U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:08 AM
 
900 posts, read 157,775 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog View Post
As does yours....

From “An American Iliad: The Story of the Civil War,” Second Edition, by Charles P. Roland (Chapter 1, page 9): “Many antislavery advocates opposed the institution not out of principle or compassion for the slaves, but out of concern over its perceived ill effects on the white population. Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, a leading advocate of halting the spread of slavery, explained that he felt “no squeamishness upon the subject of slavery, no morbid sympathy for the slave.” “I plead the cause of free white men,” he said. “I would preserve to white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and my own color can live without the disgrace which association with Negro slavery brings upon free labor.”
“Finally and paradoxically, a racial factor contributed to the northern attitude. Antipathy against slavery often went hand in hand with a racism that was similar in essence, if not in pervasiveness or intensity, to the southern racial feeling. Many northerners objected to the presence of slavery in their midst, in part, because they objected to the presence of blacks there.”
Wow. Impressive. You find quotes from a some northerners that's supposed to make your case?

And the south seceded from the union and engaged in a bloody civil war solely for the right to buy, sell, rape, and murder black people.

Y'all deal with that simple fact.

 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:12 AM
 
900 posts, read 157,775 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Why is secession "indefensible"? You never touch that argument.

(Hint: Citing your perceived reason as to WHY they seceded is irrelevent to the argument.)
Now we may be finally arriving at the truth! Slavery, according to you, is defensible! OK, let's have the defense (and please, Rhett, don't give us examples of 'happy darkies and kind massas' from 'Gone With the Wind'. That book and the movie were romanticized piles of crap).

I know this comes as a shock to you, but I'd recommend 'Roots' for a more accurate picture.
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Virginia
6,530 posts, read 8,987,315 times
Reputation: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
Continuing to show class, I see.

I don't give a damn about the legalities of secession. I leave that to you Conferates and Confederate Wannabees. I care about the fact that a group of Neanderthals was willing to divide the United States in order to preserve an incredible evil.

Again, you are a defender of slavery because you defend the South seceding to preserve it. You simply cannot escape that truth. You want to argue everything except that simple fact. But then again, what else have you got?
Actually I've agreed that slavery was the primary reason for secession time and time again... Perhaps if you'd pull your head out of your backside you'd notice....

When discussing legality you have to separate yourself from the reason something was done and simply look at what was done in and of itself...

The legal argument is EVERYTHING in our society. To ignore that fact actually ignores the Constitution and the very freedoms that you lament that the slaves did not have. Really quite ironic.

But I'll stop actually supporting my arguments with FACTS and such and leave you to your broken old record of, "Slavery bad..... South bad..... Secession bad...... UGH!!!!".
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
10,981 posts, read 6,751,343 times
Reputation: 8075
Rhett...

What you do not appear to grasp is that there was no answer to the question of the legality of secession, that is why a war was required to settle the question. The Constitution is silent on the matter, it neither affirms nor prohibits the departure of an individual State from the union. Both sides could launch legal arguments and provide legal reasons, point to vague passages, but there was never an absolute, clear cut answer to be found in the law.

The reason that there was no such language was that the Constitutional Convention decided to overlook that issue rather than risk the possibility of the Constitution being rejected on those very grounds. Had such a right been inserted unambiguously, it is doubtful that the Federalists would have accepted such a Constitution. Had such a right been clearly prohibited, it is doubtful that the anti Federalists would have ratified the Constitution.

So, they opted for postponing it all, saying nothing about it and hoping that it would never come up in the future.

This turned out to be a false hope.

The price of that convenience in the late 18th Century, was a bloody war in the mid 19th Century.

Secession was never legal nor illegal. It was something that could be tried...and was tried.

It failed.
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Virginia
6,530 posts, read 8,987,315 times
Reputation: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
Now we may be finally arriving at the truth! Slavery, according to you, is defensible! OK, let's have the defense (and please, Rhett, don't give us examples of 'happy darkies and kind massas' from 'Gone With the Wind'. That book and the movie were romanticized piles of crap. I know this comes as a shock to you, but I'd recommend 'Roots' for a more accurate picture.
Unreal...... The reason the South seceded is irrelevent. ESPECIALLY considering the Union's ENTIRE stated reason for stopping it was to preserve the Union (ie. based on the belief that the SECESSION was unlawful.) ...

Let me put it in plain English for you Angus:

1) Slavery is not defensible and wass an abhorrent institution. NOBODY here has EVER argued otherwise.

2) The argument is that secession IS defensible. Maybe if you'd take time out from arguing with your strawman over there you could come join the actualy discussion... (though I know better).
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Virginia
6,530 posts, read 8,987,315 times
Reputation: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Rhett...

What you do not appear to grasp is that there was no answer to the question of the legality of secession, that is why a war was required to settle the question. The Constitution is silent on the matter, it neither affirms nor prohibits the departure of an individual State from the union. Both sides could launch legal arguments and provide legal reasons, point to vague passages, but there was never an absolute, clear cut answer to be found in the law.

The reason that there was no such language was that the Constitutional Convention decided to overlook that issue rather than risk the possibility of the Constitution being rejected on those very grounds. Had such a right been inserted unambiguously, it is doubtful that the Federalists would have accepted such a Constitution. Had such a right been clearly prohibited, it is doubtful that the anti Federalists would have ratified the Constitution.

So, they opted for postponing it all, saying nothing about it and hoping that it would never come up in the future.

This turned out to be a false hope.

The price of that convenience in the late 18th Century, was a bloody war in the mid 19th Century.

Secession was never legal nor illegal. It was something that could be tried...and was tried.

It failed.
I grasp all of this and agree with you. In 1861 the legality of secession was in question. In 1865 it no longer was... But as you stated, it took the war to decide the issue. That is fair enough. The REASON for the secession is not relevent to the question of the legality of the act however. THAT is my point.

Also, as we've discussed, the end result of the war doesn't mean we can go back to 1860 and retro-actively apply the fact that secession is now seen as unlawful and determine that the South's actions were illegal... The law cannot be retroactively applied. When prohibition came into effect, they didn't start throwing people in jail for drinking the week before.....
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Dixie,of course
177 posts, read 148,551 times
Reputation: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
Wow. Impressive. You find quotes from a some northerners that's supposed to make your case?

And the south seceded from the union and engaged in a bloody civil war solely for the right to buy, sell, rape, and murder black people.

Y'all deal with that simple fact.
Really?


"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Abraham Lincoln
January 12, 1848.
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Dixie,of course
177 posts, read 148,551 times
Reputation: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
Wow. Impressive. You find quotes from a some northerners that's supposed to make your case?

And the south seceded from the union and engaged in a bloody civil war solely for the right to buy, sell, rape, and murder black people.

Y'all deal with that simple fact.
No. Y'ALL deal with it



Angus Podgorny, would have us believe that ‘his’ side paid tribute to Madison and Jefferson OR the founding principles.
“Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union . The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas; and even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration of Independence . . . . Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of “State rights,” asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the “sovereignty” of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a “sovereignty” in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it “a political community without a political superior”? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas , ever was a sovereignty. . . . (Special Session Message to Congress, July 4, 1861)Lincoln
This is negated as follows:
“His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent States; and he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, proprietory and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.”
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:57 AM
 
2,377 posts, read 3,414,659 times
Reputation: 1631
We have had quite a few Threads on the Civil War. They usually end up going down the path of vehement arguments.
Please stay on topic and stop the negative remarks.
 
Old 01-11-2010, 11:03 AM
 
28,756 posts, read 11,213,564 times
Reputation: 7571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
Continuing to show class, I see.

I don't give a damn about the legalities of secession. I leave that to you Conferates and Confederate Wannabees. I care about the fact that a group of Neanderthals was willing to divide the United States in order to preserve an incredible evil.

Again, you are a defender of slavery because you defend the South seceding to preserve it. You simply cannot escape that truth. You want to argue everything except that simple fact. But then again, what else have you got?
Why is it that you cannot separate the secession issue from the slavery issue? They are separate issues.

States' rights and the strength of the federal government were very prevalent issues in the 1800's. That's why we have so many references on states' rights, that's why we have the Federalist papers, that's why the Founding Fathers wrote so often about what their personal visions were. There wasn't just the balance of powers between the executive branches that was part of the political debate and discussions, but also the balance of power between the federal government and the states' governments.

I think that the Civil War was a fight over power, just as most wars are, much more so than a fight over morality, which is almost always given lip-service, but rarely is the underlying issue for any war.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, 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 - Top