U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-12-2010, 01:57 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
3,049 posts, read 2,379,767 times
Reputation: 699

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
Actually tariffs had been on a downward trend and were only raised after the southern states had rebelled and were no longer represented in Congress. Sometimes when a spoiled child takes his ball and goes home the game continues without him.

Also note that several of the secession declarations of rebelling states specifically mentioned the defense of slavery as the cause of secession.

In any event to justify rebellion over tariffs is actually an even worse reason than defending slavery since slavery was at least a deeply ingrained social institution whereas tariffs are just the normal give and take of day to day politics.

There was no rebellion.

 
Old 01-12-2010, 06:47 AM
 
Location: Dixie,of course
177 posts, read 230,645 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi View Post
How often did they do this...



Except in the enlightened south they were still doing it routinely into the sixties. When groups like the NAACP tried to get anti-lynching bills through congress southern congressmen blocked it on states rights, the federal government had no right to force southerners to quit stringing up the darkies.

I spent all my life in the south. I am well aware of southern and northern treatment of african americans, and there is no question which was worse.

Y'all have no clue..

[Source: Richmond (Va) Dispatch, December 9, 1865]:
[SIZE=2]Returned Confederates and negroes Butchered.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Philadelphia, December 8. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]--The New York Tribune this morning says that East Tennessee Unionists have been permitted by a weak and worthless Union General Commanding, and a reverend blackguard styled Governor, to butcher not less than one hundred rebels and negroes in and around Knoxville since June last. Greeley says Tennessee has many staunch Unionists, but, nevertheless, is a pandemonium of passion and crime, and no more fit to self-government than Dahomey.[/SIZE]


The December 11 issue of the Dispatch gave more details of the Tribune article:
[SIZE=2]Tennessee Loyalty.--The telegraph has informed us that the bill allowing blacks to testify in the courts of Tennessee, which passed the Senate by ten to nine, has been defeated in the House by thirty to twenty-seven--the East Tennessee Unionists generally opposing, while many of the ex-rebels supported it. This is what we had been led to expect. Those East Tennessee Unionists have been permitted, by a weak and worthless Union general commanding, and a reverend blackguard, who is styled Governor, to murder two or three negroes to balance each of the paroled and returned rebel soldiers whom they have seen fit likewise to dispatch, until they have good reason to deprecate the admission of negro testimony; for it would hang hundreds of them if there was any semblance of law or justice in that region. According to our information, not less than a hundred rebels and negroes have thus been butchered since June last in and around Knoxville alone; and there will, of course, be more if the strong hand of authority be not stretched over them.[/SIZE]
 
Old 01-12-2010, 07:14 AM
 
6,550 posts, read 12,611,560 times
Reputation: 3152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
No, just the morality of it. Frankly, had there been no slavery the south could have seceded, and had I been around at the time, I would have celebrated the fact. They can secede now as far as I'm concerned. I'd be much happier in a nation rid of the right wing, bible-thumping, anti-government sentiment so prevalent in the south, and I'm sure they'd be a lot happier.

I believe the Union was worth preserving, but I probably wouldn't have fought a Civil War over it - always supposing the South refrained from attacking American soldiers. Slavery made that a non-issue, and transformed the war from something only constitutional scholars would care about to something meaningful.
Reasons don't make the law or the Constitution meaningless. Your reasoning for ignoring the legal argument flies in the face of EVERYTHING the Constitution embodies...
 
Old 01-12-2010, 07:19 AM
 
6,550 posts, read 12,611,560 times
Reputation: 3152
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi View Post
Its a fasinating question, and a testimony to our ability to rationalize vast wrongs if Americans do them, whether slavery was worse than the policies of Saddam. By any definition slavery was a horrific institution - even if you ignore things like lynchings, castration, and selling families to different states. Most Iraqis in 2002 had more rights than slaves did in the south in 1861 and were less subject to physical harm as well
The analogy had more to do with the fact that either the ends justify the means or they do not..... It wasn't meant to compare attrocities.

Invading Iraq, simply to topple Saddam flies in the face of international law, no matter WHAT the given reason was....

Same here (again, IF you believe that secession was a lawful act in 1860-1861) that the reasons for it should be irrelevent. The question is did they have the RIGHT to do it?
 
Old 01-12-2010, 07:27 AM
 
6,550 posts, read 12,611,560 times
Reputation: 3152
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
Oh Please! Grant owned slaves, his wife owned a couple of them. Illinois practiced slavery hid under the guise involuntary servitude. Read your history.
Not going to happen. Angus will only read what is convenient to his narrow view on the matter.

Funny that if you imagine that 90% of the literature on the subject doesn't exist how right you can think you are because your 10% of sources that agree with your view suddenly seems like the majority opinion.
 
Old 01-12-2010, 07:36 AM
 
6,550 posts, read 12,611,560 times
Reputation: 3152
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
I'm afraid you're mistaken. The legality of your actions may have everything to do with the reasons.

I kill a man. Is there a difference in legality if I did it because someone paid me to do it, or because I just saw him kill my family, or if he was coming toward me with a knife to kill me? You know it does. It might be murder one, it might be murder two, it might be manslaughter, it might be self-defense.
Afraid you're missing the point.

Either way, a crime has been committed. The issue with secession is whether it is a crime AT ALL!!!! The REASON for secession is irrelevent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
Do you really mean that my reasons for taking an admittedly legal action have nothing to do with whether I deserve to be condemned for taking it? And that I should not be condemned for filing either one of these lawsuits?
Well first define for me whether secession is legal or not? THEN tell me whether in 1860 and 1861 slavery was legal or not?

Sorry, the question is, was, and should be limited to the legality of secession.
 
Old 01-12-2010, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Dixie,of course
177 posts, read 230,645 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Afraid you're missing the point.

Either way, a crime has been committed. The issue with secession is whether it is a crime AT ALL!!!! The REASON for secession is irrelevent.



Well first define for me whether secession is legal or not? THEN tell me whether in 1860 and 1861 slavery was legal or not?

Sorry, the question is, was, and should be limited to the legality of secession.

"...(I)t is misleading to date the tradition of American liberty from the late 1780s, since the Constitution of the United States was in fact only the culmination of generations of practical self-government on the part of Americans. At the time of the framing of the Constitution and the formation of an allegedly "more perfect union," the colonists had precedents for challenging the powers of a confederation, as in the case of the Confederation of New England, for rejecting a confederation, as in the case of the Albany Plan of Union, and for bringing down a confederation by force, as in the case of the Dominion of New England. It can hardly be surprising, therefore, to learn that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, three states [Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island] in acceding to the new confederation, explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union at such time as it should become oppressive. In so doing they were only exercising the vigilance and libertarian principle that had animated the American experience during the colonial period.

"Thus when a union of polities becomes an end in itself, as it has in the minds of some since the days of Daniel Webster but certainly since Abraham Lincoln's revolution, the repudiation and indeed perversion of the colonial ideal is complete. Yet today, even self-proclaimed conservatives, whom one might expect to be engaged in preserving their country's tradition of liberty, cavalierly decry attachment to the principles embodied in the Confederate flag as "treason," even though the value of self-government vindicated by the South had been insisted upon since colonial times. The real traitors, however, are not the Confederates, but those who betray the real American tradition of independence and self-government in favor of the principle of unlimited submission to central authority. This is what the colonial period has to teach us."


By Thomas Woods (2000)
 
Old 01-12-2010, 07:39 AM
 
39,023 posts, read 23,155,465 times
Reputation: 12151
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
Objection: Irrelevant.

The relations between the races in the Northern states, and the undisputed oppression of blacks in those states, has nothing to do with why the Southern states attempted to secede, and started a war by attacking a United States military installation.
A military installation whose ownership was in question. After extensive negotiations. And after giving the fort warning of its intentions so that no one would be hurt. And, in fact, the southern guns didn't harm a single US soldier. That's how they started the war.

And of course, Lincoln's decision to supply the fort, while Congress was not in session, which was deliberately provocative, is ignored. Why would Lincoln behave so provocatively? Maybe because the legal question of secession was not a case he wanted taken up by the Supreme Court. Hmmm..., why wouldn't he want the courts to decide on secession. Maybe because it was almost guaranteed they would decide in favor of the secessionists. Because Chief Justice Taney had already indicated they would.

Why couldn't Lincoln wait to supply the fort until Congress was in session? Maybe because declarations of war are the responsibility of Congress, and so far they hadn't indicated a willingness to go so far? So provoking the South to open fire was Lincoln's best option?

I'm not demonizing Lincoln, here. I happen to think that Lincoln was right in his thinking that once states started to secede, the Union was doomed, and I also think that Lincoln didn't just see the oath of office as a promise to defend the nation and the Constitution, he saw it as a sacred oath to preserve the nation, from the threats within as well as without. And he was willing to forfeit millions of lives to preserve the nation, and the ideas that were expressed in the Constitution. More than that, I believe that he was singularly aware of the price that would be demanded, not just the costs of war, the lives lost, but the compromises he would make to the law and to the Constitution, in order to fulfill his oath. I think it grieved him horribly during his Presidency, and the toll showed, both physically and in his demeanor, all through that horrible time of American history. Even so, Lincoln was not a man who was the victim of circumstance, he was a man of deliberate action, a man who thought about the ramifications of his actions. He deliberately provoked the South, and he used Congress's recess to further his agenda.
 
Old 01-12-2010, 07:41 AM
 
6,550 posts, read 12,611,560 times
Reputation: 3152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
And were these people in a state of rebellion and war against The United States?

This is just more of your Pee Wee Herman defense of slavery and rebellion.


Why is it that people today can rightfully claim that slavery was legal in 1860 and somehow that means that "they are in support/defense of slavery"?

It's kind of a$$inine, don't you think?
 
Old 01-12-2010, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Vermont
10,091 posts, read 10,613,133 times
Reputation: 13445
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
Henry Clay said in 1851 why the US Government should not allow secession of the South Carolina. Slavery was not mentioned. He stated the following:

"You asked what is to be done if South Carolina secedes. I answer unhesitatingly, that the Constitution and the laws of the United States must continue to be enforced there, with all the power of the Union, if necessary... he continues:

"no human government can exist without the power of applying force, and the actual application of it in extreme cases. My belief is, that if it should be applied to South Carolina, in the event of her secession she would be speedily reduced to obedience and that the Union, instead of being weakened, would acquire additional strength...

Source: The Confederate newspaper The New York Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...BE66838D649FDE
Clay was right.

You understand, of course, that the motivation of someone who opposed secession says nothing about the motivation of those who argued for secession, don't you?
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top