arguments aside) We have actual history to demonstrate that...but you have to win.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The confederate states left. They could have left for any reason. They could have formed a monarchy, or a communist state, or a dictatorship, a feudalist society.

1. Where is this Constitutional authority to leave the Union coming from? The penumbra?

2. If the CSA could leave the USA, why couldn't areas of the CSA leave the CSA?

I know that confining a debate to the Constitution, you know, the one the States all pledged to follow, protect and defend, is not as exciting as rights and privileges that float around in the ether.

Does your temerity know any bounds?

Confining the debate to reality to unINGO as you can get.

 

[steveh_131]

I know that confining a debate to the Constitution, you know, the one the States all pledged to follow, protect and defend, is not as exciting as rights and privileges that float around in the ether.

Did you read the articles of secession?

One of the huge complaints centered around the failure of the northern states to adhere to their constitutional duties. Those duties were certainly related to slavery, but the issue is a much larger one than slavery.

So the constitution that the states all pledged to follow was not being followed by those states, and the southern states saw this as (for lack of a better word) a breach of contract.

From the articles quoted up above:

and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us

Contract law: If one party breaches their end of the contract, is the other party still held to the terms of that contract?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Did you read the articles of secession?

One of the huge complaints centered around the failure of the northern states to adhere to their constitutional duties. Those duties were certainly related to slavery, but the issue is a much larger one than slavery.

So the constitution that the states all pledged to follow was not being followed by those states, and the southern states saw this as (for lack of a better word) a breach of contract.

From the articles quoted up above:


Contract law: If one party breaches their end of the contract, is the other party still held to the terms of that contract?

Which articles of secession?

 

[steveh_131]

Which articles of secession?

Several of them talk about the failure of the fellow members of the Union to adhere to the constitution. Take your pick.

 

[rambone]

- If the founders put an explicit "how to join the Union" clause in the Constitution? Why not a "how to unjoin the Union" clause? (if your answer in any way resembles: "it was so obvious that it didn't even NEED to be stated," go sit in the corner)
- I would like to see some citations to the inalienable right to secession from the time around the debate of, adoption and ratification of the Constitution.
- If Congress must consent for a state to join the Union and partake of the benefits (why else would it join?) then why wouldn't Congressional consent be needed for it to unjoin?

Yes, it is abundantly clear that the founding fathers believed in secession. They declared it with a piece of paper.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If a government has reached a level or oppression that makes people want to secede, do you really think it is prudent to ask the oppressors for permission? Does that even make sense to you? Do you think the colonists should have waited around for permission to leave Britain???

So how do one "dissolve the political bands" if secession isn't legal?

If officially passing acts of secession through state congress isn't good enough, then nothing is. The American solution is to kill those who want to leave.

1. Where is this Constitutional authority to leave the Union coming from? The penumbra?

9th and 10th Amendment.

If you believe the Interstate Commerce Clause gives the Feds the power to enact gun control, surely you can discover the obvious implications of the following statement.

"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."

2. If the CSA could leave the USA, why couldn't areas of the CSA leave the CSA?

I would defend those secessions as well.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Several of them talk about the failure of the fellow members of the Union to adhere to the constitution. Take your pick.

I don't see how that would discount slavery as being the main cause of secession, especially when it was repeat so often, and the CSA constitution references it multiple times. A constitution that actually had built into it, several restrictions on states that had not existed before.
Another telling thing that IMO, illustrates how important the slave issue was, are the things that happened directly following the war. Rather than address the other gripes they had with the federal govt, after Reconstruction, they focused on one thing; the subjugation of the black populace. All across the South, blacks were kept in check with Jim crow, black codes, the Klan, and share cropping. Southern govts had quite a successful "end around" federal law. If slavery wasn't the main issue for the war, then why did ex-slaves become the main issue afterwards.... with nary the enthusiasm concerning the other issues the listed?

 

[rambone]

I don't see how that would discount slavery as being the main cause of secession, especially when it was repeat so often, and the CSA constitution references it multiple times.

What say you to this post?

The confederate states left. They could have left for any reason. They could have formed a monarchy, or a communist state, or a dictatorship, a feudalist society. They could have rejoined the British. They could have formed another republic identical to the USA. They could have been slavers or sovereign citizens. They could have upheld their traditional laws or made radical new ones.

It is irrelevant. Its their nation, their destiny, their problem. Good bye and good luck!

The remaining Americans could barely control the corruption of their own government, let alone dictate the morality a foreign country.

 

[steveh_131]

I don't see how that would discount slavery as being the main cause of secession, especially when it was repeat so often, and the CSA constitution references it multiple times. A constitution that actually had built into it, several restrictions on states that had not existed before.
Another telling thing that IMO, illustrates how important the slave issue was, are the things that happened directly following the war. Rather than address the other gripes they had with the federal govt, after Reconstruction, they focused on one thing; the subjugation of the black populace. All across the South, blacks were kept in check with Jim crow, black codes, the Klan, and share cropping. Southern govts had quite a successful "end around" federal law. If slavery wasn't the main issue for the war, then why did ex-slaves become the main issue afterwards.... with nary the enthusiasm concerning the other issues the listed?

I'm agreeing with you that slavery was the inciting factor in this instance. But it was more of a symptom than a cause. The cause was an outright disregard for the constitution and state sovereignty. This disregard manifested itself in the issue of slavery because it was critical to their economy at the time.

Our nation was created on the very foundation of secession, when our founding fathers seceded from their nation. For them, it was about taxes, quartering soldiers, and other important issues at the time - but those issues were indicative of a general disregard for personal liberty and fair representation on the part of the British government. Nobody here really thinks it was all about Tea, do we?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm agreeing with you that slavery was the inciting factor in this instance. But it was more of a symptom than a cause. The cause was an outright disregard for the constitution and state sovereignty. This disregard manifested itself in the issue of slavery because it was critical to their economy at the time.

Our nation was created on the very foundation of secession, when our founding fathers seceded from their nation. For them, it was about taxes, quartering soldiers, and other important issues at the time - but those issues were indicative of a general disregard for personal liberty and fair representation on the part of the British government. Nobody here really thinks it was all about Tea, do we?

If you want strengthen your case concerning secession, insofar in proving that the South didn't need permission to leave, the best example I could think of would be Texas. Texas obvious seceded by force of arms, from Mexico. Mexico never relinquished its claim, and yet the U.S. recognized it, and eventually took it in without any qualms.