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.
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.
If the right or power to secede was important to the Slaver States, they would've clearly enunciated so in their Constitution of the Confederate States of America.
...As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of anti-slave law or policy would be unconstitutional. People can claim the Civil War was "not about slavery" as much as they want, but the fact remains that anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land. ...
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.
I think Hellion's point (which I don't agree with) is that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War so buying slaves freedom would be irrelevant.
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.
I get what you're saying.
The 36th Congress reviewed 200 resolutions, 57 of them requiring an amendment to the Constitution of the USA, seeking a compromise in regards to the idiotic notion of owning people as property. This was NOT a new debate topic, as this idiotic notion was hotly contested at the first (only) Constitutional Convention & thereafter.
As per the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, from South Carolina:
Quote:
...For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing ...
I think Hellion's point (which I don't agree with) is that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War so buying slaves freedom would be irrelevant.
Of course, Hellion's point would be wrong.
The reason for the Civil War was that Southerners of power and influence, who sought to spread the institution of slavery at least to the territories and probably to the Northern states, lost an election and saw their grip on the Presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme Court disappearing. Their fear was that the Lincoln administration was going to start with abolishing slavery in the territories and possibly end up abolishing the institution throughout the Union. Their remedy was to attempt to leave the Union, but when their secession declarations and attempts to negotiate separation were ignored by President Lincoln, they pushed matters by attacking and seizing another federal military installation, but this time during Lincoln's administration. As a result, Lincoln acted as George Washington did during the Whiskey Rebellion and as Andrew Jackson did during the Nullification Crisis - he called out the troops, upheld the Constitution, and enforced federal law.
IMO, the notion that the Civil War could have been avoided by having the federal government purchase the freedom of all of the slaves is at best wishful thinking and at worst absolute nonsense. Simply put, slave owners considered their slaves as property and they weren't about to surrender their property, even if compensated.
A modern day parallel to the proposal of avoiding the Civil War by eliminating slavery through purchasing the freedom of the slaves would be if the federal government, in order to reduce pollution, green house gas emissions, and dependency on foreign oil, decided to offer to purchase all vehicles with internal combustion engines at a fair market value - the average Joe isn't going to give up his Chevy 4x4 pickup truck, his 68 Camaro, or his full size SUV for no amount of money.*
* Now don't jump on me and claim that I'm equating black people to inanimate objects; I'm only pointing out that back in 1860, slaves were viewed by their owners as property, not people.
Back people as slaves or free would have still been an obstacle for the South. What southern leaders foresaw was a shift of power and wealth. IMO The reason there is still the argument that the Civil War was not about Slavery is that for the south to maintain its wealth and power it needed to to trade economically as a separate entity apart from the united states.
Why they held on to slavery so long after the the north I am not sure, perhaps their geography was going to make them forever dependent on agriculture and oppressive farm labor. At one time the south had around 800 square miles of the largest concentration of wealth in the world. As the industrial north grew in wealth along with it came power. The south chose war rather than to become the lesser half of the whole. It really didn't matter what you name you gave the people who picked cotton before or after the Civil War.
then why not pay bank robbers not to rob banks??? it would much cheaper than keeping then in jail for years.slavery was wrong and the south got what they deserved.I dont think the south would have ever given up on its slaves because it was a status symbol to own a slave but slaves were expensive to buy maintain and try to catch when they escaped. also the economy was very inefficient.if they had paid them as workers, you now have an economy they could be taxed which would pay for roads and such and the workers now have money to buy goods and services, imagine all the jobs that would be created and how much wealthier the south would be if they didnt have slaves??? They owned slaves as a status symbol, they also believed it was there god given right to rule over inferior beings.
After the Massachusetts Constitution placed a clause "all men are born free and equal" in a few court cases slaves sued and the owners were penalized with damages, not compensated.
then why not pay bank robbers not to rob banks??? it would much cheaper than keeping then in jail for years.slavery was wrong and the south got what they deserved.I dont think the south would have ever given up on its slaves because it was a status symbol to own a slave but slaves were expensive to buy maintain and try to catch when they escaped. also the economy was very inefficient.if they had paid them as workers, you now have an economy they could be taxed which would pay for roads and such and the workers now have money to buy goods and services, imagine all the jobs that would be created and how much wealthier the south would be if they didnt have slaves??? They owned slaves as a status symbol, they also believed it was there god given right to rule over inferior beings.
Some of what you're saying, for my lack of a better way to describe, simply needs to be said.
Yet ... some of these concepts continue to be avoided like so many elephants stampeding through the room.
Instead, in the present day, some Confederate-American ideologues continue to be coddled, indulged, protected. & at what cost?
Not sure of his point however the YouTube he pointed to in one of his replies makes clear the actor's perspective:
The South seceded to preserve & expand chattel slavery; the alleged right or power to own people as property.
The actor then goes on to proclaim "it's a distinction without a difference" & then fails to make his case.
Whenever someone uses revisionist videos to back up a false claim, it shows a high level of desperation. Everything is pointing to what you mentioned in the second paragraph. The desire to preserve and expand chattel slavery. The right to own people as property. We can prove this with the Articles of Secession, and the Confederate constitution. No one has been able to refute it.
Either way, a Civil War wouldn't have been avoided. Attack a U.S. Army installation, and there will be a 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.
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.
