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.
If you join a group of people, with the idea that you will have some input into the actions and choices of that group, but then find out that you won't get that input, that you will have the group dictating to you without regard to your wants or needs, do you stay in the group anyway? Or do you try to leave?
Now only if a nation were merely a group. And it may have been, at the time Articles of Confederation was adopted. US Constitution was put in place for a reason, and it didn't have 100% support. Clearly, not all were committed to the idea since the beginning, but they lost.
And if one believes that the US Constitution was good in theory but failed in practice, then he/she must also believe that it failed to deliver the promise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The idea ingrained within the US Constitution that "the people" of the United States would control their government was corrupted by regionalism, which was well-established in the colonies before the American Revolution, and by the salient fact of democracy, that numbers are power. When one part of a political group is rendered politically powerless, the Declaration of Independence actually addresses the reasons why the people who are under the authority of a government but have no voice in that government are empowered to leave that government. The fundamental idea of the United States was that we are governed with our consent. When our consent becomes irrelevant, then what?
It isn't just the north that should be pointed for being responsible towards corruption of regionalism. It was very much the premise of "states' rights" then and it is now. But if numbers were meant to be power, then the premise built within the US Constitution to prevent that was a failure. Do you agree?
Now only if a nation were merely a group. And it may have been, at the time Articles of Confederation was adopted. US Constitution was put in place for a reason, and it didn't have 100% support. Clearly, not all were committed to the idea since the beginning, but they lost.
And if one believes that the US Constitution was good in theory but failed in practice, then he/she must also believe that it failed to deliver the promise.
It isn't just the north that should be pointed for being responsible towards corruption of regionalism. It was very much the premise of "states' rights" then and it is now. But if numbers were meant to be power, then the premise built within the US Constitution to prevent that was a failure. Do you agree?
You repeatedly attempt to re-frame the argument with your comments about, "if one believes that the US Constitution was good in theory but failed in practice."
And you don't get to do that.
There is not another person on this forum that respects the Constitution more than I. Admires it not just as an ideological document, but also as a finely balanced tool that helps to ensure the survival of the ideals it was founded upon.
I have also stated that I have the utmost respect for Abraham Lincoln and I think he was right in going to war to ensure the survival of our country. I know that he, more than anyone else, understood that his actions were not Constitutional. I believe that he was sorely troubled by the things he had to do, but that when he took office, he had thought through the problem, and pragmatically understood that in order to protect the Constitution and the Union, he had to take actions that would conflict with that Constitution. In some ways I think this nearly broke him, because he was a man of deep conscience.
And I have the mental capacity to understand that the South was not some evil region of the country that embraced the subjugation of its fellow man. I realize that people of the North and South at that time didn't see Blacks and Whites as equals. That that was, indeed, the predominant belief, that Blacks were inferior to Whites. And that there were those in the South and the North that believed Blacks to be inferior, and still believed that slavery was wrong.
I also have the mental capacity to understand that the South's economy was entwined with slavery, and that the degree of that interrelationship was not just fostered in the South, but that the North fostered the South's dependence on slavery as well. It was Northern ships that had brought slaves to our country, and profited from the sale of slaves. It was Northern bankers that bankrolled the plantation economy, bankrolling the purchase of slaves. It was Northern insurance companies that took money from slave-owners to insure the slave-owners against the loss of their slaves. The North was not an innocent bystander to slavery, and abolitionists existed in the South as well as the North.
I also understand, which most Americans do not, that Presidential elections worked rather differently before the election of Abraham Lincoln. That we didn't actually have national elections, but rather the elections were conducted regionally, and the electoral college played a much more central role in NEGOTIATING who would become our next President. The people who ran for office in Illinois were not the same people who ran for office in Florida. The ballots were completely separate, completely different. Abraham Lincoln didn't run for President in the South. Not a single vote in the South was cast for him, because he wasn't on the ballot at all. But when the electoral college met, the expectation was that during the negotiations, the South would have its say. In the 1860 election, this was not true. It was this turning point where the numbers meant that the North could control the selection of the President without reference to the South. And the electoral college reflects the numbers in our legislature. If the North could control the selection of the President because their electors in the electoral college outnumbered the electors from the South, that meant that the North could control the legislature as well. Without reference to the needs or wants of the citizens of the South.
The leaders of the South were well-educated and politically sophisticated. They had understood the weakness of a democracies, that they favor representation from denser population regions, from the very beginning. The compromises that were built into the system were meant to address the fact that democratic systems inevitably give more power to urban areas over rural areas. The Founding Fathers did not anticipate that our country as a whole would grow as quickly as it did, nor that the North's urban population would explode. Lincoln's election meant that in a country where regionalism defined political positions much more than political party affiliation did, that the South as a region of this country was on the short end of the stick.
And we hadn't even reached our first centennial. The Southern states had joined a union of states based on the premise of the Declaration of Independence, that we are ruled by our own consent. That our government should not impose laws and taxes on us without that consent. But the political reality was that the Federal government was controlled by the North, and could impose laws and taxes on the citizens of the South without their consent. It wasn't that the South had lost the election, it was that the election made the South irrelevant. Their consent, or lack of consent, was of no consequence.
And the Declaration of Independence had made clear that when you are ruled in such a situation, where your consent, or lack of consent, is of no consequence to those who hold the power, then you are being ruled unjustly, and have the right to assert your independence. The North wanted to end slavery. But when France or England had ended slavery in their colonies, they had recognized that their countries had profited by slavery, and so they compensated the slave owners for the loss of slaves. That compensation allowed plantations in the colonies to employ labor, and protected the economies of those colonies. When the North proposed to end slavery, they had no intention of using federal funds to compensate slave owners, they had no intention of protecting the South's economy. While they had profited handsomely from the slave trade and from the practice of slavery, they also recognized the financial opportunity available to them if they eliminated the economy of the South. Regionalism was so pronounced at the time, that an economic ruin in one part of the country could leave the rest of the country's economy unscathed, and the opportunity for the North, to gain land and resources cheaply at the South's expense, laid the groundwork for both sides to be obdurate and unable to reach a compromise.
The South did not act as the aggressor. They sent emissaries to Congress, they sought some ways to reconcile the differences between the two regions, and their efforts were rejected. Even the firing on Ft Sumter was not an act of overt aggression. They notified the commander ahead of time of when they would be firing and where they would be targeting, so that the commander could ensure the safety of his men. That's why not one soldier at Ft Sumter was killed by Southern armaments. Not one.
And that being said, the simple fact of the matter is that if the South had been allowed to secede, then secession would have been a pattern. Why would California and the West Coast stay in a Union with the New England States? The wants and needs of the respective regions were wholly different from one another. When differences arose between the states and regions, secession would have been the easy answer.
Lincoln recognized this, recognized that in order to preserve the Union and to preserve the promise and ideals of our Constitution, that he could not allow the South to secede. Ft Sumter was a kabuki play. Congress had adjourned, and it gave Lincoln the opportunity to act. He recognized that he couldn't initiate aggression against the South, both nationally and internationally that would have ended support for Lincoln and his agenda. He needed to provoke the South. And persisting with provisioning Ft Sumter as a Union outpost was provocative. Especially since it was provoking South Carolina, which had demonstrated over and over that it was more inflamed, more prone to incitement than the other states that had seceded.
Lincoln was brilliant. And he did what he did because he believed in the Constitution. I believe he was right in what he did. But I know that he had to choose to break from the Constitution in his actions in order to protect that Constitution for the future.
You repeatedly attempt to re-frame the argument with your comments about, "if one believes that the US Constitution was good in theory but failed in practice."
And you don't get to do that.
There is not another person on this forum that respects the Constitution more than I. Admires it not just as an ideological document, but also as a finely balanced tool that helps to ensure the survival of the ideals it was founded upon.
I have also stated that I have the utmost respect for Abraham Lincoln and I think he was right in going to war to ensure the survival of our country. I know that he, more than anyone else, understood that his actions were not Constitutional. I believe that he was sorely troubled by the things he had to do, but that when he took office, he had thought through the problem, and pragmatically understood that in order to protect the Constitution and the Union, he had to take actions that would conflict with that Constitution. In some ways I think this nearly broke him, because he was a man of deep conscience.
And I have the mental capacity to understand that the South was not some evil region of the country that embraced the subjugation of its fellow man. I realize that people of the North and South at that time didn't see Blacks and Whites as equals. That that was, indeed, the predominant belief, that Blacks were inferior to Whites. And that there were those in the South and the North that believed Blacks to be inferior, and still believed that slavery was wrong.
I also have the mental capacity to understand that the South's economy was entwined with slavery, and that the degree of that interrelationship was not just fostered in the South, but that the North fostered the South's dependence on slavery as well. It was Northern ships that had brought slaves to our country, and profited from the sale of slaves. It was Northern bankers that bankrolled the plantation economy, bankrolling the purchase of slaves. It was Northern insurance companies that took money from slave-owners to insure the slave-owners against the loss of their slaves. The North was not an innocent bystander to slavery, and abolitionists existed in the South as well as the North.
I also understand, which most Americans do not, that Presidential elections worked rather differently before the election of Abraham Lincoln. That we didn't actually have national elections, but rather the elections were conducted regionally, and the electoral college played a much more central role in NEGOTIATING who would become our next President. The people who ran for office in Illinois were not the same people who ran for office in Florida. The ballots were completely separate, completely different. Abraham Lincoln didn't run for President in the South. Not a single vote in the South was cast for him, because he wasn't on the ballot at all. But when the electoral college met, the expectation was that during the negotiations, the South would have its say. In the 1860 election, this was not true. It was this turning point where the numbers meant that the North could control the selection of the President without reference to the South. And the electoral college reflects the numbers in our legislature. If the North could control the selection of the President because their electors in the electoral college outnumbered the electors from the South, that meant that the North could control the legislature as well. Without reference to the needs or wants of the citizens of the South.
The leaders of the South were well-educated and politically sophisticated. They had understood the weakness of a democracies, that they favor representation from denser population regions, from the very beginning. The compromises that were built into the system were meant to address the fact that democratic systems inevitably give more power to urban areas over rural areas. The Founding Fathers did not anticipate that our country as a whole would grow as quickly as it did, nor that the North's urban population would explode. Lincoln's election meant that in a country where regionalism defined political positions much more than political party affiliation did, that the South as a region of this country was on the short end of the stick.
And we hadn't even reached our first centennial. The Southern states had joined a union of states based on the premise of the Declaration of Independence, that we are ruled by our own consent. That our government should not impose laws and taxes on us without that consent. But the political reality was that the Federal government was controlled by the North, and could impose laws and taxes on the citizens of the South without their consent. It wasn't that the South had lost the election, it was that the election made the South irrelevant. Their consent, or lack of consent, was of no consequence.
And the Declaration of Independence had made clear that when you are ruled in such a situation, where your consent, or lack of consent, is of no consequence to those who hold the power, then you are being ruled unjustly, and have the right to assert your independence. The North wanted to end slavery. But when France or England had ended slavery in their colonies, they had recognized that their countries had profited by slavery, and so they compensated the slave owners for the loss of slaves. That compensation allowed plantations in the colonies to employ labor, and protected the economies of those colonies. When the North proposed to end slavery, they had no intention of using federal funds to compensate slave owners, they had no intention of protecting the South's economy. While they had profited handsomely from the slave trade and from the practice of slavery, they also recognized the financial opportunity available to them if they eliminated the economy of the South. Regionalism was so pronounced at the time, that an economic ruin in one part of the country could leave the rest of the country's economy unscathed, and the opportunity for the North, to gain land and resources cheaply at the South's expense, laid the groundwork for both sides to be obdurate and unable to reach a compromise.
The South did not act as the aggressor. They sent emissaries to Congress, they sought some ways to reconcile the differences between the two regions, and their efforts were rejected. Even the firing on Ft Sumter was not an act of overt aggression. They notified the commander ahead of time of when they would be firing and where they would be targeting, so that the commander could ensure the safety of his men. That's why not one soldier at Ft Sumter was killed by Southern armaments. Not one.
And that being said, the simple fact of the matter is that if the South had been allowed to secede, then secession would have been a pattern. Why would California and the West Coast stay in a Union with the New England States? The wants and needs of the respective regions were wholly different from one another. When differences arose between the states and regions, secession would have been the easy answer.
Lincoln recognized this, recognized that in order to preserve the Union and to preserve the promise and ideals of our Constitution, that he could not allow the South to secede. Ft Sumter was a kabuki play. Congress had adjourned, and it gave Lincoln the opportunity to act. He recognized that he couldn't initiate aggression against the South, both nationally and internationally that would have ended support for Lincoln and his agenda. He needed to provoke the South. And persisting with provisioning Ft Sumter as a Union outpost was provocative. Especially since it was provoking South Carolina, which had demonstrated over and over that it was more inflamed, more prone to incitement than the other states that had seceded.
Lincoln was brilliant. And he did what he did because he believed in the Constitution. I believe he was right in what he did. But I know that he had to choose to break from the Constitution in his actions in order to protect that Constitution for the future.
Good point about the centralization of slaves. Most southern farmers didn't have slaves due to cost but slavery was increasing on larger plantations.. cotton plantations. It was not cost effective for smaller farmers to keep slaves yet they were competing against larger plantations and their slave (free) labor. Free is not a good word to use since slaves cost the plantation owner some money but free labor was a common angst of the small Southern farmer and also the northern industry.
So freaking what? Slaves were slaves, no matter who owned them or how much it cost their owner to keep them. Big whoop to the above!
You repeatedly attempt to re-frame the argument with your comments about, "if one believes that the US Constitution was good in theory but failed in practice."
And you don't get to do that...
Excuse me for snipping out the majority of a good post, but mostly irrelevant. First of all, let me address this idea of targeting Lincoln. Why does he get mentioned more than any other President before him for Civil War? Based on your post, it would be safe to assume that the issue went on for decades, and didn't start with Lincoln in office.
Now, let us revisit the issue of the US Constitution and its success or failure at delivering a promise. Was it not a promise that the US Constitution would prevent a regional rule? Was it not a reality that the southerners saw many flaws in the US Constitution that they "fixed" in their new Constitution? In other words, they saw the US constitution skewed against their whims. Is that a wrong assumption on my part?
The issues were irreconcilable, because (as we can see in present day politics), it was about my way or highway. The southerners did not want to respect congress' authority to regulate/abolish slave trade. What compromise do you think could they have worked out, or proposed to that effect? If anything, it was Lincoln who worked a compromise to prevent war, but that wasn't enough.
And no, notified or not, even a symbolic firing with a well published agenda is an act of aggression.
Excuse me for snipping out the majority of a good post, but mostly irrelevant. First of all, let me address this idea of targeting Lincoln. Why does he get mentioned more than any other President before him for Civil War? Based on your post, it would be safe to assume that the issue went on for decades, and didn't start with Lincoln in office.
Now, let us revisit the issue of the US Constitution and its success or failure at delivering a promise. Was it not a promise that the US Constitution would prevent a regional rule? Was it not a reality that the southerners saw many flaws in the US Constitution that they "fixed" in their new Constitution? In other words, they saw the US constitution skewed against their whims. Is that a wrong assumption on my part?
The issues were irreconcilable, because (as we can see in present day politics), it was about my way or highway. The southerners did not want to respect congress' authority to regulate/abolish slave trade. What compromise do you think could they have worked out, or proposed to that effect? If anything, it was Lincoln who worked a compromise to prevent war, but that wasn't enough.
And no, notified or not, even a symbolic firing with a well published agenda is an act of aggression.
Since you snipped out the part where I EXPLAINED why Lincoln gets mentioned more than any other President for his role in the Civil War, I would suggest you go back and read it.
And again, I answered your "issue of the US Constitution" in my previous post. You only want to revisit it because you don't like my answer. Perhaps, instead of ignoring that answer, you might try to rebut my facts. Of course, facts are difficult to rebut. But the South didn't see the US Constitution skewed against their whims. Your lovely phrase which tries to minimize what they did see--a threat against their economy that would have rendered a Great Depression and devastated most of the population. The war actually resulted in such a depression for the South. And as I pointed out, because of regionalism, that economic setback was not shared by the rest of the country. Perhaps you'd like to research the economy of the South up until World War I. With the exception of some Northern-held interests (like the Birmingham steelworks), the South's economy was devastated. And it would have been equally devastated if the North had gone forward with abolition without compensating the South for the lost property.
And the firing at Ft Sumter didn't have a well-published agenda. The commander of the garrison and the South Carolina authorities were involved in negotiations. The commander was negotiating a surrender, but then was informed that Lincoln expressly forbid such a surrender. South Carolina was informed of the rescinded surrender, and then informed the commander, expressly, of where they would fire, when they would fire, what they would be firing....ALL to avoid injuring any of the garrison's occupants. People who initiate war don't usually go to extreme measures to avoid hurting anyone.
I think I've made it clear that I don't absolve the South for its transgressions. But I don't absolve the North, either. And it troubles me that Americans don't understand the complexities involved with this war, that they aren't taught anything about the political system and elections when our country was first founded, and that while they can readily understand the implications when China underwrites American debt, but cannot translate such implications to an antebellum South where the North owned Southern debt. I find it terribly discouraging when people don't even understand how democracies function, and that with EVERY political and EVERY economic system, there are advantages and disadvantages. Instead, Americans are taught to cheer for democracy and to cheer for capitalism, without understanding either.
Since you snipped out the part where I EXPLAINED why Lincoln gets mentioned more than any other President for his role in the Civil War, I would suggest you go back and read it.
Did it take Lincoln to be anywhere close to the office, for the foundation of the Civil War to be laid? For the threat of secession?
Quote:
And again, I answered your "issue of the US Constitution" in my previous post. You only want to revisit it because you don't like my answer. Perhaps, instead of ignoring that answer, you might try to rebut my facts. Of course, facts are difficult to rebut. But the South didn't see the US Constitution skewed against their whims. Your lovely phrase which tries to minimize what they did see--a threat against their economy that would have rendered a Great Depression and devastated most of the population. The war actually resulted in such a depression for the South. And as I pointed out, because of regionalism, that economic setback was not shared by the rest of the country. Perhaps you'd like to research the economy of the South up until World War I. With the exception of some Northern-held interests (like the Birmingham steelworks), the South's economy was devastated. And it would have been equally devastated if the North had gone forward with abolition without compensating the South for the lost property.
Instead of telling stories, long winded posts with repetitions, answer the question:
What compromise do you think could they have worked out, or proposed to that effect?
And if the southerners didn't have an issue with the US constitution, why did they go about "plugging holes"? Couple of examples:
Commerce Clause in the US Constitution:
Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction.
The Congress:
The new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives and may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration. I should have preferred that this provision should have gone further, and required the President to select his constitutional advisers from the Senate and House of Representatives. That would have conformed entirely to the practice in the British Parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of the wisest provisions in the British constitution. It is the only feature that saves that government.
If anything, they didn't like a bit more than "regionalism", instead a direct "improvement" over the US Constitution. On issue of slavery, did the US Constitution give the Congress the authority to regulate/abolish?
Quote:
And the firing at Ft Sumter didn't have a well-published agenda. The commander of the garrison and the South Carolina authorities were involved in negotiations. The commander was negotiating a surrender, but then was informed that Lincoln expressly forbid such a surrender. South Carolina was informed of the rescinded surrender, and then informed the commander, expressly, of where they would fire, when they would fire, what they would be firing....ALL to avoid injuring any of the garrison's occupants. People who initiate war don't usually go to extreme measures to avoid hurting anyone.
It doesn't matter. If I make a declaration against some policies and years later, I go about firing gun without giving up that agenda, regardless of how I do it. It should be expected that I be seen as an aggressor.
Quote:
I think I've made it clear that I don't absolve the South for its transgressions. But I don't absolve the North, either.
Did it take Lincoln to be anywhere close to the office, for the foundation of the Civil War to be laid? For the threat of secession?
Instead of telling stories, long winded posts with repetitions, answer the question:
What compromise do you think could they have worked out, or proposed to that effect?
And if the southerners didn't have an issue with the US constitution, why did they go about "plugging holes"? Couple of examples:
Commerce Clause in the US Constitution:
Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction.
The Congress:
The new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives and may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration. I should have preferred that this provision should have gone further, and required the President to select his constitutional advisers from the Senate and House of Representatives. That would have conformed entirely to the practice in the British Parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of the wisest provisions in the British constitution. It is the only feature that saves that government.
If anything, they didn't like a bit more than "regionalism", instead a direct "improvement" over the US Constitution. On issue of slavery, did the US Constitution give the Congress the authority to regulate/abolish?
It doesn't matter. If I make a declaration against some policies and years later, I go about firing gun without giving up that agenda, regardless of how I do it. It should be expected that I be seen as an aggressor.
That is fine.
THE ISSUE WASN'T THE CONSTITUTION. THE ISSUE WAS THE NATURE OF DEMOCRACY. THAT DEMOCRACY FAVORS URBAN CITIZENS OVER RURAL CITIZENS. INEVITABLY AND ALWAYS.
If you need to look at what had changed, look at the composition of Congress from 1856 to 1860. It was a watershed moment in history, and a change that the South was very attuned to. When Lincoln won the election, the North could just as easily have been saying to the South, why did you even bother having an election? Don't bother sending your electors to the electoral college. You don't matter anymore.
The confederacy attacking the US military was one of the reasons. most peole would agree , if you attack the military it's an act of war.
Sure. "Most people" who have never heard nor read anything but the "Northern" (i.e. "winners side") of the war might "agree" with that.
BUT...ever looked at it from another point of view...?
Ft. Sumter originally belonged to the state of South Carolina...which later turned over to the federal goverment for defense purposes. Point is, it originally belonged to the soverign state of SC...NOT the feds.
When the Lower South (South Carolina thru Texas, seceded), they offered to negogiate a peaceful settlement with the northern states and to compensate for all formerly "federal" property...whether that be "forts" or post-offices. The Lincoln administation shunned this offer for peaceful settlement (because they wanted to keep the South's tax money).
Knowing northern public opinion was very much against using military force to prevent secession? Lincoln used the ingenious (and I admit it worked) strategy of provoking the new seven state Southern Confederacy into a military move; thereby uniting northern public opinion into supporting his already planned invasion of the South. Something to really be proud of, huh? Invading a people who had done the North no wrong to begin with, and wanted nothing more than peaceful seperation.
Oh yeah, here is where it comes back to square one...
Attacked a "united states". military installation?
Sorry, that ain't true! . Ft. Sumter was occupied by armed troops of a foriegn nation in CSA territorial waters. For them to have continued to remain could be construed as nothing less than hostile intentions by a foriegn power. It could no more be permanently permitted than -- in an earlier revolution -- the British could be allowed to occupy Boston harbor (or whatever).
Thus, the Confederates had no choice but to use counter-force after every overture of peaceful settlement had been shunned by an administration controlling the Old Union government which was pre-determined to use force ....no matter what. And just need an excuse to do so.
If they (the North) didn't have one? Well, by golly, they would find a way to provoke one!
Last edited by TexasReb; 01-25-2012 at 09:09 PM..
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.
. Ft. Sumter was occupied by armed troops of a foriegn nation in CSA territorial waters. For them to have continued to remain could be construed as nothing less than hostile intentions by a foriegn power. It could no more be permanently permitted than -- in an earlier revolution -- the British could be allowed to occupy Boston harbor (or whatever). 
