They weren't the same country, ...hence the secession of multiple states.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-18-2014 11:03 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  They weren't the same country, ...hence the secession of multiple states.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Civil wars usually involve separatists that want to break off - they consider themselves separate but the original government does not. The fact that the rebels consider themselves separate does not make it not a civil war.

Battle of the Frontiers. Over a million total casualties from August 5 to November 1914. Hard to even get the numbers in your head as to the destruction of human life that surrounds the next 4 years. 16 million people will die.

I find it interesting that very little media attention is being paid to the upcoming 100 year anniversary of this monumental event. I know damn well it is barely touched on in school. Most of what I have learned about the war to end all wars...I have learned myself.

(07-18-2014 03:20 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 04:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  U.S. Civil War.

Correction....to have a "civil war", that would require two parties fighting for the same government.
The War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States was a war consisting of the South fighting for independence, their second war of independence against an oppressive government!

Ummm. . .
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundati...il-war.htm

And when the reason many of the confederate states seceded was explicitly to protect their right to continue slavery, you don't get to play the oppressive government card.

(07-20-2014 11:17 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 03:20 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 04:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  U.S. Civil War.

Correction....to have a "civil war", that would require two parties fighting for the same government.
The War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States was a war consisting of the South fighting for independence, their second war of independence against an oppressive government!

Ummm. . .
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundati...il-war.htm

And when the reason many of the confederate states seceded was explicitly to protect their right to continue slavery, you don't get to play the oppressive government card.

Slavery was a part of it...but...only a part of it. Unfortunately government schooling left out the others and we have generations of mind dumb Americans that think otherwise. Winners get to write history.

(07-21-2014 05:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-20-2014 11:17 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 03:20 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 04:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  U.S. Civil War.

Correction....to have a "civil war", that would require two parties fighting for the same government.
The War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States was a war consisting of the South fighting for independence, their second war of independence against an oppressive government!

Ummm. . .
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundati...il-war.htm
And when the reason many of the confederate states seceded was explicitly to protect their right to continue slavery, you don't get to play the oppressive government card.

Slavery was a part of it...but...only a part of it. Unfortunately government schooling left out the others and we have generations of mind dumb Americans that think otherwise. Winners get to write history.

Slavery was the biggest part of it. Look at the articles of secession that the states put out at the time. Or even the article about the Virginia Convention in the Sons of the South link.

Quote:An amendment declaring "that in the event of proposed amendments to the Constitution being rejected by the Non-Slaveholding States Virginia will secede, was voted down 67--58."

That wasn't written by the winners, and that wasn't written after the fact. That's how Virginians were framing the divide in discussions about whether or not they should join the Confederacy.

Let's look at Texas.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp

Quote:She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States. . . .

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. . . .

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States. . . .

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

Now these are just excerpts, and the most inflammatory ones at that, so please go and read the whole thing. But I don't see any way to conclude that Texas did not secede over slavery.

That being said, it still doesn't make them traitors. Nor does the fact that they did not get majority approval make them tyrants - the Constitution did not have majority approval either. It does mean that they formed their own nation for a very evil purpose, however.

(07-21-2014 10:26 AM)jh Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 05:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-20-2014 11:17 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 03:20 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 04:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  U.S. Civil War.

Correction....to have a "civil war", that would require two parties fighting for the same government.
The War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States was a war consisting of the South fighting for independence, their second war of independence against an oppressive government!

Ummm. . .
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundati...il-war.htm
And when the reason many of the confederate states seceded was explicitly to protect their right to continue slavery, you don't get to play the oppressive government card.

Slavery was a part of it...but...only a part of it. Unfortunately government schooling left out the others and we have generations of mind dumb Americans that think otherwise. Winners get to write history.

Slavery was the biggest part of it. Look at the articles of secession that the states put out at the time. Or even the article about the Virginia Convention in the Sons of the South link.

Quote:An amendment declaring "that in the event of proposed amendments to the Constitution being rejected by the Non-Slaveholding States Virginia will secede, was voted down 67--58."

That wasn't written by the winners, and that wasn't written after the fact. That's how Virginians were framing the divide in discussions about whether or not they should join the Confederacy.

Let's look at Texas.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp

Quote:She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States. . . .

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. . . .

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States. . . .

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

Now these are just excerpts, and the most inflammatory ones at that, so please go and read the whole thing. But I don't see any way to conclude that Texas did not secede over slavery.

That being said, it still doesn't make them traitors. Nor does the fact that they did not get majority approval make them tyrants - the Constitution did not have majority approval either. It does mean that they formed their own nation for a very evil purpose, however.

Considering that only rich, land owning, white men were the ones who called the shots and given the right to vote, women were not given the vote, and non-whites were defined as less than human, that's not even debatable.

Ther were over 250k free people of color in the South. They had property, paid taxes and yea even owned other blacks as their own slaves.

Secession is a right given by the Constitution ,...The Southern States carried this out!


Now now onto taxation. Read the Tariffs of Abomination. The Fed. Gov't wanted an huge increase in cotton. The Northern States may have has the manufacturing but The South had all the wealth.

Lincoln offered the South to keep their slaves if they would give him the money in taxation. That was proposed in February prior to Ft. Sumter.

Carry On.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

We've gotten into one of 'those' conversations.

(07-21-2014 01:48 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Ther were over 250k free people of color in the South. They had property, paid taxes and yea even owned other blacks as their own slaves.

Secession is a right given by the Constitution ,...The Southern States carried this out!


Now now onto taxation. Read the Tariffs of Abomination. The Fed. Gov't wanted an huge increase in cotton. The Northern States may have has the manufacturing but The South had all the wealth.

Lincoln offered the South to keep their slaves if they would give him the money in taxation. That was proposed in February prior to Ft. Sumter.

Carry On.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Just curious. Which article and section addresses this?

Lots of hyperbole and down right misinformation has been spouted about from both sides of the Civil War proponents. Slavery was most certainly a part of the secession as was taxation and states rights issues. As for the assertion that secession is Constitutionally granted? I do not believe that is clearly stated. The Preamble does give us the impression that the founders believed that when a government no longer represents the populace that they are free to leave...just as we did the English Monarchy. It is though pretty clear that Lincoln was indeed prepared to give the South concessions to keep the Union intact even though he eventually came to believe(and rightly so) that Slavery was an abomination. The issue was an evolving conflict with Lincoln. He came to the conclusion after years of personal debate. It was not his early view. In fact...He was very far from an abolitionist in his early years.

(07-21-2014 08:04 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Lots of hyperbole and down right misinformation has been spouted about from both sides of the Civil War proponents. Slavery was most certainly a part of the secession as was taxation and states rights issues. As for the assertion that secession is Constitutionally granted? I do not believe that is clearly stated. The Preamble does give us the impression that the founders believed that when a government no longer represents the populace that they are free to leave...just as we did the English Monarchy. It is though pretty clear that Lincoln was indeed prepared to give the South concessions to keep the Union intact even though he eventually came to believe(and rightly so) that Slavery was an abomination. The issue was an evolving conflict with Lincoln. He came to the conclusion after years of personal debate. It was not his early view. In fact...He was very far from an abolitionist in his early years.

I think you are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence here. The Preamble to the Constitution makes no such statement.

And as far as secession is concerned I don't think it is mentioned at all in the Constitution.

(07-22-2014 01:28 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 08:04 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Lots of hyperbole and down right misinformation has been spouted about from both sides of the Civil War proponents. Slavery was most certainly a part of the secession as was taxation and states rights issues. As for the assertion that secession is Constitutionally granted? I do not believe that is clearly stated. The Preamble does give us the impression that the founders believed that when a government no longer represents the populace that they are free to leave...just as we did the English Monarchy. It is though pretty clear that Lincoln was indeed prepared to give the South concessions to keep the Union intact even though he eventually came to believe(and rightly so) that Slavery was an abomination. The issue was an evolving conflict with Lincoln. He came to the conclusion after years of personal debate. It was not his early view. In fact...He was very far from an abolitionist in his early years.

I think you are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence here. The Preamble to the Constitution makes no such statement.

And as far as secession is concerned I don't think it is mentioned at all in the Constitution.

You are correct and thank you for pointing out my error.

South Carolina. Pretty much all about the slavery (with a nice argument in favor of the compact theory, though).

Quote:In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Georgia. Georgia at least complains a little bit about economic conditions as well, but the bulk of the argument, as well as the opening and the conclusion, are all about slavery.

Quote:The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. . . .

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp

Mississippi. I think the bolded passage pretty well speaks for itself.

Quote:In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens

Quote:The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libra...ne-speech/

And here is a contemporaneous outsiders perspective from John Stuart Mill.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/17/john-st...civil-war/

(07-21-2014 03:30 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 01:48 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Ther were over 250k free people of color in the South. They had property, paid taxes and yea even owned other blacks as their own slaves.

Secession is a right given by the Constitution ,...The Southern States carried this out!


Now now onto taxation. Read the Tariffs of Abomination. The Fed. Gov't wanted an huge increase in cotton. The Northern States may have has the manufacturing but The South had all the wealth.

Lincoln offered the South to keep their slaves if they would give him the money in taxation. That was proposed in February prior to Ft. Sumter.

Carry On.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Just curious. Which article and section addresses this?

Article 1 Section 8. As well as the 9 th & 10th Amendments. The Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers.

James Madison also wrote that the Federal Gov had no right to keep a State from seceding. That would be viewed as oppressive and an act of War against the State.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

One thing that's missed in all this talk about slavery is how the agricultural south's one single industry was tied to slavery. So when they decried the possible outlawing of slavery, they were protesting the devastation of their ONLY industry - agriculture. You focus on slavery, but ignore how tied to slavery the industry of the south was. Slaves grew the crops, harvested them, took them to market, prepared the fields, and every other task related to agriculture in the south. Slavery was an essential component of their one single industry, which made the protestations on the debate over slavery inevitable. Without slavery, the entire south was out of business, because they had made it a vital component of the industry. Without slavery, they couldn't afford to grow anything. They were protesting the loss of their livelihood as much as anything else, since it was tied to slavery. The south had all their eggs in one basket, and the north wanted to take away not only the basket, but the eggs as well.

Getting back on topic... Where does the Turks conquering Constantinople and renaming it Islamabad rank? The fall of Constantinople led to the Europeans seeking a new trade route to China, which led to the discovery of America.