|
Continued from the Reagan thread, as that's a nice little thread that I don't want to spoil any further with this rubbish.
Top five causes for the civil war
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.So while slavery was an issue it was not as others have sought to hard to prove and have fallen down trying to, the one and only issue. It was not even the top issue. In fact in many ways it was as a side effect of the changing culture at the time.
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South. (The Industrialised North vs the Agricultural South, primarily based on slaves.)
2. States versus federal rights. (Yes, the right to keep slaves)3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents. (Obvious)
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement. (Obvious)
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln. (Obvious)
So even taking that list, it all comes back to slavery. And with the Articles of Secession from various states stating, quite clearly that the reason for their secession was due to slavery, it seems your arguments don't stand up.
I've previously listed the Alabama Conference on Secession, The Texas Article of Secession and Stephen's Cornerstone speech, all of which state the fear over Slavery being ended as the reason for the South's illegal secession from the Union. No other reasons are given, at least until after the war ended, when suddenly the 'Lost Cause' myth comes to the fore, mainly to save face.
I'd also point out that the Slave owning states were only too happy to run roughshod over 'States Rights' with the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
All you have said is why the South seceded, not why the North and South fought. Do you seriously think that Lincoln or the North cared at all about the poor black man in the south?
You think that the South decided to seceded and then decided to try to take over the North? Secession and the war are two connected, but separate things. I don't for an instant think that "The North" would have listed freeing the slaves in the top 5 reasons for fighting the war.
|
1}With Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.
... So while Slaves were part of the issue it was not in fact the root cause.
|
|
2} States versus federal rights.
Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.
........... So nothing at all about slavery. You might actually want to read it before commenting.
|
|
3}
As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called “Border Ruffians.” Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called “Bleeding Kansas.” The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina’s Senator Preston Brooks.
.............Being in Kansas currently and in the area that some of the bloodiest battle took place this was indeed an issue here. But still only speaks to half of the issue. Which was control. The people of Missouri didn't truly care if Kansas was a slave state or not. they wanted another territory on their side.
In the North, abolitionists argued that slavery was immoral. Books like Uncle Tom's Cabin and religious tracts depicted the miserable plight of the enslaved. Some people really did care about the poor Blacks of the South.
Other Northerners based their opposition on the rising class distinctions of the period. They saw slavery as one factor driving down wages and worsening labor conditions for working men.
|
|
4}Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.
............ While this covers slavery it also expounds the change of attitudes that people were beginning to have during this time. Social change which was a very new thing at this time in history.
|
|
5} Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its “Declaration of the Causes of Secession.” They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.
This was the entirety of your previous posts. The fifth and final of our top five, but it doesn't cover the only reason for the war. Which you seem to think is and was only slavery. It was not.
As far as the myth of the south and such your right it did not come until years after the war. A myth that some want to expose even today. It was BS then and is utter BS now.
|
|
All you have said is why the South seceded, not why the North and South fought. Do you seriously think that Lincoln or the North cared at all about the poor black man in the south?
You think that the South decided to seceded and then decided to try to take over the North? Secession and the war are two connected, but separate things. I don't for an instant think that "The North" would have listed freeing the slaves in the top 5 reasons for fighting the war.
Secession was an act of treason. The attack on Fort Sumter was an act of war. But no Secession, no war. The act of Secession, however, made war inevitable.
Now then, Crimson, if you can bring up one quote from either an article of secession or a prominent Confederate at the time who argued that economic or social reasons were behind the decision to secede, you might have some evidence to support your interesting quotes. But there aren't any. Every primary source from those people shows that slavery, often with a moral/religious element, was the main reason for secession. The south feared that Lincoln would work to end slavery, as he was slightly more sympathetic to the abolitionists.
Regarding Bleeding Kansas, you're right that it's an issue that led up to the war, but again, that's entirely to do with Slavery. The Missourians who poured into Kansas did so to take control of the state in order to ensure it became a slave state, so that the pro-slavery states remained a majority in the senate. They failed, and the abolitionist states became a majority for the first time in 1858, two years before secession.
Take slavery out of the equation and you have no reason for a war. No social tensions, no economic tensions, no moral or religious tensions.
Secession was an act of treason. The attack on Fort Sumter was an act of war. But no Secession, no war. The act of Secession, however, made war inevitable.
No really There is nothing in the Constitution or any other legal document which precludes any state or group of states from seceding from the United States. This was also true in 1861.When the US was formed a state was more or less it's own country. That was the point there was suppose to be 13 country's with a loose federal government.
Secession was a legal action. And was legally done as well. As such they could demand surrender of a foreign power holding a fort.
|
|
All you have said is why the South seceded, not why the North and South fought. Do you seriously think that Lincoln or the North cared at all about the poor black man in the south?
You think that the South decided to seceded and then decided to try to take over the North? Secession and the war are two connected, but separate things. I don't for an instant think that "The North" would have listed freeing the slaves in the top 5 reasons for fighting the war.
Secession was an act of treason. The attack on Fort Sumter was an act of war. But no Secession, no war. The act of Secession, however, made war inevitable.
Now then, Crimson, if you can bring up one quote from either an article of secession or a prominent Confederate at the time who argued that economic or social reasons were behind the decision to secede, you might have some evidence to support your interesting quotes. But there aren't any. Every primary source from those people shows that slavery, often with a moral/religious element, was the main reason for secession. The south feared that Lincoln would work to end slavery, as he was slightly more sympathetic to the abolitionists.
Regarding Bleeding Kansas, you're right that it's an issue that led up to the war, but again, that's entirely to do with Slavery. The Missourians who poured into Kansas did so to take control of the state in order to ensure it became a slave state, so that the pro-slavery states remained a majority in the senate. They failed, and the abolitionist states became a majority for the first time in 1858, two years before secession.
Take slavery out of the equation and you have no reason for a war. No social tensions, no economic tensions, no moral or religious tensions.
You know I am done here. Read a history book sometime if you want I can get you a list of which will awaken you from your ignorance.
In fact it could be argued that Lincoln deliberately gave the Confederacy a Causus Belli by refusing to evacuate Fort Sumter...What are you supposed to do when a Foreign Power holds a major Military instalation in the middle of your Major Port...
Secession was legal..Lincolns response was to mobilise and force the Confederacy into a war that in the end it could not win...Lincoln didnt realise just how much suffering there was going to be believing as he did that the war would be over in 3 months a fallacy encouraged by McDowall and Winfield Scott
|
|
Craven, Avery. The Coming of the Civil War (1942) ISBN 0-226-11894-0
Donald, David Herbert, Baker, Jean Harvey, and Holt, Michael F. The Civil War and Reconstruction. (2001)
Ellis, Richard E. The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States' Rights and the Nullification Crisis. (1987)
Fehrenbacher, Don E. The Slaveholding Republic: An Account of the United States Government's Relations to Slavery. (2001) ISBN 1-19-514177-6
Forbes, Robert Pierce. The Missouri Compromise and ItAftermath: Slavery and the Meaning of America. (2007) ISBN 978-0-8078-3105-2
Freehling, William W. Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Crisis in South Carolina 1816-1836. (1965) ISBN 0-19-507681-8
Freehling, William W. The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854. (1990) ISBN 0-19-505814-3
Freehling, William W. and Craig M. Simpson, eds. Secession Debated: Georgia's Showdown in 1860 (1992), speeches
Hesseltine; William B. ed. The Tragic Conflict: The Civil War and Reconstruction (1962), primary documents
Mason, Matthew. Slavery and Politics in the Early American Republic. (2006) ISBN 13:978-0-8078-3049-9
McDonald, Forrest. States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876. (2000)
McPherson, James M. This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War. (2007)
Niven, John. John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union (1988) ISBN 0-8071-1451-0
Perman, Michael, ed. Major Problems in Civil War & Reconstruction (2nd ed. 1998) primary and secondary sources.
Remini, Robert V. Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822-1832,v2 (1981) ISBN 0-06-014844-6
Stampp, Kenneth, ed. The Causes of the Civil War (3rd ed 1992), primary and secondary sources.
Wakelyn; Jon L. ed. Southern Pamphlets on Secession, November 1860-April 1861 (1996)
or maybe it is just that today slavery is a moral issue and in the 1800's it was an economic one.
link to reasons for the war
Why were no Southern leaders tried for treason? I know, does anyone else?
Also, in the Constitutional Convention, whether or not to give the Federal government the power to force a state to comply by force was debated, and it was agreed that to do so would amount to the dissolution of any agreements made between the states. This view was held by Thomas Jefferson and others.
If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, "let us separate." — Thomas Jefferson letter to William H. Crawford, Monroe's Secretary of the Treasury, 1816
Take slavery out of the equation and you have no reason for a war. No social tensions, no economic tensions, no moral or religious tensions.
This seems true to me. But as an observer here and having no expertise on this subject: what else can you take out of the equation leaving no reason for war?
|
|
Take slavery out of the equation and you have no reason for a war. No social tensions, no economic tensions, no moral or religious tensions.This seems true to me. But as an observer here and having no expertise on this subject: what else can you take out of the equation leaving no reason for war?
The reasons for war were economic. it may seem a moral issue now but at the time slaves = property and therefore your money, your livelihood, your future.
|
|
Why were no Southern leaders tried for treason? I know, does anyone else?
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
"no Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the save overt Act, or on Confession in open court."
There is no article within the US Constitution that declares whether a state could or could not secede from the Union; therefore, it could be argued that the union of states is not permanent and that the Confederacy was well within its rights to secede since there was no Constitutional law prohibiting secession. Therefore, though southern leaders were enemy combatants against the United States, they were not necessarily fighting against their country (the US) as much as they were fighting for their country (the Confederacy); and this explains why no Confederate leader was ever tried for treason.
...
So you contend that if one were to replace slavery with another economic issue of similar dimensions but none of the moral overtones, there would still be a war.
That I get.
Which seems totally in line with how wars are publicized today.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re: Other countries recognizing the CSA.
It's my recollection that England was flirting with recognizing the CSA, both for economic and political reasons. Along those lines, part of the reason for Sherman's long march was to 'show' the world that the CSA wasn't a viable nation, and that the Union could ride roughshod over them with impunity.
Plus, lets face it, Sherman (and Sheridan) did succeed in inflicting massive socioeconomic damage on the south. I know Sherman sent a letter to Sheridan before the march (and Sheridan's run through Virginia) saying that the quicked way to end the war was to kill all the southern politicians.
Plus Sherman was the first head of LSU. This entertains me to no end ;-)
The methods used against the Southern population was despicable, and by any standards criminal. Yet some how the North has "moral high ground"? So in order to "preserve the Union" and "free the slaves" it was considered necessary to starve woman and children and watch them freeze to death after their homes were burned to the ground? Lincoln and his goons were war criminals pure and simple. But let them be praised, because after all, they "won".
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Wow, bitter much?
By accounts of the March, Sherman made a point to not harm civilians, their property was something else entirely.
Though there was one instance where a house was spared because the occupants wouldn't leave.
Also Sherman's forces weren't recognized by Johnson as being regular army and his scouts were executed as looters. Uncle Billy, being a practical sort of man, executed some of his prisoners (yes, he took prisoners on the march) as a warning of what would happen if the nicities of soldier to soldier was abandoned. He also used prisoners to disarm 'torpedos' (what we'd call land mines) as he found them barbaric and inhumane.
Sherman believed that the quickest way to end the war was to bring the utter cruelty home to the civilians. Hearing about your son being killed by some 'Damn Yank' 100 miles away in a bloody battle is one thing. Having your entire livelyhood pilliaged and burnt to the ground while you watch is something else entirely.
Sherman quotes:
All the powers of earth cannot restore to them their slaves, any more than their dead grandfathers. Next year their lands will be taken, for in war we can take them, and rightfully, too, and in another year they may beg in vain for their lives. A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain limit ought to know the consequences. Many, many peoples with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence.'
You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.
I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting — its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers ... it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated ... that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation.
If [Georgians] raise a howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity-seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war.
|
Matthew,
Regarding landmines, you aren't disagreeing. Both statements can be true. The most efficient thing in a war situation is often also barbaric and inhumane.
Taking prisoners, for example, is extremely inefficient. It is far more efficient to execute them all, preferably with a knife or other blade as those can be reused unlike bullets or poisons. Is the efficient solution barbaric and inhumane? Absolutely, but it's efficient as it frees your resources for your troops not prisoners, eliminates the possibility of escape and having to fight them again, and sows fear and saps morale in the opposition.
This does not say that the two propositions ARE both true, but that they are not necessarily in conflict.
Sherman had this to say to the city council of Atlanta when they beggged him not to burn the city:
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war.[...] I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for anything. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.
If you want a terrifying look into what might have happened to our continent if the South had won the Civil War, try Harry Turtledove's alternate history series known by fans as Timeline 191
|
|
Sherman had this to say to the city council of Atlanta when they beggged him not to burn the city:
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war.[...] I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for anything. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.If you want a terrifying look into what might have happened to our continent if the South had won the Civil War, try Harry Turtledove's alternate history series known by fans as Timeline 191
I'd also recommend Bring the Jubilee by Ward Moore. Another good alternate timeline of how the War of Nothren Aggression could have gone.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Paul,
True, And I do find the idea of command detonated minefields interesting (deploy, then blow up after they're no longer needed).
I've something of a reputation in Battletech, when advanced rules are used, of loading up an archer or a salamander with Thunder-I rounds and dropping minefields willy nilly on the battlefield, and I think I'd use similar tactics IRL. "Ok, we're going to drop cluster munitions now. When you'd like me to stop, we'll keep a channel open."
Slavery was certainly an issue, but it wasn't a cut and dried line between north and south; a lot of "northern" border states had slaves, and as someone else mentioned, northern industrialists had no problem buying the cotton picked by slaves whatsoever. I'm a Quaker and we love to pride ourselves on our role in abolition back then, but the truth is there were many Quaker, ostensibly northern slave owners or indirect slave supporters as well. It's a hard pill for us to swallow, but the truth remains, and we have to learn from it to better ourselves, not shove it under the carpet because it makes us uncomfortable.
Though it's easier on the heart and mind to believe he did it for moral reasons, Lincoln read the Gettysburg Address for one reason: not to free the slaves, but to get more recruits for the Union army. Runaway slaves and other blacks were offered great incentives to join the Union army, who was running low in numbers, and one of the reasons the Union army got to be more successful after that fact was because of the boost in their numbers by ex-slave volunteers. They of course couldn't be officers; my white great-great grandfather earned his promotion in the Union army by volunteering to lead a "Corps d'Afrique" (he being a white officer willing to work with the black soldiers at all). We've got his letter in our possession, asking to become an officer of that legion.
If you study the economic conditions at the time, you'll also discover slavery would have ended eventually whether the war had gone on or not. At the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, slavery was simply becoming obsolete. It was becoming too costly to maintain slaves for a lot of plantation owners. The result of the Gettysburg Address and then the Union winning the war resulted in slavery ending faster, and that was a good thing, but it would have ended one way or another. The Union certainly did not invade the Confederates in order to end slavery--what a terribly and sadly naive assumption! They invaded because they relied on the south to support their own economy, including the aforementioned slave-picked cotton Northern industrialists so readily bought.
The bigger issue was states' rights, a debate which existed before plantation style farming was common. We just don't think about it because the debate doesn't exist for us the way it did back then. If you study that issue and all the other ones that led up to the war... look at a lot of the Congressional debates at the time... though, you'll understand the underpinnings of many of the political problems that we have still today, long after slavery is gone. Heck, today our country is more divided than it ever was, and some issues like the role of government in individual lives are STILL a key cause of that.
One last thing about slavery--certainly there were more abolitionists in the north and slave-proponents in the south, but both existed on all sides. And there were good and honorable reasons people on both sides thought they were fighting for. I know my own ancestors who fought in the Union army for what they believed were very right reasons. It's not to disparage any soldier from either army. But as in most wars, the truth is more complicated that we ever want it to be; the truth is people on both sides were right and wrong, and there were heroes and villains on both sides. Villainizing one side or the other--as many adamantly and passionately do, a century and a half later--doesn't help us understand the many myriad and complex reasons for the war, and without that understanding, perhaps in some ways we are doomed to remain a divided people, or at least are doomed to remain ignorant about our own history.
Wow, bitter much?
By accounts of the March, Sherman made a point to not harm civilians, their property was something else entirely.
Though there was one instance where a house was spared because the occupants wouldn't leave.
Also Sherman's forces weren't recognized by Johnson as being regular army and his scouts were executed as looters. Uncle Billy, being a practical sort of man, executed some of his prisoners (yes, he took prisoners on the march) as a warning of what would happen if the nicities of soldier to soldier was abandoned. He also used prisoners to disarm 'torpedos' (what we'd call land mines) as he found them barbaric and inhumane.
** spoiler omitted **Sherman believed that the quickest way to end the war was to bring the utter cruelty home to the civilians. Hearing about your son being killed by some 'Damn Yank' 100 miles away in a bloody battle is one thing. Having your entire livelyhood pilliaged and burnt to the ground while you watch is something else entirely.
Sherman quotes:
** spoiler omitted **...
It's great how Sherman puts the atrocities he committed on the shoulders of the victims. And so what if he didn't line up civilians and shoot them, because freezing and staving to death would have sent a more brutal message anyway. Besides the main objective of the 'March to the Sea' was to draw Confederate soldiers back home to defend their families, not provoke them to vengeance because they found out their families were murdered.
On the other hand Robert E Lee had plenty of opportunities to do the same thing, but he refused to sink so low as to attack civilians. Robert E Lee had more moral fiber in his pinky than the whole Union leadership combined.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Crimson Jester: that is the best summation of the causes of the American Civil War I've seen. Kudos to you! Are you a historian?
BackFromtheDeadGuy RE: Sherman - war is hell. Civilians are killed in every war that's ever been fought. From the looting and pillaging in Medieval times, to the burning of Washington DC in the War of 1812, to the Blitzkrieg runs against England and the bombing runs against Berlin in WWII, to the suicide bombers of today, anyone involved in a war can be a target. All generals are guilty of the "collateral damage" of civilian casualties, even Lee. It is simply unavoidable.
|
|
No really There is nothing in the Constitution or any other legal document which precludes any state or group of states from seceding from the United States. This was also true in 1861.
Secession was an act of treason. The attack on Fort Sumter was an act of war. But no Secession, no war. The act of Secession, however, made war inevitable.
Actually yes there is . Article I section 10 and Article VI both preclude the possibility of secession of a state. the fact that seccession is Constitutional and that Lincoln was a big bully for refusing to evacute Fort Sumpter are two myths of the Civil War. No further evidence that the CSA did not consier Seccession a legal course of action is needed then the fact that they turned around and "invaded" the Free State of Winston, arrested every man over the age of eighteen, and threatened them with execution if they refused to enlist in the Confederate Army. All because Winston County Alabama wanted no part of Jefferson Davis' war and drafted articles of seccession from the state of Alabama.
|
|
There is no article within the US Constitution that declares whether a state could or could not secede from the Union...
I disagree.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Emphasis Mine.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Again, emphasis mine.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Legalese mode, David...
So if, say, South Carolina had proposed a constitutional ammendment to allow states to seceed, then it would have been a legal divorce?
The other side, the minimalist side, could argue that the Constitution is silent on the issue of leaving the union, thus the right to leave is granted to the states under the 10th.
IOW, yes, under the constitution the State of North Carolina and the State of South Carolina cannot enter into an alliance, but if the state of NC were to withdrawl, and the state of SC were to withdrawl, then there's nothing to keep these new nations from forming a confederation.
(Yes, I know later ammendments bind the states more tightly, but I can see the argument, though IaNaL)
Crimson Jester: that is the best summation of the causes of the American Civil War I've seen. Kudos to you! Are you a historian?
BackFromtheDeadGuy RE: Sherman - war is hell. Civilians are killed in every war that's ever been fought. From the looting and pillaging in Medieval times, to the burning of Washington DC in the War of 1812, to the Blitzkrieg runs against England and the bombing runs against Berlin in WWII, to the suicide bombers of today, anyone involved in a war can be a target. All generals are guilty of the "collateral damage" of civilian casualties, even Lee. It is simply unavoidable.
There is a difference in "unavoidable casualties" to specifically targeting civilians. The idea of having a huge army going out their way to attack woman and children should be condemned not forgiven.
And Lee went out of his way to prevent distress on the civilian population; this was one of his main reasons for surrendering, he knew that Confederate guerrillas would have to "forage" to survive and he didn't deem that acceptable.No matter how you try to spin it the Union was led by war criminals that would do anything for victory, even murder people who they professed were their "countrymen".
Also it was an act of congress, when they walk out and work though congress.
Still am not seeing anything that says "you have no right to leave" after all it was meant to be 13 country with a united government, we have moved far beyond what was intended
|
|
Also it was an act of congress, when they walk out and work though congress.
Still am not seeing anything that says "you have no right to leave" after all it was meant to be 13 country with a united government, we have moved far beyond what was intended
Except that unser Article VI all states recognize the supremacy of the Federal Government. More importantly all elected state official swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. The onstitutiotself is very clear that it was not 13 countries with a unified government to deal with other nations, that was the Articles of Confederation, but that the states were subordinnate to the Federal Government so far as the enumerated powers of the Constitution went. To put it another way, when you join the U.S. as a state you give up your right to act as a soverign nation.
Also it was an act of congress, when they walk out and work though congress.
Still am not seeing anything that says "you have no right to leave" after all it was meant to be 13 country with a united government, we have moved far beyond what was intended
And another point: why would our Founding Forefathers have gone though all the trouble of fighting a "War of Independence" and then just turn around and create another oppression centralized government? And since people keep bringing up the "legality" of secession how can the American Revolution be justified? What legal right did the colonials have?
|
|
And another point: why would our Founding Forefathers have gone though all the trouble of fighting a "War of Independence" and then just turn around and create another oppression centralized government? And since people keep bringing up the "legality" of secession how can the American Revolution be justified? What legal right did the colonials have?Also it was an act of congress, when they walk out and work though congress.
Still am not seeing anything that says "you have no right to leave" after all it was meant to be 13 country with a united government, we have moved far beyond what was intended
At the time that they declared Independence they had no legal right to do so, and they knew it. However, once they were able to secure allies and force recognition via the Treaty of Paris then they recieved all the rights and privilages of any other Nation-state. The same would have happened to the CSA had they won the war. However, based on the weakness of theCSA's government it s also like that the whole nation would have either disintigrated or moved towards a federalist system like the United States in order to survive. As for why the founders would establish another "oppresive central government" there are two reasons. 1) They tried the weak centrl government and the nation almost collapsed via the Articles of Confederation. 2) They never objected to a strong central government, they objected to a strong central goverment which did not give them representation. The Constitution was designed with the exact design of preventing that form of government from occuring.
At the time that they declared Independence they had no legal right to do so, and they knew it. However, once they were able to secure allies and force recognition via the Treaty of Paris then they recieved all the rights and privilages of any other Nation-state. The same would have happened to the CSA had they won the war. However, based on the weakness of theCSA's government it s also like that the whole nation would have either disintigrated or moved towards a federalist system like the United States in order to survive. As for why the founders would establish another "oppresive central government" there are two reasons. 1) They tried the weak centrl government and the nation almost collapsed via the Articles of Confederation. 2) They never objected to a strong central government, they objected to a strong central goverment which did not give them representation. The Constitution was designed with the exact design of preventing that form of government from occuring.And another point: why would our Founding Forefathers have gone though all the trouble of fighting a "War of Independence" and then just turn around and create another oppression centralized government? And since people keep bringing up the "legality" of secession how can the American Revolution be justified? What legal right did the colonials have?Also it was an act of congress, when they walk out and work though congress.
Still am not seeing anything that says "you have no right to leave" after all it was meant to be 13 country with a united government, we have moved far beyond what was intended
Well, you make everything seem so simple and clear cut...too bad you weren't around back then to explain it all.
If I recall they used the conversion mytheod of the constitution to amend it, congress then left. The federal government does not have a right to deny secession, it's not listed, there for at the time congress assumed it was a state right, as it is not stated as a federal one.
Remember back then things are not as set in stone as after the war.
|
|
There is no article within the US Constitution that declares whether a state could or could not secede from the Union...
I disagree.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Emphasis Mine.
...All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
I can see where you are coming from. While I do not think it is spelled out as such, I can see that if a state were to try to separate from the union they would have a very hard time of it, from a legal standpoint. Based upon what you have pointed out.
|
|
Further, Texas v. White holds that the US Constitution does not allow for a state to leave the Union.
Britain and France may have flirted with intervening in the Civil War, but two factors prevented that. Firstly, the Emancipation Proclamation ensured that morally and politically, the fallout from recognising the slave owning Confederacy would have been unappealing to the British and French governments. Secondly, the reason why recognising the Confederacy, and thus risking war with the Union, only came to the fore was due to the Confederacy's early success. In 1862 it appeared they might win, ensuring that the USA would be weak enough to not worry about any retaliation (especially in Canada) from them. However, the Battle of Antietam ensured that the Confederacy would not be victorious, at least not quickly, preventing any intervention from Britain or France.
Finally, if your response, Crimson Jester, to my detailed and evidence based reply is that I should 'read a history book', I suggest you stop replying.
Texas Vs. White decided that Texas didn't leave, and then Pres. Grant ALLOWED TEXAS BACK IN TO THE UNION, in his own words.
Whether or not to include language similar to the Art. of Confed. about the "Perpetual Union" were debated at the constitutional convention and the issue was dropped. As I posted earlier, Thomas Jefferson and others thought it to be understood if the Union became a hardship for a State, it should be allowed to leave. And more importantly, the Federal Gov. HAD NO POWER to use troops or force to enforce any power given to the Fed Gov. against a State.They argued that at that point the Union was effectively dissolved between the State and the Fed. Gov. and all agreements were null and void.
Following the logic of Texas vs. White brings up the question of the Fed Gov. power to put down the "insurrection" of the south. Troops fighting each other is fine, but the blockade and Sherman's march were perpetrated against citizens of the US, making it a crime. Remember, not all people voted for or sided with the secession, so they were "in good standing".
One more point about secession, how did West Virginian secede from Virginia? It was unconstitutional and illegal, yet was allowed. If Virgina "never left the Union" how did west Virgina become a state without the approval of the Virgina legislature? The answer is that the Union used the Constitution only when it benefited them.
BTW, I am glad that Lincoln preserved the Union, glad the North won, BUT have no doubt in my mind that the Union attacked and conquered a hostile neighboring country, not put down an "Insurrection".
|
|
Texas Vs. White decided that Texas didn't leave, and then Pres. Grant ALLOWED TEXAS BACK IN TO THE UNION, in his own words.
Whether or not to include language similar to the Art. of Confed. about the "Perpetual Union" were debated at the constitutional convention and the issue was dropped. As I posted earlier, Thomas Jefferson and others thought it to be understood if the Union became a hardship for a State, it should be allowed to leave. And more importantly, the Federal Gov. HAD NO POWER to use troops or force to enforce any power given to the Fed Gov. against a State.They argued that at that point the Union was effectively dissolved between the State and the Fed. Gov. and all agreements were null and void.
Following the logic of Texas vs. White brings up the question of the Fed Gov. power to put down the "insurrection" of the south. Troops fighting each other is fine, but the blockade and Sherman's march were perpetrated against citizens of the US, making it a crime. Remember, not all people voted for or sided with the secession, so they were "in good standing".
One more point about secession, how did West Virginian secede from Virginia? It was unconstitutional and illegal, yet was allowed. If Virgina "never left the Union" how did west Virgina become a state without the approval of the Virgina legislature? The answer is that the Union used the Constitution only when it benefited them.
BTW, I am glad that Lincoln preserved the Union, glad the North won, BUT have no doubt in my mind that the Union attacked and conquered a hostile neighboring country, not put down an "Insurrection".
It all comes down to what you think the legalities are of the situation. On a strict legal sense he did not invade a neighboring country but did in fact stop an insurrection.
I do not agree with Sherman however. He may have felt his actions justified for the outcome but as they say the road to hell is paved in them.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I do not agree with Sherman however. He may have felt his actions justified for the outcome but as they say the road to hell is paved in them.
Well since he felt that war was hell, maybe he'd say he was already far enough down that road. ;-)
I had a history teacher argue it really should be 'Virginia' and 'East Virginia' under the logic of 'Virginia' didn't sececeed, but 'East Virginia' did, so they should have to get a new name.
|
|
I do not agree with Sherman however. He may have felt his actions justified for the outcome but as they say the road to hell is paved in them.Well since he felt that war was hell, maybe he'd say he was already far enough down that road. ;-)
I had a history teacher argue it really should be 'Virginia' and 'East Virginia' under the logic of 'Virginia' didn't sececeed, but 'East Virginia' did, so they should have to get a new name.
Yes but then we would not have the song would we?
|
|
It's great how Sherman puts the atrocities he committed on the shoulders of the victims. And so what if he didn't line up civilians and shoot them, because freezing and staving to death would have sent a more brutal message anyway. Besides the main objective of the 'March to the Sea' was to draw Confederate soldiers back home to defend their families, not provoke them to vengeance because they found out their families were murdered.
On the other hand Robert E Lee had plenty of opportunities to do the same thing, but he refused to sink so low as to attack civilians. Robert E Lee had more moral fiber in his pinky than the whole Union leadership combined.
It's telling that Lee was offered command of the Northern forces by Lincoln at the outset of the war.
He turned it down out of loyalty to his home state of Virginia.
His reputation as a commander and leader of men were impecable and widely respected.
And as has been stated elsewhere, he had freed the slaves whose ownership he had married into (per his father in laws will, yes). He had no personal stake in preserving the institution of slavery.
Whereas the north benefitted greatly from slavery. Cotton would have cost much more if fair wages were paid for it's production in the south. In addition the northern banks made the loans that allowed the southern plantations to purchase land to expand and produce more cotton to feed the northern industrial machine. Cotton destroyed the soil, meaning at best 1/3 of a plantation was used at any time for it's growth.
It was the short sighted protectionist tarrifs the Republican party put in place and placed Lincoln in charge to enforce that were the real cause of the war. This Tarrif (the Morril Tarrif) is what drove the south to begin succesion.
But Lincoln was no friend of the slaves. If he lived today and gave the speaches he did leading to his election he would be branded a racist and white supremacist. Jessse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be screaming for his head.
He WAS a friend of the northern industrialists and protectionists and had their full support in getting elected.
The war was all about the north seeking to dominate national politics and control the raw materials from the south at the exspense of overseas competition (England specifically).
Was slavery part of the southern economic base? yes
Did the north give a s##t about the slaves plight? no
It was all about cash. Period.