The War Between The States

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

That's good to hear, so you'd know then that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery,.

The civil war was about state's rights, not slavery.

The Civil War: A Narrative Fort Sumter to Perryville, Fredericksburg to Meridian, Red River to Appomattox by Shelby Foote

I have copies in the shelf behind me. I suggest you read it.

Mississippi declaration of secession:

''A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

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.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.''

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

Georgia:
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-slaveholding 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. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time.

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

Texas:
The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. 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.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

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.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

[Sonnabend]

Wrong state, son, they seceded LATER.

SECESSION AND THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION. Some advocates of secession justified it as a revolutionary right, but most of them based it on constitutional grounds. The 1860 South Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Secession quoted the states 1852 declaration, which said that "the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States," would justify the state in withdrawing from the Union. The South Carolina secession ordinance, following the procedure that Calhoun had prescribed, simply repealed the states ratification of the Constitution and subsequent amendments. The secession ordinances of other states did the same.

The Confederate Constitution proved to he somewhat inconsistent in regard to state rights. It contained no provision for secession, though its preamble averred that each Confederate state was "acting in its sovereign and independent character." One article (like the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) affirmed that the "powers not delegated" were "reserved to the States." The states, however, were limited in important ways. For example, they could not (just as the states of the Union could not) pass any law "impairing the obligation of contracts." They could not get rid of slavery, for the citizens of each state were to "have the right of transit and sojourn in any State . . . with their slaves."

Congress was forbidden to impose duties or taxes to promote or foster any branch of industry" but in some ways was given even greater powers than the U.S. Congress. The ambiguity regarding territories and slavery was removed. The Confederacy could "acquire new territory," and Congress could "legislate" (nor merely make "rules and regulations") for the territories. In all of them "the institution of negro slavery" was to be "recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government." Congress could make all laws necessary and proper" for carrying out its specified powers. If this or any other clause should lead to a dispute over the constitutionality of a law, the Confederate courts (rather than state legislatures or conventions) would presumably decide the issue. This was implied by the following provision: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the Constitution."

In sum, the new Constitution was more national than the old one with regard to slavery, which it guaranteed as a nationwide institution. The document provided no more basis for nullification or secession than its predecessor had done--despite the preambles reference to the member states as "sovereign" and "independent." Nevertheless, there remained room for the reassertion of state rights in the Confederacy.

The funny part is that you dont see that history is repeating itself. Once again, a US government is encroaching on state's rights. Secession by its very nature in action was predicated on the abrogation of states rights by the Federal Government.

One reason, i would say, why the 10th amendment was written , to prevent what was happening at the time. The Founding Fathers wanted limited government, having just recently fought a war of Independence...each state wanted the right of self determination.

Slavery was a factor, but not by any means the direct cause. By dictating to the states, the Federal Government was in breach of the Constitution, and secession was the natural and inevitable consequence.

Industry and commerce, the beginnings of the industrial revolution, economic and social upheaval as an old age slowly died away, being replaced by a modern (at that time, to us hideously primitive) technology.

Slavery itself was a dying institution, and the Emancipation Proclamation, which came in 1862, was to all intents and purpose a de facto recognition of a de jure condition..slavery in fact did not end until the 13th amendment was passed, in 1865...AFTER the war was over.

Oh and CITM? Democrats opposed the Proclamation, as they themselves had given birth to the Klan.

It started in Tennessee...Gore's home state.

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

Wrong state, son, they seceded LATER.


The funny part is that you dont see that history is repeating itself. Once again, a US government is encroaching on state's rights. Secession by its very nature in action was predicated on the abrogation of states rights by the Federal Government.

One reason, i would say, why the 10th amendment was written , to prevent what was happening at the time. The Founding Fathers wanted limited government, having just recently fought a war of Independence...each state wanted the right of self determination.

Slavery was a factor, but not by any means the direct cause. By dictating to the states, the Federal Government was in breach of the Constitution, and secession was the natural and inevitable consequence.

Industry and commerce, the beginnings of the industrial revolution, economic and social upheaval as an old age slowly died away, being replaced by a modern (at that time, to us hideously primitive) technology.

Slavery itself was a dying institution, and the Emancipation Proclamation, which came in 1862, was to all intents and purpose a de facto recognition of a de jure condition..slavery in fact did not end until the 13th amendment was passed, in 1865...AFTER the war was over.

Oh and CITM? Democrats opposed the Proclamation, as they themselves had given birth to the Klan.

It started in Tennessee...Gore's home state.

Bullshit.
If Slavery was not the main object or reason behind the war on either party's part, it was on the part of the North. Lincoln stated that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slave, he would; if he could preserve it by freeing some and not others he would; If he would preserve the Union by freeing all slaves, he would. The Emanicipation Proclaimation was a paltry measure designed not as an abolitionist measure but an attempt to weaken the Confederacy. It had no teeth, as it was essentially a document stating that slaves in what was then another country were free.

And, do I give a damn whether or not the Dems opposed it 140 years ago? I mean it's not like parties change over time. Nor is it that the South is now today solidly Republican and has been since post 1964 (Hmm...what was signed by a Democratic President that year, who said when signing it that it would cost the Democratic party the votes of the south 'for a generation?').

[Sonnabend]

Bullshit.
If Slavery was not the main object or reason behind the war on either party's part, it was on the part of the North. Lincoln stated that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slave, he would; if he could preserve it by freeing some and not others he would; If he would preserve the Union by freeing all slaves, he would. The Emanicipation Proclaimation was a paltry measure designed not as an abolitionist measure but an attempt to weaken the Confederacy. It had no teeth, as it was essentially a document stating that slaves in what was then another country were free.

What part of this dont you get?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

His attempt to intervene in states affairs was in DIRECT contravention of the Constitution.

Mississippi did NOT secede first, South Carolina did. Have you read the book I suggested? If not, you should.

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

Wrong state, son, they seceded LATER.


The funny part is that you dont see that history is repeating itself. Once again, a US government is encroaching on state's rights. Secession by its very nature in action was predicated on the abrogation of states rights by the Federal Government.

One reason, i would say, why the 10th amendment was written , to prevent what was happening at the time. The Founding Fathers wanted limited government, having just recently fought a war of Independence...each state wanted the right of self determination.

Slavery was a factor, but not by any means the direct cause. By dictating to the states, the Federal Government was in breach of the Constitution, and secession was the natural and inevitable consequence.

Industry and commerce, the beginnings of the industrial revolution, economic and social upheaval as an old age slowly died away, being replaced by a modern (at that time, to us hideously primitive) technology.

Slavery itself was a dying institution, and the Emancipation Proclamation, which came in 1862, was to all intents and purpose a de facto recognition of a de jure condition..slavery in fact did not end until the 13th amendment was passed, in 1865...AFTER the war was over.

Oh and CITM? Democrats opposed the Proclamation, as they themselves had given birth to the Klan.

It started in Tennessee...Gore's home state.

What part of this dont you get?



His attempt to intervene in states affairs was in DIRECT contravention of the Constitution.

Mississippi did NOT secede first, South Carolina did. Have you read the book I suggested? If not, you should.

I never said I was posting the declarations in chronological order as they were put out, did I?
Ah, so yes, the' right' of every state to hold slaves was trampled on. Boo fucking hoo.
So I'm guessing your feeling is (defending it as a violation of 'state affairs') slavery should be a matter left up to the states, amiright?

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

What part of this dont you get?

His attempt to intervene in states affairs was in DIRECT contravention of the Constitution.

Mississippi did NOT secede first, South Carolina did. Have you read the book I suggested? If not, you should.

I never said I was posting the declarations in chronological order as they were put out, did I?
Ah, so yes, the' right' of every state to hold slaves was trampled on. Boo fucking hoo.
So I'm guessing your feeling is (defending it as a violation of 'state affairs') slavery should be a matter left up to the states, amiright?

[Sonnabend]

I never said I was posting the declarations in chronological order as they were put out, did I?
Ah, so yes, the' right' of every state to hold slaves was trampled on. Boo fucking hoo.

I suggest you also read the Federalist Papers...and understand that the intent was to form a nation free of tyranny, and the key words here are and were self determination.

So I'm guessing your feeling is (defending it as a violation of 'state affairs') slavery should be a matter left up to the states, amiright?

Slavery was already dying.As an institution it had very little time left, the cotton mill and other technological changes had ensured that.

Sooner or later it was going to die of its own accord.

I do not condone slavery, it is abhorrent..but if you cant see that the war remained primarilty about states rights, the very same issue that now confronts Obama and other states that are talking secession NOW, because of the encroaching abuse of power by the Federal Government...then you do not understand the original intent and framework of the Constitution you live under.

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

I suggest you also read the Federalist Papers...and understand that the intent was to form a nation free of tyranny, and the key words here are and were self determination.

Slavery was already dying.As an institution it had very little time left, the cotton mill and other technological changes had ensured that.

Sooner or later it was going to die of its own accord.

I do not condone slavery, it is abhorrent..but if you cant see that the war remained primarilty about states rights, the very same issue that now confronts Obama and other states that are talking secession NOW, because of the encroaching abuse of power by the Federal Government...then you do not understand the original intent and framework of the Constitution you live under.

You're still defending it as an institution because it was a state's right of ''self determination''

The excuse that it was 'already dying' doesn't justify the continuation of it for longer than it needed to be.
The right we're talking about was assumed by many of the secceeding states to be the right to own slaves and to uphold the fugitive slave act. Please, only right wing wingnuts are talking secession now, I'm sure the same was said back when Clinton was President.