Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What man of us are saying that the Confederate states wanted so badly to keep the institution of slavery that they were willing to secede. This is in the original documents and you cannot refute them. This is why buying the slaves and then freeing them would have not stopped it. The elites of the South were doggedly committing to the institution of slavery and saw it as an essential to their way of life. Prove me wrong, and prove others on this thread wrong.
Don't conflate the cause of southern secession with Lincoln's objectives. Lincoln and the North had no intention of freeing any slaves, they could care less.....the reason the North passed the Corwin Amendment in 1861 with Lincoln support and the majority of the North.
The war couldn't been avoided since Lincoln refused to accept the South to be independent because of money.
Last edited by Hellion1999; 10-16-2016 at 12:43 PM..
Don't conflate the cause of southern secession with Lincoln's objectives. Lincoln and the North had no intention of freeing any slaves, they could care less.....the reason the North passed the Corwin Amendment in 1861 with Lincoln support and the majority of the North.
The war couldn't been avoided since Lincoln refused to accept the South to be independent because of money.
Lincoln's objectives do not refute the objectives of the Confederacy. Period. This thread is about whether or not the war could have been prevented by buying the slaves and freeing them? The answer is no. Just because Lincoln did not plan to free the slaves, it doesn't mean the elite southerners weren't in fear. They saw Lincoln, an 1860 Republican from Illinois, as the enemy to the slavery institution. Southern elites did not think rationally. They were in fear.
Tariffs are taxes. Southern ports were responsible for 87% of tariffs collected which represent 90% of all federal tax revenue. That was the cause of the war, not slavery Lincoln didn't want to recognize the South to be independent because of money.
The creator of the video definitely has his point of view, and seems to expect that everything he states is undisputed fact. Here's a spoiler to the video, he substitutes his own opinion in place of facts quite often.
Points of view expressed in the video:
The South seceded to preserve slavery.
At least we can put this point to rest.
The North's goal was to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and preserve the Union.
Yes, in July 1861, Congress passed the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution which stated exactly that. Of course, the video makes no mention that war goals can change over time.
States had the right of secession, membership in the Union was voluntary.
Highly debatable, yet presented in the video as absolute and unassailable fact
There's no specific mention in the Constitution defining the mechanism for how a state can leave the Union. One claim to the right of secession arises from the magical 10th Amendment, which it seems can be made to say anything one wants.
Another claim resides within Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions. This was written in response to the Federalist dominated government's imposition of the Alien and Sedition Acts. However, this document doesn't support secession, but rather claims that the majority of states had the right to impose its will upon a federal government that had become unresponsive to the people who granted authority to said government. Additionally, the Kentucky Resolution isn't actually a legal document - it's only an opinion put to paper.
Yet another claim for the Right of Secession cites the Declaration of Independence. However, the basis for the validity of the Declaration lay with the fact that the United States won their war. Lesson here: if you want to declare independence, then you better either have a legal basis or be able to win a war over it.
Lincoln's fellow Republicans opposed the notion of maintaining a republic at the barrel of a gun.
Absolutely right. There was a small minority of Republicans, mostly abolitionists, who didn't believe that the Union should be preserved at the expense of allowing slavery to exist within the borders of the nation. But they hardly represented the majority view.
President Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy, even though it wasn't up to him to decide the point.
Again, the creator of the video is demanding that his opinion be taken as fact. Frankly, Abraham Lincoln disagreed with that opinion.
Southern ports contributed 87% of the tariffs paid, tariffs comprised 90% of federal revenue.
From 1790 to 1860, tariffs had traditionally been the preferred method of federal taxation in the U.S. It was easy to collect, as goods landed at ports were in small and easily secured locations, taxes could be collected by a much smaller number of tax agents than would be required for any internal taxes. The tariff tax could be avoided in entirety simply by not purchasing foreign goods. So the problem isn't the tariff.
The problem with this part of the video is that it appears that the creator of the video simply pulls numbers out of his butt.
In 1860, federal tariffs were about 87% of total government revenue, not 90% as claimed in the video. Only 8% of the tariff was collected in Southern ports, as opposed to the claimed 87% in the video. Simply put, the great shipping ports in the United States were in New England and the North East. The vast majority of imported goods destined for the South were originally received in the North, then shipped south. Being temporarily unable to collect taxes in Charleston Harbor wasn't going to break the Federal government.
When South Carolina seceded from the Union, its territory included Fort Sumter, a federal military installation.
Note: 'Fort Sumter, a federal military installation'. South Carolina had sold the land for Fort Sumter to the federal government and that land passed from state to federal control, therefore South Carolina had no legal claim upon that land. Wishing it otherwise isn't going to change that. For further reference, go see the treaty which established a U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Lincoln tricked the South into firing on Ft Sumter by getting them to think that an invasion was coming.
Supposedly, according to the video, Lincoln ordered the USS Powhatan into Charleston Harbor, forcing the hand of the Confederate forces.
In fact, in April, 1861 the USS Powhatan was sent from Vera Cruz, Mexico to assist in the relief of Ft. Pickens in Florida. President Lincoln had issued an order to redirect the Powhatan to Ft Sumter, but due to an administrative snafu (the order bore the Secretary of State's signature and not the President's) the order was ignored and the Powhatan never came near Ft Sumter.
The video creator has this ship, which was in the Gulf of Mexico near Mobile Bay, somehow magically appearing in Charleston Harbor, thereby influencing the decision processes of the Confederate forces at Ft Sumter.
Incidentally, Ft Pickens was one of the military installations successfully held by federal forces in the face of Confederate opposition in 1861.
Lincoln was a scumbag.
Well, there you have it.
Look, here's the bottom line: if secession was legal, then it would have been defined in the body of law of the United States - but it wasn't. The only way to have legalized extra-legal secession was to have won the war, which the USA accomplished in 1783, but which the CSA failed to accomplish by 1865.
Look, here's the bottom line: if secession was legal, then it would have been defined in the body of law of the United States - but it wasn't. The only way to have legalized extra-legal secession was to have won the war, which the USA accomplished in 1783, but which the CSA failed to accomplish by 1865.
Secession was legal. The 10th amendment clearly states that 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.
Secession wasn't prohibited by the constitution and there is a reason for that, joining the Union was volunteering not by the threat of force. Its reserved to the people.....until the North changed that after the Civil War.
Marriage and divorces are not mention in the U.S CONSTITUTION because those rights are reserved to the people of the States, that means its not LEGAL because is not define in the U.S. constitution according to your argument?......the 10th amendment is clear what specific powers the people gave to the federal government and whatever that is not mention given by the people to the FEDS are reserved to the people.
Our constitution starts with WE the PEOPLE telling what the feds can do or it can't do....it doesn't start WE the Government telling the people what to do. If rejecting secession to the people was a power the people wanted to give the feds they would have out it in the constitution but they didn't because why give the federal government unlimited powers.
Lincoln started war because of taxes, he could care less about blacks.........but that wouldn't look good in our history that the U.S. fought in the bloodiest war of our history killing a bunch of Americans and putting them in prison without due process because he wanted to collect taxes.
So we get the B.S. history in the public schools that you repeat.
One problem with your theory: Lincoln hadn't even assumed office when the Southern states started seceding. So it wasn't anything Lincoln did that triggered them to leave the Union. As has already been stated, the South was quite clear that they were leaving because of the slavery issue - failure of Northern states to obey the fugitive slave act, the prohibition of slavery in the territories and unequal addition of new free vs slave states - among others.
You could say that the war was fought to keep the South from seceding, and not to free the slaves, and you'd be technically correct. But the issue that led to secession in the first place was undeniably slavery.
Secession was legal. The 10th amendment clearly states that 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.
See anything in there about "rights"? I only see powers being talked about.
If you're going to claim that a state has a legal right to secede - it's not in the 10th Amendment. As for a legal 'power' of secession - can you point to any nation that recognized a unilateral right of secession within its constitution?
Quote:
Secession wasn't prohibited by the constitution and there is a reason for that, joining the Union was volunteering not by the threat of force. Its reserved to the people.....until the North changed that after the Civil War.
No state was 'forced' into the Union. Each state held a ratifying convention, wherein they could reject the proposed Constitution. Two states actually rejected the Constitution, Rhode Island and North Carolina; both states later held subsequent conventions wherein they each ratified the Constitution and joined the United States.
As for states being allowed to leave the Union after ratification, that very question was posed in the New York ratification convention to Alexander Hamilton: could New York, after ratifying the constitution, be allowed to later leave the Union if the Constitution wasn't amended by a certain date. In effect, New York was asking if it could secede from the Union. Hamilton sent a letter to James Madison asking for his opinion. Madison's reply was:
Quote:
My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw, if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification: that it does not make New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and FOREVER. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification. What the new Congress, by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able and disposed to do in such a case, I do not inquire, and I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success and happiness. The idea of reserving the right to withdraw was started at Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification, which was itself abandoned -- worse than rejection.
The man who was considered the Father of the United States Constitution, who would know the most about it, and who later authored the legislation that would become the Bill of Rights, including the 10th Amendment, said that there's no secession allowed.
Quote:
Marriage and divorces are not mention in the U.S CONSTITUTION because those rights are reserved to the people of the States, that means its not LEGAL because is not define in the U.S. constitution according to your argument?......the 10th amendment is clear what specific powers the people gave to the federal government and whatever that is not mention given by the people to the FEDS are reserved to the people.
Our constitution starts with WE the PEOPLE telling what the feds can do or it can't do....it doesn't start WE the Government telling the people what to do. If rejecting secession to the people was a power the people wanted to give the feds they would have out it in the constitution but they didn't because why give the federal government unlimited powers.
Marriages and divorces aren't powers - they are rights.
States don't have rights, they have powers.
If states had the power of secession, then what was the point of replacing the Articles of Confederation, wherein all decisions required complete agreement by all states?
The Constitution was enacted as a binding compact among the American people, not a voluntary association between states.
One problem with your theory: Lincoln hadn't even assumed office when the Southern states started seceding. So it wasn't anything Lincoln did that triggered them to leave the Union. As has already been stated, the South was quite clear that they were leaving because of the slavery issue - failure of Northern states to obey the fugitive slave act, the prohibition of slavery in the territories and unequal addition of new free vs slave states - among others.
You could say that the war was fought to keep the South from seceding, and not to free the slaves, and you'd be technically correct. But the issue that led to secession in the first place was undeniably slavery.
Lincoln went to war to enforce the tariffs laws enforced on the South, HE EVEN SAID IT , it was because of money.
The reasons that the South left is not the same reasons Lincoln went to war.
Lincoln went to war to enforce the tariffs laws enforced on the South, HE EVEN SAID IT , it was because of money.
Yes, he said it. He said he was upholding the Constitution, preserving the Union, defending federal assets, and enforcing the laws of the nation, including the tax laws. He didn't say at the outbreak that he was going to outlaw slavery where it existed.
Quote:
The reasons that the South left is not the same reasons Lincoln went to war.
Yes, we know. The South declared secession to protect their institution of slavery. They looted federal military installations prior to Lincoln being sworn into office. They fired on Ft Sumter in order to put Lincoln on notice that they were prepared to use military force to achieve their aims.
Lincoln just obliged them.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want" - William Tecumseh Sherman.
Secession was legal. The 10th amendment clearly states that 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.
Secession wasn't prohibited by the constitution and there is a reason for that, joining the Union was volunteering not by the threat of force. Its reserved to the people.....until the North changed that after the Civil War.
Marriage and divorces are not mention in the U.S CONSTITUTION because those rights are reserved to the people of the States, that means its not LEGAL because is not define in the U.S. constitution according to your argument?......the 10th amendment is clear what specific powers the people gave to the federal government and whatever that is not mention given by the people to the FEDS are reserved to the people.
Our constitution starts with WE the PEOPLE telling what the feds can do or it can't do....it doesn't start WE the Government telling the people what to do. If rejecting secession to the people was a power the people wanted to give the feds they would have out it in the constitution but they didn't because why give the federal government unlimited powers.
Secession was determined to be contrary to the Constitution by the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS is the final arbiter as to what the Constitution means. The Court ruled that secession was wrong over 150 years ago, and the justices have not reversed that decision. Therefore, regardless of your opinion, secession is unconstitutional. Period.
The Supreme Court rulings regarding marriage have been based on the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 (I think).
Your posts seem to imply that the Supreme Court lacks authority to rule on the Constitution.
The reasons that the South left is not the same reasons Lincoln went to war.
OK, we seem to be in agreement on that point. So let's rephrase the original question of this post to "Could secession have been avoided if the slaves freedom had just been bought?"
It seems like an impractical solution to me. Particularly in South Carolina, which had been threatening to secede since the Nullification crisis of the 1820s, and where it is difficult to envision the white minority voluntarily giving freedom to the black majority.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
