Causes of the US Civil War and Southern Secession

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by Joe Stocks

And if I am not mistaken, the Confederate Constitution outlawed the slave trade. A curious move if they wanted slavery continued indefinitely.

The Confederation Constitution continued the ban on importation of slaves. It didn't prohibit the buying or selling of slaves or end slavery as a hereditary status.

Originally Posted by Joe Stocks

Lincoln's refusal to honor the peaceful wishes of the Confederacy is what started the war.

Yes, it's true that Lincoln refused to submit to the demands of an illegitimate and (at that time) unelected group posing as the government of the southern states.

Would you suggest that it's the duty of any President of the United States to submit to the demands of any such group? If, for example, a group of wealthy landowners in California declared themselves the government of California and demanded the surrender of Camp Pendleton, would you say it's the duty of the President to surrender Camp Pendleton to that group?

[Rakhel]

Originally Posted by Smoke

The Confederation Constitution continued the ban on importation of slaves. It didn't prohibit the buying or selling of slaves or end slavery as a hereditary status.

Then slavery would have died out

Yes, it's true that Lincoln refused to submit to the demands of an illegitimate and (at that time) unelected group posing as the government of the southern states.

Would you suggest that it's the duty of any President of the United States to submit to the demands of any such group? If, for example, a group of wealthy landowners in California declared themselves the government of California and demanded the surrender of Camp Pendleton, would you say it's the duty of the President to surrender Camp Pendleton to that group?

Sounds like the start of the Revolutionary War to me

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

The Confederation Constitution continued the ban on importation of slaves. It didn't prohibit the buying or selling of slaves or end slavery as a hereditary status.

Yes, so new slaves could not come into the new country. And you know that manumission was quite common so the amount of slaves would eventually dry up.

Yes, it's true that Lincoln refused to submit to the demands of an illegitimate and (at that time) unelected group posing as the government of the southern states.

Are you suggesting that secession was unlawful? If the states knew this going into the Constitutional Convention there would have been no United States. The states freely joined together and they could freely leave the Union.

Would you suggest that it's the duty of any President of the United States to submit to the demands of any such group? If, for example, a group of wealthy landowners in California declared themselves the government of California and demanded the surrender of Camp Pendleton, would you say it's the duty of the President to surrender Camp Pendleton to that group?

LOL! We are not talking about some random group; this was the state governments that were doing this. Constitutional conventions were convened just like before the Revolutionary War. Unless you are suggesting that the colonists had no right to break away from the Crown, are you arguing that?

Would you suggest that it's the duty of any President of the United States to submit to the demands of any such group? If, for example, a group of wealthy landowners in California declared themselves the government of California and demanded the surrender of Camp Pendleton, would you say it's the duty of the President to surrender Camp Pendleton to that group?

Well, if the state legislature passed a resolution of secession that could not be vetoed by the governor, then yes (In fact, with California's sorry fiscal shape, that could be a blessing to the US federal government). Or if a constitutional convention was convened by California's state representatives and they voted to secede I would support the US federal government honoring such a peaceful transmission of power.

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by Joe Stocks

Yes, so new slaves could not come into the new country. And you know that manumission was quite common so the amount of slaves would eventually dry up.

Not as long as slavery was hereditary. But you seem confused as to whether the leaders of the Confederacy did or did not want to gradually eliminate slavery. You're arguing both sides of the question.

Originally Posted by Joe Stocks

Are you suggesting that secession was unlawful?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Joe Stocks

Unless you are suggesting that the colonists had no right to break away from the Crown, are you arguing that?

That's a different set of circumstances, but as a matter of fact I don't think the minority who favored independence were right to start an armed rebellion against the king, nor do I think their armed bands of thugs had the right to seize my ancestors' property for their own purposes, to force my ancestors to serve in their armed rebellion against their will, or to lynch my 6th-great-grandfather's brothers for remaining loyal to the king. And while the framers of the new Constitution were remarkably forward-thinking for their day, the rebellion mainly benefited wealthy, male, white landowners. The new government disregarded the rights of Native Americans to a far greater extent than the royal government, launching an unabashed program of physical and cultural genocide that lasted well over a century, and maintained the institution of slavery until 1865, while the British Empire actively worked for many years to persuade other countries to abolish the slave trade, even paying Portugal and Spain to end the practice, and abolished slavery in 1833.

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, it's true that Lincoln refused to submit to the demands of an illegitimate and (at that time) unelected group posing as the government of the southern states.

Would you suggest that it's the duty of any President of the United States to submit to the demands of any such group? If, for example, a group of wealthy landowners in California declared themselves the government of California and demanded the surrender of Camp Pendleton, would you say it's the duty of the President to surrender Camp Pendleton to that group?

The Southern states were fully within their rights to succeed. And since the Confederacy was no longer part of the Union, they were indeed the elected rulers. Fort Sumter belonged to the Confederacy, and the Union was trespassing. Now, at the same time I understand why Lincoln did not withdraw his troops, as an act of defiance to the former states of the Union.

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by Shadow Wolf

The Southern states were fully within their rights to succeed. And since the Confederacy was no longer part of the Union, they were indeed the elected rulers.

No, you're confused. At the time, the Confederate Congress -- actually, the Provisional Confederate Congress -- had no popularly elected members. For instance, Robert B. Rhett of South Carolina was a former United States senator who had resigned in 1852. John Gill Shorter of Alabama was a circuit judge. Alexandre Declouet of Louisiana was a sugar planter who had served briefly in the state legislature in 1837. Francis Bartow of Georgia was a lawyer and reserve captain. Even if the states had the right to secede -- nobody has a right to succeed -- it's doubtful whether the people who decided to secede had the authority to do so.

Originally Posted by Shadow Wolf

Fort Sumter belonged to the Confederacy, and the Union was trespassing.

Fort Sumter belonged to the United States government. Period.

Originally Posted by Shadow Wolf

Now, at the same time I understand why Lincoln did not withdraw his troops, as an act of defiance to the former states of the Union.

It was not "an act of defiance." It was the execution of his duty as President of the United States.

[Luminous]

The Biggoted and uneducated southern elitests wanted to fight for state's rights to take rights away from people, that being...they would not have questioned if congress had forced the northern states to help and or force slavery, against their state wishes; so clearly it was about feeling like they were superior, being as they were inferior.

[Luminous]

Originally Posted by Shadow Wolf

The Southern states were fully within their rights to succeed. And since the Confederacy was no longer part of the Union, they were indeed the elected rulers. Fort Sumter belonged to the Confederacy, and the Union was trespassing. Now, at the same time I understand why Lincoln did not withdraw his troops, as an act of defiance to the former states of the Union.

a state can only succeed from the Union if a HIgh Majority of Congress agrees. I though that had always been the case. the South made a mockery of the Constitution and the political system of the United States of America. They deserved nothing less than complete annihilation. The Merciful and educated North, however, forgave them and tryed to take them away from their ignorant way of life.

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

But you seem confused as to whether the leaders of the Confederacy did or did not want to gradually eliminate slavery. You're arguing both sides of the question.

Not at all. Leaders of the Confederacy such as Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee thought that slavery would die out naturally. The issue was a delicate one for sure, it wouldn't be prudent to wave a magic wand and have slavery abolished. The slaves had to be prepared to function in society. That is why many of the Confederates favored gradual abolition. The North (who treated free blacks worse than slaves in South in many instances) wanted to force this issue and thus in one aspect infringed on the state's sovereignty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Stocks
Are you suggesting that secession was unlawful?

Yes.

Where are you getting this idea that it was unlawful to secede? Did the states know this at the Constitutional Convention? That their sovereignty was null and void once the federal government was created. This is a blatant misreading of history. The states jealously guarded their rights and thought of themselves as sovereign entities freely forming a union in which they could freely leave (such an act was contemplated at the Hartford Convention after the War of 1812).

And the concept of secession can be applied to the Glorious Revolution where King James II’s authority was removed and William and Mary ascended to power.

That's a different set of circumstances, but as a matter of fact I don't think the minority who favored independence were right to start an armed rebellion against the king, nor do I think their armed bands of thugs had the right to seize my ancestors' property for their own purposes, to force my ancestors to serve in their armed rebellion against their will, or to lynch my 6th-great-grandfather's brothers for remaining loyal to the king. And while the framers of the new Constitution were remarkably forward-thinking for their day, the rebellion mainly benefited wealthy, male, white landowners. The new government disregarded the rights of Native Americans to a far greater extent than the royal government, launching an unabashed program of physical and cultural genocide that lasted well over a century, and maintained the institution of slavery until 1865, while the British Empire actively worked for many years to persuade other countries to abolish the slave trade, even paying Portugal and Spain to end the practice, and abolished slavery in 1833.

At least your devotion to statism is consistent. But this raises some interesting philosophical questions. If the colonists didn't have the right to secede from the Crown, then under what circumstances could a people revolt and attempt to establish an independent political authority? For example, many eastern European countries broke away from the Soviet Union during the end of the 1980's. But this would be unlawful to you, wouldn't it? And if the eastern bloc could break away from the Soviet Union, why couldn't the colonists break away from the Crown? What about modern day Iran, is it unlawful for Iranians to revolt against their repressive regime?

In fact, your position seems to lead to deny any people the right to break away from an established political authority (no matter how repressive) to form an independent political authority.

You seem to be denying the concept of the consent of the governed in favor of statism by the gun (or tank).

While this does make you intellectually consistent (in that if you deny the South's secession you must deny the colonist's secession) it puts you at odds with third-world revolutionaries and in lockstep with their colonial masters.

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by Joe Stocks

You seem to be denying the concept of the consent of the governed in favor of statism by the gun (or tank).

That ****'s getting pretty deep, Joe.

In the case of the Confederacy, a privileged class of white men named some of their friends, unelected by the people, to lead an armed rebellion against the Democratically-elected government of the United States, for the sole purpose of keeping 40% of the population of the southern states in a hereditary state of involuntary servitude. You support that, and you have the sheer effrontery to mouth pious slogans about the consent of the governed? Give me a ******* break.