On the nature of the Confederacy, the American Civil War, and Slavery

[Tambourine]

What do you mean the Feds had been in their pocket? The Southern decision to secede is not puzzling. It wasn't because of slavery. It was because the South's economy was based upon slavery, and to free all slaves was to destroy the economy.

That's a distinction without a difference. And I agree with you - slavery was intrinsically entangled with the Southern cash crop economy.

That said, the South was not the only exporter of cotton in the world, and there were places (Egypt, India) that - while undoubtedly also suffering from the oppression by white men - were not reliant on slavery.

So it is not that running a cash crop economy was impossible with the means available to Southern elites - but it sure would have been less profitable, and arguably less supportive of the white supremacist ideology that dominated Southern politics.

It was because the North refused the right of the Southernor the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. The South had the Constitution on it's side. It had the Supreme Court's decision on it's side.

Do you have any evidence that the protections afforded by the Fugitive Slave Act had been violated by Northern state governments or the Federal state prior to Southern secession?

But what had been the experience in the past of these protections. The North laughed at the Constitution. Ridiculed the Dred Scott decision. The North allowed the abolitionist's to terrorize the South and even funded them. The only reason the North was offering the 13th amendment was the money men understood the economic disaster that secession would cause them. A few abolitonist's may have cared for the black man, but none of that was reason to break the Constitution. The South could no longer believe the North no matter what it said. The North's promises were empty.

The Constitution protected the South from having its fugitive slaves escape to non-slaveholding states in the North. It did not protect the South from abolitionist political movements. Wouldn't founding, funding, and taking part in an abolitionist organization even be protected under the right to free speech?

Jefferson Davis gives the reason for the Souths secession. "It was not the passage of the 'personal liberty laws,' it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tariff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerable grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern states of equality in the Union--generally to discriminate in legislation against the interests of their people; culminating in their exclusion from the territories, the common property of the states, as well as by the infraction of their compact to promote domestic tranquillity." (Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Jefferson Davis, vol. 1, A DA CAPO Press Inc., 1990, p. 70)

The President of the Confederacy would have a vested interest in portraying Northern politics as vile, illegal attacks. Sorry, but I don't consider Jefferson Davis a trustworthy source for the legality of Southern secession, any more than I would trust Admiral Yamamoto as an accurate source for the legality of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

You say 'I claim' that Lincoln was prepared to sign the 13th amendment. You don't believe me? Look it up. It is also called the Corwin agreement. It is easy enough. Just google, 'Lincoln willing to sign Corwin agreement protecting slavery forever.'

You keep wanting to describe the 'simple facts' as being the South seceded because of slavery. Yet in your proofs of that you always leave out the simple fact that slavery was Constitutionally protected and that the South was not being allowed it's protections by law.

Could you please present some evidence for the bolded part? You haven't supported that argument with facts so far.


It is not slavery, it is slavery protected by the Constitution. That is also stated in the Georgia declaration of secession which you provided.

I explained Virginia to you before. Slavery played no role in Virginia's seceding. She seceded due to Lincolns call up of 75,000 troops from all non-seceding states to go to war to bring back those states that had seceded.
That is the reason for the war.

Lincoln had been sworn in as the legitimate President of the US. Are you argueing that as legitimate, legal head of the Union, he had no right to call upon the States to supply troops? Is that not part of the powers of the Presidential office?

Upon the firing of Ft. Sumter, it was only the lower coastal states of the South that seceded. My point is slavery was an issue, though not the cause, concerning the secession of the lower states. The upper states of Ark, Tenn., Ky., and Virgina, seceded due to Lincolns call to go to war against the seceding states.

Protecting slavery was the motivation behind secession. This is evident by the fact that all of the original Southern states that seceded stated so in plain English.

No, I am not disagreeing with my own arguments. Though the South had all these guarantees, they are only as good as the credibility of those they are entrusted. They knew well from the past, that they could no longer be trusted.

Yes, they could no longer rely on political compromise within the Union to protect slavery. That is why they seceded, and why they went to war. Slavery was the issue around which every single step towards the Civil War revolved around.

Why are we argueing? You seem to agree with me that slavery was the all-important issue, you even said, in your own words, that "the South's economy was based upon slavery, and to free all slaves was to destroy the economy".

If you don't believe that slavery was already protected under the Constitution, there is nothing I can do for you. No one, not even the yankees, tried that excuse. The Supreme Court made it's Dred Scott decision based upon that Constitution.

And with Lincoln being elected, the South feared that the tide would against slavery in Washington, and that constitutional protections of slavery could be voided. That's why they went to war - to protect slavery. We are in agreement here.

It has to do with Lincoln and his being a politician. He used slavery just like he used Ft. Sumter. The emancipation proclamation was an example. Nothing in it for the blacks. Concerning Sumter he sent a ship to resupply Sumter knowing the South would have to fire on it. Thus he postured the South as the aggressor in that war and postured the North as the defenders. Even though the North already initiated an act of war when they left Ft. Moultrie.

Lincoln's motivations or moral character are not relevant to me in this debate. This debate solely concerns the question whether the Confederation went to war in order to protect slavery, which they did.

Concerning the land on which Sumter is on, it belongs to South Carolina. Just read the terms you supplied. "Provided" The North didn't provide the South it's Constitutional protections.

"...Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state."

Can you tell me where in that passage Constitutional protections are being mentioned?

That is the point. Slavery was protected. The abolitionist's were allowed to harrass and terrorize and murder Southern people.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Can you cite instances where abolitionists harassed, terrorized or murdered white Southerners, and did not face prosecution under the law?

 

[Tambourine]

@Good-Ole-Rebel

Do you support slavery?

It should be pretty clear by now that they don't want to answer this. I doubt that pressing them about it will produce anything useful or productive to this discussion.

 

[Quagmire]

Before this goes any further I want to point out that this thread is in the Historical Debates Forum, not Ethics and Morals.

The question at hand is: "What role did slavery play in the advent of the American Civil War", not "Is slavery a bad thing" and certainly not " Does [anybody's username] think slavery is a good thing.

If someone wants to get into all of that, how about starting your own thread in a more appropriate forum? We have, as I mentioned, an Ethics and Morality forum as well as One in One Debates, General Debates, . . . take your pick.
.

Stepping in because at this point this thread just looks like a lot of off topic bullying to me.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

That's a distinction without a difference. And I agree with you - slavery was intrinsically entangled with the Southern cash crop economy.

That said, the South was not the only exporter of cotton in the world, and there were places (Egypt, India) that - while undoubtedly also suffering from the oppression by white men - were not reliant on slavery.

So it is not that running a cash crop economy was impossible with the means available to Southern elites - but it sure would have been less profitable, and arguably less supportive of the white supremacist ideology that dominated Southern politics.

Do you have any evidence that the protections afforded by the Fugitive Slave Act had been violated by Northern state governments or the Federal state prior to Southern secession?


The Constitution protected the South from having its fugitive slaves escape to non-slaveholding states in the North. It did not protect the South from abolitionist political movements. Wouldn't founding, funding, and taking part in an abolitionist organization even be protected under the right to free speech?


The President of the Confederacy would have a vested interest in portraying Northern politics as vile, illegal attacks. Sorry, but I don't consider Jefferson Davis a trustworthy source for the legality of Southern secession, any more than I would trust Admiral Yamamoto as an accurate source for the legality of the attack on Pearl Harbor.




Could you please present some evidence for the bolded part? You haven't supported that argument with facts so far.


It is not slavery, it is slavery protected by the Constitution. That is also stated in the Georgia declaration of secession which you provided.


Lincoln had been sworn in as the legitimate President of the US. Are you argueing that as legitimate, legal head of the Union, he had no right to call upon the States to supply troops? Is that not part of the powers of the Presidential office?


Protecting slavery was the motivation behind secession. This is evident by the fact that all of the original Southern states that seceded stated so in plain English.


Yes, they could no longer rely on political compromise within the Union to protect slavery. That is why they seceded, and why they went to war. Slavery was the issue around which every single step towards the Civil War revolved around.

Why are we argueing? You seem to agree with me that slavery was the all-important issue, you even said, in your own words, that "the South's economy was based upon slavery, and to free all slaves was to destroy the economy".

And with Lincoln being elected, the South feared that the tide would against slavery in Washington, and that constitutional protections of slavery could be voided. That's why they went to war - to protect slavery. We are in agreement here.


Lincoln's motivations or moral character are not relevant to me in this debate. This debate solely concerns the question whether the Confederation went to war in order to protect slavery, which they did.


"...Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state."

Can you tell me where in that passage Constitutional protections are being mentioned?


Can you cite instances where abolitionists harassed, terrorized or murdered white Southerners, and did not face prosecution under the law?

Again, you miss the whole point. The South's economy was dependent on slavery...a Constitutionally protected institution. The South's economy grew as a result of the protected institution of slavery. It grew because the people of the South did what they did within the law to better themselves. They were not working outside the law. They were working with what was agreed by the creators of the Constitution.

Tell me about the 'white supremacist ideology that dominated Southern politics and how it was different than the 'white supremacist ideology' that dominated Northern politics. You do understand that Lincoln was a white supremacist don't you. As was the whole North.

Sure, the passage of 'personal liberty laws' violated the Constitutional fugitive slave law.

No, the Constitution protected the institution of slavery. What abolitionist's were doing was beyond 'free speech'. what the North was letting them do was beyond free speech. I thought you said you had studied this matter. Why do you seem so ignorant of it?

Jefferson Davis statement is source material. Just because you don't like him means nothing to me. He gave the reason for the secession, and he was the president of the Confederacy. You are like everyone else, just breathe the smoke that they blow up your back side. Sorry, but I don't consider your opinion of much value concerning the War between the States. But I'm willing to let you continue.

First of all, did you look up the 13th amendment that I was talking about. You doubted it was true before. So, did you do a little homework? What do you think? Don't avoid the question.

I just gave you Jefferson Davis quote. How is that not proof that the South was not being afforded it's protections under the Constitution? Plus, you had the various 'compromises' that limited the Southern man to only a certain area when he was in fact free under the Constitution to go anywhere. The personal liberty laws that were for the purpose of disobeying the fugitive slave law and stole the Southernors property from him. All was allowed and they ignored the Southernor the rightful protections he deserved under his Constitution. Plus, they allowed the terrorist John Brown to roam free in the North gathering men and funds for his attack upon the South.

And why did you present my statement as yours concerning the Georgia declaration of secession?

Again, you're not paying attention and missing the point. The point was 'not' whether Lincoln had the right to demand soldiers from the non-seceding states. It was that the states of Ark. Vir., Tenn., and Ky., seceded because of that. When you want to claim the South seceded for slavery you have to at least not include those states.

You didn't even know of the upper states only seceding due to Lincolns call for troops till I told you. Now you act like that was nothing and that the 'original' states all stated slavery as the reason for secession. Nice correction. Still wrong though. I have already said that slavery was an issue so it would be addressed in the declarations of secession. But as I said, and as they said, it was slavery protected by the Constitution. Here is a quote from South Carolina's declaration of secession. "In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfill their constitutional obligations....Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States; and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation..." You have the same in the Georgian secession statement that you gave. You have the same in all the lower states declarations.

Compromise and protection under the Constitution are not the same thing. You don't 'compromise' over a Constitutional right. That right is a law and is protected. The very fact that the yankees were wanting a compromise was an infringement on the Constitution. This is why we are arguing. You want to say 'slavery', as the abolitionist's. The South says 'slavery as protected by the Constitution'.

No, the South didn't go to war. The South seceded peacefully. No cause for war. But the North must not let the South go, and that is the cause of the war. Lincoln and the North didn't care one wit about the black slaves, other then they didn't want blacks where they were. This is why he was willing to sign the 13th amendment. But when the South did secede and there was no hope of bringing her back, then it was war. The North's unwillingness to let the South secede peacefully resulted in war. And it was the South that seceded peacefully.

Well, if you don't want to know, don't ask. As I said, Lincoln used the Sumter event just as used slavery with the emancipation proclamation. And Lincolns motives are important concerning the causes of the war. So, no, you don't get to brush aside what you are apparently ignorant of and now don't want to discuss.

I didn't say anything about constitutional protections concerning the land upon which Sumter was on. You have dishonestly moved two statements together making them appear as if I was talking about constitutional protection concerning the land. But those statements are separate and not meant to be together. This is the second time I have found discrepancy in your reply. Again, the land belongs to South Carolina. Just as the 'provided' qualifier proves.

Sure can. John Brown. He freely roamed the North after committing the murders in Kansas, to raise money for his terroristic attack on Harper's Ferry.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

Again, you miss the whole point. The South's economy was dependent on slavery...a Constitutionally protected institution. The South's economy grew as a result of the protected institution of slavery. It grew because the people of the South did what they did within the law to better themselves. They were not working outside the law. They were working with what was agreed by the creators of the Constitution.

How did I miss the point? I agree with you that the South's cash crop economy depended on slavery.
We agree that there were clauses in the US Constitution that made it easier for the South to maintain slavery. And we agree that the existing protections afforded by the US Constitution clearly were not enough for the Southern states.

And I think we also agree that the Southern states assessed the Northern states, and specifically Lincoln, as a threat to the Southern institution of slavery.

Tell me about the 'white supremacist ideology that dominated Southern politics and how it was different than the 'white supremacist ideology' that dominated Northern politics.

The obvious distinction would be that white supremacism in the South included the institution of slaver, while Northern racism did not.

You do understand that Lincoln was a white supremacist don't you. As was the whole North.

And yet it was the South who went to war over it.

Sure, the passage of 'personal liberty laws' violated the Constitutional fugitive slave law.

What do you mean by 'personal liberty laws'? Which laws exactly are you referring to here?

No, the Constitution protected the institution of slavery. What abolitionist's were doing was beyond 'free speech'. what the North was letting them do was beyond free speech. I thought you said you had studied this matter. Why do you seem so ignorant of it?

Are you trying to get me to stop debating you by insulting me like this? Is this the kind of tactic you resort to when pressed for evidence?

Okay, let's turn this up a notch, then. You claim that abolitionism was "beyond free speech", but that's your opinion in the present. In order to show that abolitionism was in fact beyond the constitutional protections against free speech, you need to demonstrate that this was the case in fact, not just in your opinion. So, do you base this opinion on any sort of authoritative statement, or statement of fact that the US Constitution did not protect abolitionism as speech?

For the record, I am basing my opinion on the US Constitution and its provisions for the protection of freedom of speech (which I assume you are familiar with).

Jefferson Davis statement is source material. Just because you don't like him means nothing to me. He gave the reason for the secession, and he was the president of the Confederacy. You are like everyone else, just breathe the smoke that they blow up your back side. Sorry, but I don't consider your opinion of much value concerning the War between the States. But I'm willing to let you continue.

My continueing to post here is not contingent on your will, or in fact anything that is within your power to do.

First of all, did you look up the 13th amendment that I was talking about. You doubted it was true before. So, did you do a little homework? What do you think? Don't avoid the question.

It's interesting that your entire argument hinges on the claim that the US Constitution of 1860 protected the institution of slavery, and yet you keep mentioning a proposed amendment that would have protected the institution of slavery.
If the protection of slavery would have required an entire new amendment, then where do you get the idea that the actual US Constitution protected slavery? That argument doesn't make sense to me. Either slavery was already protected by the US Constitution in 1860, or it was not.

I just gave you Jefferson Davis quote. How is that not proof that the South was not being afforded it's protections under the Constitution?

So your only evidence is the opinion of a politician who went to war against the Union? You don't have any other sources to support your argument?

Plus, you had the various 'compromises' that limited the Southern man to only a certain area when he was in fact free under the Constitution to go anywhere.

What are you talking about? Seriously, could you please elaborate on these oblique references?

The personal liberty laws that were for the purpose of disobeying the fugitive slave law and stole the Southernors property from him. All was allowed and they ignored the Southernor the rightful protections he deserved under his Constitution.

Could you please be more specific? Which exact "personal liberty laws" are you talking about?

Plus, they allowed the terrorist John Brown to roam free in the North gathering men and funds for his attack upon the South.

The US Constitution protects the right to bear arms. By raising funds and buying arms, John Brown merely exercised his constitutional rights as a citizen of the United States, did he not?

When John Brown attacked Southern slaveholders, he was caught, tried, sentenced, and executed by the state of Virginia.

And why did you present my statement as yours concerning the Georgia declaration of secession?

Could you please provide a quote? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Again, you're not paying attention and missing the point. The point was 'not' whether Lincoln had the right to demand soldiers from the non-seceding states. It was that the states of Ark. Vir., Tenn., and Ky., seceded because of that. When you want to claim the South seceded for slavery you have to at least not include those states.

I was not missing the point, I was merely adressing a side point that you yourself raised.

They seceded in defense of the slaveholder states, so yes, they seceded in defense of slavery.

You didn't even know of the upper states only seceding due to Lincolns call for troops till I told you.

You are assuming quite a lot here.

Now you act like that was nothing and that the 'original' states all stated slavery as the reason for secession. Nice correction. Still wrong though. I have already said that slavery was an issue so it would be addressed in the declarations of secession. But as I said, and as they said, it was slavery protected by the Constitution. Here is a quote from South Carolina's declaration of secession. "In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfill their constitutional obligations....Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States; and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation..." You have the same in the Georgian secession statement that you gave. You have the same in all the lower states declarations.

Again, that's a distinction without a difference. Their issue with alleged Constitutional protections literally only existed because of slavery. If none of the Southern states had held slaves, none of them would have seceded.

Compromise and protection under the Constitution are not the same thing. You don't 'compromise' over a Constitutional right. That right is a law and is protected. The very fact that the yankees were wanting a compromise was an infringement on the Constitution. This is why we are arguing. You want to say 'slavery', as the abolitionist's. The South says 'slavery as protected by the Constitution'.

Except there is no protection of slavery in the Constitution. There is a provision against fugitive slaves. That's it.
The only constitution that explicitly mentions slavery, and specifically "negro slaves", is the Constitution of the Confederated States.

No, the South didn't go to war. The South seceded peacefully. No cause for war.

The South went to war when they attacked Fort Sumter.

But the North must not let the South go, and that is the cause of the war.

It was the cause of war for the North, yes. The South went to war to protect slavery.

Lincoln and the North didn't care one wit about the black slaves, other then they didn't want blacks where they were. This is why he was willing to sign the 13th amendment. But when the South did secede and there was no hope of bringing her back, then it was war. The North's unwillingness to let the South secede peacefully resulted in war. And it was the South that seceded peacefully.

Again, Lincolns motivations are irrelevant for the purpose of our discussion. We are discussing the Confederated states' motivations, not Lincoln's.

Well, if you don't want to know, don't ask. As I said, Lincoln used the Sumter event just as used slavery with the emancipation proclamation. And Lincolns motives are important concerning the causes of the war. So, no, you don't get to brush aside what you are apparently ignorant of and now don't want to discuss.

We started this debate over the question whether the South went to war to defend slavery.

If you don't want to stick to the topic at hand and start discussing the moral character of Abraham Lincoln, then I can't stop you, but I can refuse to debate a topic I am not interested in debating. And if you don't like that, then I'm very sorry but, frankly, that's your personal problem, not mine.

I didn't say anything about constitutional protections concerning the land upon which Sumter was on. You have dishonestly moved two statements together making them appear as if I was talking about constitutional protection concerning the land. But those statements are separate and not meant to be together. This is the second time I have found discrepancy in your reply. Again, the land belongs to South Carolina. Just as the 'provided' qualifier proves.

Please show your work and explain how the "provided" qualifier proves that South Carolina didn't cede Fort Sumter to the Feds.

Sure can. John Brown. He freely roamed the North after committing the murders in Kansas, to raise money for his terroristic attack on Harper's Ferry.

John Brown "freely roamed the North" because of an amnesty in Kansas that affected both pro and anti-slavery crimes. This amnesty affected not just him, but violent pro-slavery agitators as well, such as Samuel Jones or John Reid. So your issue here would be with the governor of Kansas, and his issueing of an amnesty to criminals on both sides of the conflict over slavery in that territory.

(And does Kansas even belong to "the North" in the first place? It seems to be an edge case.)

 

[Tambourine]

By the way, you still haven't presented evidence for violations of the Fugitive Slaves Act by Northern states governments or the Union (the actions private citizens are irrelevant for the purpose of this question, as they are subject to law enforcement of States and Federal government; only if neither were to act would there be a case of a violation of the US Constitution)

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

How did I miss the point? I agree with you that the South's cash crop economy depended on slavery.
We agree that there were clauses in the US Constitution that made it easier for the South to maintain slavery. And we agree that the existing protections afforded by the US Constitution clearly were not enough for the Southern states.

And I think we also agree that the Southern states assessed the Northern states, and specifically Lincoln, as a threat to the Southern institution of slavery.


The obvious distinction would be that white supremacism in the South included the institution of slaver, while Northern racism did not.


And yet it was the South who went to war over it.


What do you mean by 'personal liberty laws'? Which laws exactly are you referring to here?


Are you trying to get me to stop debating you by insulting me like this? Is this the kind of tactic you resort to when pressed for evidence?

Okay, let's turn this up a notch, then. You claim that abolitionism was "beyond free speech", but that's your opinion in the present. In order to show that abolitionism was in fact beyond the constitutional protections against free speech, you need to demonstrate that this was the case in fact, not just in your opinion. So, do you base this opinion on any sort of authoritative statement, or statement of fact that the US Constitution did not protect abolitionism as speech?

For the record, I am basing my opinion on the US Constitution and its provisions for the protection of freedom of speech (which I assume you are familiar with).

My continueing to post here is not contingent on your will, or in fact anything that is within your power to do.


It's interesting that your entire argument hinges on the claim that the US Constitution of 1860 protected the institution of slavery, and yet you keep mentioning a proposed amendment that would have protected the institution of slavery.
If the protection of slavery would have required an entire new amendment, then where do you get the idea that the actual US Constitution protected slavery? That argument doesn't make sense to me. Either slavery was already protected by the US Constitution in 1860, or it was not.



So your only evidence is the opinion of a politician who went to war against the Union? You don't have any other sources to support your argument?

What are you talking about? Seriously, could you please elaborate on these oblique references?

Could you please be more specific? Which exact "personal liberty laws" are you talking about?

No, we don't agree. So quit fooling yourself in your continual attempt to say we agree. Slavery was not made easier because of a clause in the Constitution. It was Constitutionally protected. The Dred Scott case proved that. And I showed you what the states assessed of the North and Lincoln in Jefferson Davis statement. The South was being denied an equal in the Union.

Your 'obvious distinction' for white Supremacy in North and South is empty. Slavery was much a part of the Northern states as well as the Southern states in it's origin. The prominence of slavery in the South was due to the agricultural economy and the climate. Not because the South was racist and the North wasn't. Don't misunderstand. I am not saying either side was wrong for racism. I am saying your accusation that the South was racist and the North wasn't is ridiculous.

Listen to Stephen Douglas, Senator from Illinois, during the Lincoln/Douglas debates in 1858. "We are told by Lincoln that he is utterly opposed to the Dred Scott decision....Do you desire to turn this beautiful state into a free Negro colony in order that, when Missouri abolishes slavery, she can sen 100,000 emancipated slaves into Illinois to become citizens and voters, on and equality with yourselves....For one,I am opposed to Negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever....." No 'obvious distinction' here.

I asked you a question. Do you understand that Lincoln was a white racist? No, as I have showed you, the South didn't go to war over slavery. The war was brought to them over their peaceful secession from the Union.

Concerning 'personal liberty laws' they were to bypass or counteract the 'Fugitive Slave Law'.

Well, you're the one that presented your academic resume at the beginning stating you had studied this stuff. Yet here I have to explain things to you that you should know. Just like with the 'personal liberty laws'. Oh, I see. You want the free speech guaranteed for the abolitionist according to the Constitution, but not slavery according to the Constitution. Typical. You are a perfect picture of what Jefferson Davis was talking about. The South seceded due to it's being treated unequally in the Union. Abolition had long since turned to violence. Kansas/Missouri border wars are proof of that. The War was being fought there long before Sumter.

You didn't answer my question. Did you look up the Corwin amendment, the would-be 13th amendment, that Lincoln was willing to sign if the South would not secede? Do you agree that Lincoln was willing to do this? Please answer.

I give you Jefferson Davis quote for the reasons of secession and why the South was not being afforded protection under the Constitution. You brush it off as a political statement. I give you 'personal liberty laws' and the 'Compromises' and you ask what are those. I am not trying to do your homework. Look it up if you don't know.

(Continued in another post)

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

The US Constitution protects the right to bear arms. By raising funds and buying arms, John Brown merely exercised his constitutional rights as a citizen of the United States, did he not?

When John Brown attacked Southern slaveholders, he was caught, tried, sentenced, and executed by the state of Virginia.



Could you please provide a quote? I have no idea what you are talking about.


I was not missing the point, I was merely adressing a side point that you yourself raised.

They seceded in defense of the slaveholder states, so yes, they seceded in defense of slavery.


You are assuming quite a lot here.



Again, that's a distinction without a difference. Their issue with alleged Constitutional protections literally only existed because of slavery. If none of the Southern states had held slaves, none of them would have seceded.

Except there is no protection of slavery in the Constitution. There is a provision against fugitive slaves. That's it.
The only constitution that explicitly mentions slavery, and specifically "negro slaves", is the Constitution of the Confederated States.


The South went to war when they attacked Fort Sumter.


It was the cause of war for the North, yes. The South went to war to protect slavery.


Again, Lincolns motivations are irrelevant for the purpose of our discussion. We are discussing the Confederated states' motivations, not Lincoln's.


We started this debate over the question whether the South went to war to defend slavery.

If you don't want to stick to the topic at hand and start discussing the moral character of Abraham Lincoln, then I can't stop you, but I can refuse to debate a topic I am not interested in debating. And if you don't like that, then I'm very sorry but, frankly, that's your personal problem, not mine.




Please show your work and explain how the "provided" qualifier proves that South Carolina didn't cede Fort Sumter to the Feds.


John Brown "freely roamed the North" because of an amnesty in Kansas that affected both pro and anti-slavery crimes. This amnesty affected not just him, but violent pro-slavery agitators as well, such as Samuel Jones or John Reid. So your issue here would be with the governor of Kansas, and his issueing of an amnesty to criminals on both sides of the conflict over slavery in that territory.

(And does Kansas even belong to "the North" in the first place? It seems to be an edge case.)

We are not talking about John Browns right to bear arms. We are talking about John Brown the murderer being allowed to roam free in the North and gather funds for his future attack on the South. John Browns execution was after the fact. And, he should have been executed by the Federal govt. as it was a Federal arsenal he attacked. Why didn't they? Because John Brown was too popular in the North.

You ignore the point. The upper Southern states seceded due to Lincoln's request for troops. Not to support slavery. You want to connect it to slavery just like you want slavery connected to secession. But yet you refuse to connect slavery to defense of the Constitution. Slavery is just one of the dots that make up the connection. Keep going farther, it is money. That is the last dot. But, you are wrong in identifying Ark., Tenn., Ky., and Vir., as seceding to support slavery. And I haven't assumed anything.

Your argument is silly. You could equally say if the Constitution didn't protect slavery, there would be no secession. Or going farther back, if America lost the war to England there would be no secession. As I showed you, South Carolina identifies the Northern states not fulfilling their Constitutional obligations in providing the Southern states protection. See, you want to hear about slavery in these declarations of secession. But you want to ignore the real reasons of the Constitution being broken.

Your blind now. The Constitution protected slavery. That is not even debated. It is in the Constitution. It is proved by the Dred Scott decision. And Lincoln offered to protect it even more so that it could never be amended.

If Lincolns motivations are irrelevant why do you keep bringing him up. Oh, I see. When it is in your interest it's ok. But when I prove you wrong using Lincoln, it is not ok. That is a handy rule. But I won't follow it. And Lincoln's motivations as well as the North's motivations are necessary to the discussion.

Like I said, if you don't want to know, don't ask. You asked and I gave you examples of how Lincoln used Sumter just like he used slavery. I am sticking to the topic. You have just displayed an ignorance in many areas to the degree that when I explain something you must cry foul as though it is off topic. It is not off topic. It is pertinent to the discussion.

I didn't say S. Carolina didn't cede the land to the Federal govt. She did. But there is the qualifying 'Provided'. Once secession took place, the land went back to S. Carolina. Plus, the ceding of the land was also based upon a three year condition which was not fulfilled. (S. Carolina Statutes, 1805). The agreement was null and void long before 1860.

No, John Brown roamed freely in the North because his murders were being ignored. He was allowed to gather funds and plan his attack on the South, freely, because the idea that he murdered Southerners was not important to the North. As I said earlier, Kansas was where the war was being fought long before 1861.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

Listen to Stephen Douglas, Senator from Illinois, during the Lincoln/Douglas debates in 1858. "We are told by Lincoln that he is utterly opposed to the Dred Scott decision....Do you desire to turn this beautiful state into a free Negro colony in order that, when Missouri abolishes slavery, she can sen 100,000 emancipated slaves into Illinois to become citizens and voters, on and equality with yourselves....For one,I am opposed to Negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever....." No 'obvious distinction' here.

Could you provide sources for your quotes, please? I have done you the same courtesy.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Could you provide sources for your quotes, please? I have done you the same courtesy.

I gave you the 'Lincoln/Douglas debates' of 1858. But, here is my present source. (The Annals of America, vol. 9, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 2003, p. 9).

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

Thank you. I find it personally hard figuring that out in your massive walls of text.

By the way, please do not take my posting style, which I admit can be confrontational, as an attack on your person or your identity.

You've given me some interesting things to think about. I'm still apartment hunting, so I will need some time until I can adress your replies properly.

 

[Shad]

We are not talking about John Browns right to bear arms. We are talking about John Brown the murderer being allowed to roam free in the North and gather funds for his future attack on the South. John Browns execution was after the fact. And, he should have been executed by the Federal govt. as it was a Federal arsenal he attacked. Why didn't they? Because John Brown was too popular in the North.

Really Brown should have been executed for his acts in Kansas prior to his acts in Virginia. He, and many others, were waging their own little war in Kansas. The government did little to stop the violence then let people walk for a series of revenge murders.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Thank you. I find it personally hard figuring that out in your massive walls of text.

By the way, please do not take my posting style, which I admit can be confrontational, as an attack on your person or your identity.

You've given me some interesting things to think about. I'm still apartment hunting, so I will need some time until I can adress your replies properly.

No problem. Look forward to your response.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Really Brown should have been executed for his acts in Kansas prior to his acts in Virginia. He, and many others, were waging their own little war in Kansas. The government did little to stop the violence then let people walk for a series of revenge murders.

Yes he should have. But, the Federal govt. did little to stop him because of the popular opinion against the South and for John Brown. One has only to look at the 'deification of Brown' after he was hung. He became a 'christ like figure in the North'. He became a martyr for the cause. And he is still seen as such today.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

Really Brown should have been executed for his acts in Kansas prior to his acts in Virginia. He, and many others, were waging their own little war in Kansas. The government did little to stop the violence then let people walk for a series of revenge murders.

As far as I can tell, the territorial administration of Kansas was utterly powerless, and basically just pardoned everyone involved once the smoke had settled, in the hope that they wouldn't pick up arms again.

It's worth noting that Brown was attacked twice by pro-slavery gangs in Kansas, who were already murdering abolitionists by the time he arrived, so it's not like he didn't suffer consequences for his actions.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

As far as I can tell, the territorial administration of Kansas was utterly powerless, and basically just pardoned everyone involved once the smoke had settled, in the hope that they wouldn't pick up arms again.

It's worth noting that Brown was attacked twice by pro-slavery gangs in Kansas, who were already murdering abolitionists by the time he arrived, so it's not like he didn't suffer consequences for his actions.

What is your source for this pardon of John Brown's murders at Pottawatomie?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shad]

As far as I can tell, the territorial administration of Kansas was utterly powerless, and basically just pardoned everyone involved once the smoke had settled, in the hope that they wouldn't pick up arms again.

The government refused to act nor call for assistance. The Governor himself let Brown go. The territory could easily have called in the US army. They didn't.

It's worth noting that Brown was attacked twice by pro-slavery gangs in Kansas, who were already murdering abolitionists by the time he arrived, so it's not like he didn't suffer consequences for his actions.

The pro-slave gangs involved should have been executed too.

 

[Shad]

Yes he should have. But, the Federal govt. did little to stop him because of the popular opinion against the South and for John Brown. One has only to look at the 'deification of Brown' after he was hung. He became a 'christ like figure in the North'. He became a martyr for the cause. And he is still seen as such today.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Government failure is all over the run up to the Civil War. State governments acted or "endorsed" armed movements into Kansas.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Government failure is all over the run up to the Civil War. State governments acted or "endorsed" armed movements into Kansas.

My point was that Brown was allowed to freely go about his business in raising money for his invasion of the South, even after it was known that he was a murderer. This reflects the attitude and thinking of the North in that day. Just like his deification after his hanging did.

You said in #(117) that the Governor let Brown go. What does this mean? What governor? When? And to what degree?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shad]

My point was that Brown was allowed to freely go about his business in raising money for his invasion of the South, even after it was known that he was a murderer. This reflects the attitude and thinking of the North in that day. Just like his deification after his hanging did.

Sure. Hence why I brought up Kansas.

You said in #(117) that the Governor let Brown go. What does this mean? What governor? When? And to what degree?

The Governor of Kansas (ter.), Reeder, didn't press charges regarding Browns role in the violence in Kansas. Brown was confined to the military camp with others. Gov Geary offered clemency to both side. After that Brown left the area for the east. This was in 56 and 57