Originally Posted by Mustang

So the people's representatives, caucusing by state, ratified it. State is not necessarily synonymous with state government. The ratification count was kept according to state. As Reese correctly stated, "[T]he sovereign states created the federal government, not the reverse, as some today seem to assume." Indeed. The People of the sovereign states, meeting by state, created the federal government.

You point out yourself that the state government is not synonymous with the state, and yet you insist that the state government be the agent of change. Do you not see a contradiction here?

States are not sovereign any more than the Federal Government was. Human beings are sovereign, endowed so by the Creator by virtue of the capacities of our bodies, minds, and souls. The state governments, as the federal government, were created by the will of human beings. Whether an issue is to be dealt with by state governments, or the Federal government, or extraordinary convention, or even trial by combat, is the decision of sovereign human beings.

The plantation owners favored a state government solution. The northerners (including abolitionists and industrial interests) desired a federal government solution. (Each side did so for economic reasons.) Both sides refused extraordinary conventions. The Southern state governments (plantation-controlled) opted to permanently vacate the use of the Federal government and go play by themselves. The Federal government, in the person of Lincoln, challenged their right to do so and proposed trial by combat. The Southerners very foolishly accepted, and so by honor had to accept the results of that trial -- even once they realized they had erred.

Honor was only lost when, on the one hand, the Republicans abandoned any actual Reconstruction in favor of the rape and pillage of the South, and on the other when N. B. Forrest and company disclaimed their sovereign oaths and formed the Ku Klux Klan in response.

Of course, the small farms and businesses on either side of the conflict were not consulted on any of this (though a show of consultation was made on both sides, more credibly on the North's than the South's.)

Mr. Saari, perhaps you might have a say here? The discussion appears to now be within line of sight of the Mesabi...

Originally Posted by catfishncod

You point out yourself that the state government is not synonymous with the state, and yet you insist that the state government be the agent of change. Do you not see a contradiction here?

I agreed with you that the state was the agent of change (state conventions), not the state governments. There is no contradiction here.

The Southern state governments (plantation-controlled) opted to permanently vacate the use of the Federal government and go play by themselves.

Actually, secession conventions (not state governments), meeting by states, mirroring the earlier state ratification conventions, determined to secede from the Union, just as the thirteen original colonies had determined to secede from the British Empire a saeculum earlier.

The Federal government, in the person of Lincoln, challenged their right to do so and proposed trial by combat. The Southerners very foolishly accepted,

It is foolish to repel an invader? I think not. The thirteen original states had to repel British invaders after seceding from the Empire and, likewise, the Confederate states had to repel Northern invaders after seceding from the Union. The former succeeded and the latter failed. I really cannot blame either party for trying.

and so by honor had to accept the results of that trial -- even once they realized they had erred.

They had not erred in upholding the constitutional order the Founding Fathers had established in the face of Whig-Republican revisionism, so I am not sure what you are talking about. An honorable person ought not accept a lie.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

States are not sovereign any more than the Federal Government was. Human beings are sovereign, endowed so by the Creator by virtue of the capacities of our bodies, minds, and souls. The state governments, as the federal government, were created by the will of human beings. Whether an issue is to be dealt with by state governments, or the Federal government, or extraordinary convention, or even trial by combat, is the decision of sovereign human beings.

I'll grant you are correct in a moral sense in that the power of the government ought properly be derived from the people.

But you are creating a non-standard definition of sovereign. In the Founding Father's day, the states were considered sovereign, in that they held all powers that might rightfully be held by a government. The federal government was not sovereign, holding only those powers yielded by the states.

Somehow, that got lost, over the years. At this point, the federal level of government seems to have become effectively sovereign.

In general, on Civil War issues, I find the North was morally correct, while the South was legally correct. The Constitution was written to protect slavery. I will argue firmly that the southern states had the power to secede. Nowhere does the Constitution grant any federal entity the power to approve or deny secession. The Xth Amendment says any power not specifically delegated to the federal government is retained by the states and the People. The southern state legislators generally called for constitutional conventions, whose delegates were selected by the People to decide the question of secession. Thus, the states and the People were exercising a power that should have been rightfully theirs.

Alas, it turned into trial by combat. I am not confident, however, that said trial by combat overturned the Xth Amendment. Should a state secede today, would the Supreme Court buy into Lincoln's argument that a 'more perfect union' is necessarily eternal? They really shouldn't. Perfect equals eternal is a stretch which should not void the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the precedents set in 1776. The preambles to a constitution are generally considered a statement of purpose, not binding law. They may be used as an aid to interpreting the rest of the document, but one shouldn't base a legal argument on the preamble alone.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'll grant you are correct in a moral sense in that the power of the government ought properly be derived from the people.

But you are creating a non-standard definition of sovereign. In the Founding Father's day, the states were considered sovereign, in that they held all powers that might rightfully be held by a government. The federal government was not sovereign, holding only those powers yielded by the states.

Somehow, that got lost, over the years. At this point, the federal level of government seems to have become effectively sovereign.

In general, on Civil War issues, I find the North was morally correct, while the South was legally correct. The Constitution was written to protect slavery. I will argue firmly that the southern states had the power to secede. Nowhere does the Constitution grant any federal entity the power to approve or deny secession. The Xth Amendment says any power not specifically delegated to the federal government is retained by the states and the People. The southern state legislators generally called for constitutional conventions, whose delegates were selected by the People to decide the question of secession. Thus, the states and the People were exercising a power that should have been rightfully theirs.

Alas, it turned into trial by combat. I am not confident, however, that said trial by combat overturned the Xth Amendment. Should a state secede today, would the Supreme Court buy into Lincoln's argument that a 'more perfect union' is necessarily eternal? They really shouldn't. Perfect equals eternal is a stretch which should not void the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the precedents set in 1776. The preambles to a constitution are generally considered a statement of purpose, not binding law. They may be used as an aid to interpreting the rest of the document, but one shouldn't base a legal argument on the preamble alone.

Bob, I commend you. That has to be about the most honest interpretation from a contemporary Northerner I have ever seen. Thank you. If the Bush administration (and their successors) should continue the current fascistic centralizing trend, I suspect that a lot more Northerners will begin to appreciate what the Southern states were really fighting for. There is hope that North and South may eventually see eye to eye on that unfortunate episode.

Originally Posted by jeil

... So now maybe we could talk about the current Presidential election and how we will march toward Civil War II over the next decade or two.

What will be the causes listed by future historians?

My list would start with slavery; the enslavement, control and plunder by government and those privileged few controlling the politicians of the subservient majority. If you understand what the distribution of wealth on a Southern plantation you might recognize that the current system of laws brings us closer and closer to that same skewed distribution.

OK, I think most of us agree that the few have taken excessive advantage. The main bone of contention is how. Note that this has been a conservative era, from roughly 1968 through the present. The privilege that's fallen to the few has been enabled by that philosophy, so looking there for salvation is questionable.

Originally Posted by jeil

Next would be taxation far in excess of even that pre American Revolution.

H-m-m-m. Taxation prior to the ARW was very small in comparison to today. Of course, what you got for your taxes was even less. Maybe quantity of dollars is less important than rate of return.

Originally Posted by jeil

Next would be the collapse of the economic system, end of the industrial age, and massive death associated with inadequate food and shelter, simply from lack of oil and any suitable substitute to fuel even the minimum production upon which life is dependent.

Sorry, I'm not a doomster, but that doesn't mean I expect easy sailing. We've taken the wrong path for a long time, and getting straight will be painful. I doubt it will mean TEOTWAWKI.

Originally Posted by jeil

Racial divisions which in good times were tolerable, but which when survival becomes an issue will become the basis for group alliances and rivalry. Look at the division in Iraq today.

Here we agree. Nothing makes for disharmony like deprivation .. even if it's of the mild sort.

Originally Posted by jeil

Basic political division between those who want personal independence and those who desire to give up freedom in favor of being taken care of by collective actions of rulers.

H-m-m-m. The second group is bigger than the first, since the second includes the welfare chiselers on the bottom and the rent seekers on the top. I'll bet that those who would eschew assistance of any kind is below 25%.

Originally Posted by jeil

The only difference that could possibly come out of the 2008 election would be that if someone like Ron Paul (Republican) or Kent McManigal (Libertarian) by some miracle happened to win. Neither could likely erase the energy future, but could possibly unwind the current system of slavery and high taxation in time, both of which now make survival more difficulty for the majority. All other candidates advocate essentially an continuation of the current system or worse.

Here we differ widely. I believe that taxation and public spending, if managed properly, create investments with returns far in excess of costs. Education is the obviousl case, but look at the benefit of subsidized transportation, as another long-term example.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the railroads made the country financially viable as a nation, even though much of the tax money found its way into private hands. The road system that followed and the airports and urban public transportation all increased the ability of Americans to produce wealth. Without those public investments, many more of us would be farmers and cattle ranchers, manual tradesmen and small-time merchants. That's not to diminish any of those fields, but they could never be the basis for the colossus of a nation we are today. You can argue whether that is good or bad.

Originally Posted by jeil

And while highly unlikely from a science point of view, it is very remotely possible that, if we set loose the free market, someone might discover or invent something that would substitute for the absence of sufficient oil. With government solutions we don't stand much of a chance; let me remind you of Katrina and FEMA or the war in Iraq if you are thinking government will solve the energy dilemma.

Let me remind you of the Manhattan Project and NASA. Can you show anyway either effort could have been undertaken by the private sector ... with its own money?

You have a short and narrow view.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Actually, secession conventions (not state governments), meeting by states, mirroring the earlier state ratification conventions, determined to secede from the Union, just as the thirteen original colonies had determined to secede from the British Empire a saeculum earlier.

I'm certain South Carolina did as you state; I should check the others, as I was under the impression that other states did not use secession conventions.

It is foolish to repel an invader? I think not.

Fort Sumter was not invaded by the North. The South Carolina state government took the resupply of Sumter as an act of war and fired. Sumter was not, at that time, enforcing any blockade, and Lincoln had not issued orders to do so: that would make the North the de jure aggressor. As long as SC maintained cannon aimed at Sumter negotiations to evacuate Sumter and/or secure a different sort of Union could have been conducted.

My point, which you keep evading, is that South Carolina wanted to fight. They then propagandized "Northern aggression" successfully to the rest of the Confederacy.

As Bob points out, the Tenth Amendment would indeed secure the right of secession. Had South Carolina appealed that to the Supreme Court they would have gotten an answer Lincoln would not have liked. But oh no, they were in too damned much of a hurry. And the point of the right of secession has still not been established de jure; no one wants to try poking that scabbed boil because it's still full of pus.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Bob, I commend you. That has to be about the most honest interpretation from a contemporary Northerner I have ever seen. Thank you. If the Bush administration (and their successors) should continue the current fascistic centralizing trend, I suspect that a lot more Northerners will begin to appreciate what the Southern states were really fighting for. There is hope that North and South may eventually see eye to eye on that unfortunate episode.

Consider it my gift to the South. In general, I'll defend most of the decentralized power limited government legal principles championed by the South. I don't think North and South will see eye to eye, though, so long as Southerners try to neglect or minimize the role of slavery in causing the conflict. The legal principles were and remain important, but the South would never have exercised those legal principles, there would never have been reason to fight over them, had the institution of slavery not been present.

The tariff issue was settled by amiable compromise the year before the secessions. It was not on the agenda at all as the war started. So long as southerners lie about the importance of slavery to the South, northerners are apt to assume the rest of their arguments are equally bogus.

I do see today's corporate interest, militarism, an unchecked executive branch, and a campaign finance system which basically legalizes bribery as nigh on breaking our current government. While the next round of elections is apt to tone down the militarism considerably, the Democrats are nigh on as bad as the Republicans with respect to the other issues. They are not apt to create the sort of 'new birth of freedom' one expects in a 4T, and we need a new birth of freedom.

I should not be surprised, ten or twenty years down stream, as it becomes ever more apparent that our government is broken, to see the states and the People calling for a constitutional convention, secession, or both.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

"Southern perspective".

Some of the most succient and clear-headed thinking I've ever seen on these long-standing American issues.

I hope you keep up the "once more into the breach" effort!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'll grant you are correct in a moral sense in that the power of the government ought properly be derived from the people.

But you are creating a non-standard definition of sovereign. In the Founding Father's day, the states were considered sovereign, in that they held all powers that might rightfully be held by a government. The federal government was not sovereign, holding only those powers yielded by the states.

The federal government did indeed hold only those powers yielded by the states. My point was that the states did not yield those powers willingly, in the nature of a contract between governments.

The European Union is the sort of confederacy you and Mustang are talking about, a non-sovereign compact between sovereign states. Most consultations are made between member state governments; there is a popularly elected Parliament (=H. of R.) that approves the budget, but most of the real work is done in the Council (=Senate) and the Commission (=President and Cabinet), which are appointed by the states. In the antebellum Government, much was done by the states' appointed representatives in the Senate, but the popularly elected President and House did at least as much.

Somehow, that got lost, over the years. At this point, the federal level of government seems to have become effectively sovereign.

The federal and state governments are, and always were, co-sovereign. This is all spelled out in Federalist 39.

In general, on Civil War issues, I find the North was morally correct, while the South was legally correct. The Constitution was written to protect slavery. I will argue firmly that the southern states had the power to secede. Nowhere does the Constitution grant any federal entity the power to approve or deny secession. The Xth Amendment says any power not specifically delegated to the federal government is retained by the states and the People. The southern state legislators generally called for constitutional conventions, whose delegates were selected by the People to decide the question of secession. Thus, the states and the People were exercising a power that should have been rightfully theirs.

Of course they were. But just because you are following the letter of the law does not mean you are following the spirit of the law. If the South, particularly South Carolina, felt that they needed to set up the Confederacy -- and clearly they did, or at least the state governments did -- then "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." No such honorable communique, not just to Lincoln or Congress but to the North as a whole, was issued... by this time they despised the Northern stance so much that they did not think the North deserved such. That was not only an unnecessary insult but another bad move. There was significant anti-war sentiment in the North, and the Confederacy could have better monopolized on it... but, again, they were more eager to accept Lincoln's proffered trial by combat.

I'm sure it was possible to dissolve the Union. That wasn't what they were after; it was all make tenuous legal and moral points, and when your enemies dismiss them, fight. No one considered anything else. The Prophets got what they wanted.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

My point, which you keep evading, is that South Carolina wanted to fight. They then propagandized "Northern aggression" successfully to the rest of the Confederacy.

After September 11th, many modern Americans wanted to fight. Humans are wired to fight. As the species evolved, the ability and temperament to use force was a survival trait. As modern weapons make it less and less cost effective to use force, our emotions are no longer tuned to a cost effective level of aggressiveness.

And people were more ready to take up arms in the 18th Century. Increasing firepower had not yet been shown to lead to such grave hardships. The Right to Bear Arms was also still new and glorious. "Be swift my soul to answer Him, be jubilant my feet!" People were eager to leap into combat on both sides. They were less eager several years in, but after so many lives were lost, neither faction could lightly back down.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

As Bob points out, the Tenth Amendment would indeed secure the right of secession. Had South Carolina appealed that to the Supreme Court they would have gotten an answer Lincoln would not have liked. But oh no, they were in too damned much of a hurry. And the point of the right of secession has still not been established de jure; no one wants to try poking that scabbed boil because it's still full of pus.

Well... I for one think we may need to lance the boil. I think it for the best that the slaves were freed, and that the US was united and strong when it came time to suppress fascism and communism. Still, the time may be past for the military and industrial establishment required to do those tasks. We may well have tolerated some necessary evils so long that they are no longer necessary. Some of the old injustices the southerners complained of are no longer counterbalanced by even greater injustices and threats.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Fort Sumter was not invaded by the North. The South Carolina state government took the resupply of Sumter as an act of war and fired.

Yes, the people of South Carolina, through state convention, had seceded from the Union. The South Carolina government, in good faith, had been negotiating with the US government to arrive at reasonable compensation for former federal property in the sovereign state of South Carolina (which was only right). But Lincoln, in very bad faith, was stalling, playing a game, trying to induce South Carolina to act so that he could dishonestly use it as a propagandistic pretext for launching an invasion of the Confederacy. Of course, that is what happened. Removing a disingenuous, intransigent squatter from your property is hardly an act of war. However, invading a foreign country in a blatant act of military aggression, as Lincoln did at First Manassas, certainly is.

Sumter was not, at that time, enforcing any blockade, and Lincoln had not issued orders to do so: that would make the North the de jure aggressor. As long as SC maintained cannon aimed at Sumter negotiations to evacuate Sumter and/or secure a different sort of Union could have been conducted.

Sumter was fired upon when Union resupply ships arrived there in violation of their own promise not to resupply Sumter. Lincoln was playing a game, and everybody knew he was. He simply would not respect what rightfully belonged to South Carolina. It was long past time that the game ended, so South Carolina is to be applauded for its months of patience in the face of such duplicity. Lincoln's dishonest games ought not be recognized as legitimate any more than LBJ's game involving the Tonkin Gulf.

My point, which you keep evading, is that South Carolina wanted to fight.

I have evaded nothing. Your point is silly.

As Bob points out, the Tenth Amendment would indeed secure the right of secession. Had South Carolina appealed that to the Supreme Court they would have gotten an answer Lincoln would not have liked.

It was not up to the Supreme Court, but to the people of the relevant states. The colonists' decision to secede from the British Empire was not up to the British High Court, but to the people of the colonies. That was the whole point of the "American experiment" (which Lincoln and the Republicans no longer honored).

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

After September 11th, many modern Americans wanted to fight. Humans are wired to fight.

When they can't win? The only hope for the South was to knock out the Federal government fast, before mobilization was complete. After the blockade was in place and the North committed, there was no way the South could win without outside support... and after the twin disasters at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, there was no way to win period. Were there negotiations? Hell, no.

Increasing firepower had not yet been shown to lead to such grave hardships.

Bull. Grave losses were taken in the Napoleonic Wars. It's just that everyone who knew it was dead or forgotten, and time enough had passed for romance to set in. The exact same thing happened in 1914; millions of plucky lads wanted to go play the hero and became Flemish fertilizer instead.

Well... I for one think we may need to lance the boil. I think it for the best that the slaves were freed, and that the US was united and strong when it came time to suppress fascism and communism. Still, the time may be past for the military and industrial establishment required to do those tasks. We may well have tolerated some necessary evils so long that they are no longer necessary. Some of the old injustices the southerners complained of are no longer counterbalanced by even greater injustices and threats.

I'm as ready to kill the MIC's current incarnation as you, but I hardly think secession the answer. If we need to amend the Constitution again, and I could be talked into that action, then let's amend the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

http://www.tuvy.com/entertainment/ho...fire_tiger.htm
FIRE TIGER Horoscope
Feb 13, 1926 to Feb 1, 1927
Feb 9, 1986 to Jan 28, 1987
Tiger people are sympathetic, kind, emotional, and sensitive. At movies, they can cry their eyes out! Despite their kindness, they can be extremely short-tempered. The rage of Tigers is terrible to behold but it also gives them the adrenaline needed for the sublimest of bravery. The Tiger is also a deep thinker and can make the most astonishing intellectual connections, with great mental agility. On the negative side, they tend to be suspicious and a bit self-centered, OK selfish, and indecisive. Above everything, however, the Tiger stands as a supreme emblem of protection over human life, admirable always."

LOL, that does sound like me. I have a really short fuse.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The tariff issue was settled by amiable compromise the year before the secessions. It was not on the agenda at all as the war started.

There may have been a compromise the year before, but what about in the future? One-third of the US population (the South) had been providing two-thirds of the US government's revenues for decades (oriented toward protecting Northern industry). The Whig-Republican plunder of the South would have been even greater had the Southern states not held equal power in the Senate. With non-extension of slavery into the territories (part of Lincoln's Republican platform) the days of the South's ability to combat the excessive tariff demands of Northern industrialists in the Senate were plainly numbered. It was either secede or prepare for even greater plunder due to political impotence. So it is simply not true that the tariff ceased to be an issue. It remained the issue.

That slavery enabled the South to produce these great revenues for the North is true. But what should also be obvious is that slavery was being abolished all over the Western world peacefully. It's days were obviously numbered and no war was necessary. Even if Southern planters had weathered growing criticism from abolitionists, industrialization would have soon rendered the institution not cost-effective. At that point, if not earlier, the slaves would have been freed (as happened everywhere else in the Western world). The propaganda of the Northern victors has ever blinded people to the obvious truth of the matter.

That the Constitution permitted slavery seems truly awful to us today given our modern sensibilities. But there is no perfect system of government. The puppet in the White House is fond of reading a script which states, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Of course, it has no genuine application to the fascists running his regime, but it had tremendous application during this Crisis a century-and-a-half ago. The choice was between keeping an imperfect system which was better than any other in the world and dumping that inherited system in favor of chaos from which the absolute limits on power of the previous system could never be regained.

Eventually, slavery would have died out in that imperfect system just as women eventually got the vote. There is always something more that needs to be done. But the perfect need not have been regarded as the enemy of the good, because it was the best we could have hoped for in this world. And now, with the Bush administration's fascist consolidation of power, boy are we paying the price for the perfect having been made the enemy of the good so many years ago. It should be becoming ever clearer to so many just what in fact those Southerners, most of whom owned no slaves and were not even sympathetic to the institution, were fighting for.

The Civil War occured for both moral AND economic reasons.

The Southern elites depended on slavery for the functioning of their aristocratic, agrarian society, and thus were vehemently opposed to anything that would upset the free-state/slave-state balance in the Senate. Western pioneers opposed the spread of slavery into the Great Plains and Desert SW. Northern industrialists saw the political power of the southern aristocratic elites (in the form of thier support for Free Trade for their cotton exports) as a massive pain in the ass. Abolitionists, obviosuly, saw the "peculiar institution" as a moral blight on American society.

The Civil War could be described as an alliance of abolitionists, small-holding farmers, and industrialists vs, a reactionary southern aristocracy.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Removing a disingenuous, intransigent squatter from your property is hardly an act of war. However, invading a foreign country in a blatant act of military aggression, as Lincoln did at First Manassas, certainly is.

Am I the only person in this discussion who cares more about practicality than legal niceties?

Lincoln was playing a game, and everybody knew he was. He simply would not respect what rightfully belonged to South Carolina.

He would not start negotiations from the position that secession was a fait accompli, you mean. This is just like the game that Iran and the United States have been playing for years, trying to get one side to concede key points as a basis for negotiation. Lincoln's openly stated goal was preservation of the Union. South Carolina forced secession on everyone else out of concern about actions Lincoln might take, and deliberately took the one action Lincoln was known to be adamantly opposed to above all else -- severing of the Union. The South believed that Lincoln was so adamant about that only so that he could impose the Reconstructionist tyranny, when in fact that was one of the nightmares he was vigorously fighting to avoid.

Had the South seceded in response to enforcement of a law they disagreed with your position might have some validity. The fact is that the Deep South seceded even before Lincoln took office, purely in response to the Republican Party platform -- most of which was written by people more radical than Lincoln, and who only gained power with every antagonizing move by the South. By 1866, with Lincoln dead and the South defeated, the radicals destroyed the original Constitution, exactly as the South had feared... but by this time the South had, de facto and de jure, self-immolated any ability to stop the horror.

Read Palmer's pro-secession sermon. Read Stephens' Cornerstone Speech. Read the lists of grievances that four states bothered to write up, mainly for their own edification, as none of them say much of anything that a Northerner would have found compelling. In only one is the tariff issue mentioned, while all four put the inalienable right to own slaves front and center.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address put the issue South Carolina claimed as the cause -- non-inforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act -- front and center. South Carolina didn't believe him and didn't even give him the benefit of the doubt. SC also spelled out the real cause of the war -- Lincoln's position that slavery had to be ended. South Carolina could not abide such a thought. As Stephens stated clearly, slavery was eternal, ordained by God and nature through the absolute and unquestionable superiority of Caucasians over Africans; anyone who claimed otherwise was literally insane, and no black person would ever succeed in the way white people could. They would, accordingly, die before such a thing as emancipation happened. So die they did, and they chose to take those meddling abolitionist bastards with them.

I have evaded nothing. Your point is silly.

I'm afraid I can't agree. Take the Articles of Confederation, which the Constitution superseded. They state plainly that they establish "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union". Are you really trying to tell me that the Constitutional Convention removed the condition of perpetuity? It may be a defensible position but please make that position explicit.

It was not up to the Supreme Court, but to the people of the relevant states. The colonists' decision to secede from the British Empire was not up to the British High Court, but to the people of the colonies. That was the whole point of the "American experiment" (which Lincoln and the Republicans no longer honored).

I thought your point, which was South Carolina's, was that the Constitution was a contract. Who else would you have adjudicate a dispute over the wording of such a contract?

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Am I the only person in this discussion who cares more about practicality than legal niceties?

He would not start negotiations from the position that secession was a fait accompli, you mean. This is just like the game that Iran and the United States have been playing for years, trying to get one side to concede key points as a basis for negotiation. Lincoln's openly stated goal was preservation of the Union. South Carolina forced secession on everyone else out of concern about actions Lincoln might take, and deliberately took the one action Lincoln was known to be adamantly opposed to above all else -- severing of the Union. The South believed that Lincoln was so adamant about that only so that he could impose the Reconstructionist tyranny, when in fact that was one of the nightmares he was vigorously fighting to avoid.

Had the South seceded in response to enforcement of a law they disagreed with your position might have some validity. The fact is that the Deep South seceded even before Lincoln took office, purely in response to the Republican Party platform -- most of which was written by people more radical than Lincoln, and who only gained power with every antagonizing move by the South. By 1866, with Lincoln dead and the South defeated, the radicals destroyed the original Constitution, exactly as the South had feared... but by this time the South had, de facto and de jure, self-immolated any ability to stop the horror.

Read Palmer's pro-secession sermon. Read Stephens' Cornerstone Speech. Read the lists of grievances that four states bothered to write up, mainly for their own edification, as none of them say much of anything that a Northerner would have found compelling. In only one is the tariff issue mentioned, while all four put the inalienable right to own slaves front and center.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address put the issue South Carolina claimed as the cause -- non-inforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act -- front and center. South Carolina didn't believe him and didn't even give him the benefit of the doubt. SC also spelled out the real cause of the war -- Lincoln's position that slavery had to be ended. South Carolina could not abide such a thought. As Stephens stated clearly, slavery was eternal, ordained by God and nature through the absolute and unquestionable superiority of Caucasians over Africans; anyone who claimed otherwise was literally insane, and no black person would ever succeed in the way white people could. They would, accordingly, die before such a thing as emancipation happened. So die they did, and they chose to take those meddling abolitionist bastards with them.

I'm afraid I can't agree. Take the Articles of Confederation, which the Constitution superseded. They state plainly that they establish "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union". Are you really trying to tell me that the Constitutional Convention removed the condition of perpetuity? It may be a defensible position but please make that position explicit.

I thought your point, which was South Carolina's, was that the Constitution was a contract. Who else would you have adjudicate a dispute over the wording of such a contract?

You nailed it. Lincoln didn't give a damn about slavery as long as it didn't spread westward; IIRC he though it would slowly die out once it was contained. Unfortunately, banning the spread of slavery would result in the Southern Aristocracy losing political power in the senate as more free states were created. The Southern Aristocracy refused to budge and even became moronically paranoid, the result was disaster.

Originally Posted by Mustang

There may have been a compromise the year before, but what about in the future?

Mustang, I agree with you. The question of economic systems could be delayed no longer: the Fourth Turning had come. Lincoln also agreed, you know...

But what should also be obvious is that slavery was being abolished all over the Western world peacefully. It's days were obviously numbered and no war was necessary.

That should have been obvious, yes, precious, it should have been. But it was not. In fact, the Confederate position was that slavery was divinely ordained and eternal, and any attempt at emancipation would lead not only to financial ruin (which it did) but to the starvation and immediate barbarianization of any lands populated by freed slaves. They pointed to Haiti as the example of what the emancipation South would become.

None of these arguments were in any way new. They had been deployed with great success by the Spanish around 1550 in justifying effective enslavement of the Indian population of Mexico.

Even if Southern planters had weathered growing criticism from abolitionists, industrialization would have soon rendered the institution not cost-effective.

You know that, I know that, but they didn't. Go read what they themselves said and wrote, then come back to me and claim that with a straight face. Who told you that all this was Northern propaganda? What evidence did they give? Why do you trust them more than the primary source material?

The choice was between keeping an imperfect system which was better than any other in the world and dumping that inherited system in favor of chaos from which the absolute limits on power of the previous system could never be regained.

That was the choice, all right, and the South chose chaos. They didn't see it that way, of course.

Eventually, slavery would have died out in that imperfect system just as women eventually got the vote.

And that, in a nutshell, is why they seceded.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Yes, the people of South Carolina, through state convention, had seceded from the Union. The South Carolina government, in good faith, had been negotiating with the US government to arrive at reasonable compensation for former federal property in the sovereign state of South Carolina (which was only right). But Lincoln, in very bad faith, was stalling, playing a game, trying to induce South Carolina to act so that he could dishonestly use it as a propagandistic pretext for launching an invasion of the Confederacy. Of course, that is what happened. Removing a disingenuous, intransigent squatter from your property is hardly an act of war. However, invading a foreign country in a blatant act of military aggression, as Lincoln did at First Manassas, certainly is.



Sumter was fired upon when Union resupply ships arrived there in violation of their own promise not to resupply Sumter. Lincoln was playing a game, and everybody knew he was. He simply would not respect what rightfully belonged to South Carolina. It was long past time that the game ended, so South Carolina is to be applauded for its months of patience in the face of such duplicity. Lincoln's dishonest games ought not be recognized as legitimate any more than LBJ's game involving the Tonkin Gulf.

What is often overlooked is that Fort Sumter was not fired upon by a State that had seceded; it was fired upon by the Confederate States of America (CSA), essentially a federal government with claims on property also claimed by another federal government, the United States of America.

In March, 1861, Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard took command of South Carolina forces in Charleston; on February 27, Davis had appointed him the first general officer in the armed forces of the new Confederacy, specifically to take command of the siege.

In response to Lincoln’s letter to Gov. Pickens that he would be sending re-supplies to Sumter, the Confederate cabinet in Montgomery Alabama decided to open fire on the Fort if necessary to force its surrender before the Union fleet arrived. The CSA Secretary of War telegraphed Beauregard that if a re-supply was attempted, "You will at once demand its evacuation, and if this is refused proceed, in such a manner as you may determine, to reduce it." Beauregard issued the CSA ultimatum for surrender to the Fort on April 11; the Union commander refused.

At 4:30 am, Pierre Gustave Toutant de Beauregard Anderson , General of the Confederate States of America , opened fire on the troops of the United States of America.

If you choose to remain wedded to a now-defunct 19th century view of states’ rights held by slave holders, then you must accept that the federal government that it spawned, the CSA, started the war with its military actions at Fort Sumter. And, most importantly, it lost, big time.

Somewhat echoed in 1941 by Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, were the words of the Confederated Secretary of State Robert Toombs, who opposed the cabinet’s decision, when he told Jefferson Davis that the attack "will lose us every friend in the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest.... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."

Originally Posted by catfishncod

I'm afraid I can't agree. Take the Articles of Confederation, which the Constitution superseded. They state plainly that they establish "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union". Are you really trying to tell me that the Constitutional Convention removed the condition of perpetuity? It may be a defensible position but please make that position explicit.

Whatever you are talking about, the issue was never in dispute in the early history of the country. Just as the people could voluntarily enter into a compact, they could voluntarily leave it. The Founding Fathers did not escape one "tyranny" in order to set up another.

I thought your point, which was South Carolina's, was that the Constitution was a contract. Who else would you have adjudicate a dispute over the wording of such a contract?

The decision to join or withdraw from the compact rests with the people. While joined, the Supreme Court has constitutional functions, just as does the legislature and the executive. If the people opt to withdraw, then the Supreme Court (and the legislature and the executive) no longer holds any power over them.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Whatever you are talking about, the issue was never in dispute in the early history of the country. Just as the people could voluntarily enter into a compact, they could voluntarily leave it. The Founding Fathers did not escape one "tyranny" in order to set up another.

Of course not. They were very paranoid about setting up another tyranny, and the right of rebellion was enshrined in, among other things, the Second and Third Amendments.

You have never addressed the question of whether secession was in the long-term interest of the Southern states, or whether they recognized slavery as doomed. But that's all right, I suppose; neither did our ancestors, and it hurt them far worse than it will ever hurt you.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What is often overlooked is that Fort Sumter was not fired upon by a State that had seceded; it was fired upon by the Confederate States of America (CSA), essentially a federal government with claims on property also claimed by another federal government, the United States of America.

I don't recall that the troops had been formed into CSA troops by that time, but it does not matter. The property in question no longer belonged to the federal government because the people of South Carolina had seceded from the Union. It was up to the feds to withdraw, but Lincoln was a gamesman who did not respect the original understanding of the Constitution and tried to force a confrontation. Whether Sumter was fired upon by South Carolina, or by the CSA with South Carolina's consent (implied or otherwise), is irrelevant. Either way, the feds should have vacated.

Interestingly, a new secession movement has started in Vermont in opposition to the Bush administration. Should the Bush administration, or some similar future administration, be able to hold Vermont in the Union by force? Is there no escape for Vermont or any other state should things keep getting worse in this country? I invite critics of secession to take another look at the issue in light of the principles of self-government which the Founding Fathers espoused. I cannot imagine that secession would do a damn bit of good in this day and age, but the right of a people to voluntarily remove themselves from a racket which opposes their interests ought to be respected.

Unless it is a secession of the nation as a whole.

Consider the Soviet Union ...when Russia departed....

Originally Posted by catfishncod

You have never addressed the question of whether secession was in the long-term interest of the Southern states, or whether they recognized slavery as doomed.

What is there to address? The people chose to secede from the Union just as the colonists had chosen to secede from the British Empire a saeculum earlier. They determined that it was in their interests to do so. Regardless of whether they themselves recognized that slavery was on the way out, fortunately we know today that it was. But it surely should have been obvious to anyone living then that slavery's days were numbered given decades of emancipation throughout the Western world and the incredible advances in science and industry of the day. The issue was not keeping the slaves come hell or high-water; it was escaping the extortionary tariffs they had been made to pay to protect industry not their own, which would still be in place with mechanization and freed slaves, and which would only increase given loss of parity in the Senate.

Originally Posted by Mustang

What is there to address?... But it surely should have been obvious to anyone living then that slavery's days were numbered given decades of emancipation throughout the Western world and the incredible advances in science and industry of the day.

I think we're done here. You're not listening anymore.