Which US PResidents were Horrid?: Part II

[Ramo]

Can't, on a school computer.

[DinoDoc]

Bastard

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo
Regarding your one and only argument: the secession papers said the war was about slavery, so it must've been about slavery.

Hardly all I have said and it is plenty on its own anyway. You have only had the UNSUPPORTED claim it was about taxes. I have support you have nothing.

The secession papers were propaganda, created principally for a legalistic reason, namely to gain European recognition and support (and to ward off an invasion). Propaganda is not where one should get information. The fact of the matter is that abolition was a phantom threat, while higher tariff duties were real, substantial threats, which almost caused a civil war 30 years earlier.

There was no way those were going to help with Europe. France and England both were against slavery and those were two countries they needed. As propaganda it helped the North immensly. Of course it wasn't mere propaganda anyway. It was the real reasons for secession. Tarrifs is something the other countries might have understood.

I am still not seeing ANY support for your claim. Even if you dredge something up modern revisionism will not trump the words of the men that made the decisions.

Irrelevant. You were ranting about firing the first shot, and I told you who did - federal troops.

How do you know? What I saw didn't say whether the Floridians fired or not. Besides I did say that firing the first shot is not important if the other side is clearly planing to start shooting. A peremptive strike against against an agressor is not starting a war.

Considering as how that DIDN'T start a war it not relevant in any case. Ft. Sumter started a war. That did nothing.

Fine, you want to talk Ft. Sumter? I wouldn't exactly call resupplying a fort while negotiating its supposed surrender particularly defensive.

They were only supplying food and similar items. No weapons. And the South started shooting before the ship arrived.

Demanding a surrender isn't exactly defensive either. It was federal soil. Literly.

By seceding, they have no more voice on the fate of the Western territories, nullifying your argument.

Nonsense. They were doing the seceding. They had allready denied states the choice. They wanted to deny more states the choice. The fact is they pitched a fit that they FEARED they wouldn't be allowed to force more states is evidence they didn't care one bit about states rights.

Yes, yes, yes. The Southern leaders were hypocritical feudalistic, authoritarian bastards who deserved to die horrible, horrible deaths. You're preaching to the choir, here. But it is not what the debate is over.

I never said that. Then again they got a lot of people killed over slavery.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger


As Ramo previously mentioned, the tariffs that the North wanted to impose were legal (even if they did cripple the South). Why would the South bring up tariffs in the secession documents if they were trying to come up with a legal justification for seceding?

US history. The US rebelled against Brittain at least partly over taxes. They weren't looking for legal excuses anyway. They were of the oppinion the had the right to secede whatever the reasons.

Again, the secession documents were created as a legal justification for secession. Why, then, would the South have brought up perfectly legal actions taken by the North in its secesion documents? The previous actions taken by the North that were illegal revolved around slavery, not tariffs. The previous (and future) actions taken by the North that would have caused (and later did come to cause) the most economic harm to the South were tariffs, though.

The Southern claims about the tarrifs is that the tarrifs discriminated against the South and subsidized the North. True or not that was the claim. If that isn't pertinant enough to be mentioned they must have thought it didn't mean anywhere near as much as slavery.

Now if someone can show that there a was debate about mentioning tariffs and that they decided not to mention it because it wasn't relevant to their legal claims and that slavery was relevant then a point will be made. I haven't seen such a claim. Maybe it can be supported.

Though I don't see how since Lincolm made it clear he was not going to abolish slavery at the expense of the union.

Lincoln's political platform was built around high tariffs. The reason the South seceded was to avoid these high tariffs.

If so they would have mentioned it. Its a traditional political complaint in the US and an important precedent in US history.

However, this did not constitute a legal justification for secession, while the North's previous actions with regards to slavery did provide legal justification for secession. Since the secession documents were intended to provide a legal justification for secession, they contained a great deal on slavey and not a bit on tariffs.

They had legal justification. They could quit any time they felt like it. That was what they said. They joined voluntarily and they could quit voluntarily. Of course that was realy only true for some states but they all claimed it. Only the thirteen colonies and Texas actually had a choice about joining the Union.

People today would rather think it was about taxes than except the fact that people were willing to fight and kill other Americans over slavery. Nevertheless that is exactly what the secession was done for. Slavery.

[Ramo]

Hardly all I have said and it is plenty on its own anyway. You have only had the UNSUPPORTED claim it was about taxes. I have support you have nothing.

I have a claim supported by logic. You have a claim supported by propaganda. 'Nuff said.

There was no way those were going to help with Europe. France and England both were against slavery and those were two countries they needed. As propaganda it helped the North immensly. Of course it wasn't mere propaganda anyway.

Like I said, it was a legalistic appeal. It was meant to legally, not morally, justify secession to the European leadership. They didn't like slavery, but they didn't have significant objections to the Confederacy as long as the war didn't become about slavery (which changed after the Emancipation Proclamation).

It was the real reasons for secession.

The papers mention "states' rights," for instance. You think that's a real reason for secession?

Tarrifs is something the other countries might have understood.

Yep, England would've perfectly understood how the North used tariffs to exploit the South, just as it had used tariffs to exploit its colonies, particularly in South Asia. If the South was looking for English sympathy, free trade wasn't exactly the best appeal.

I am still not seeing ANY support for your claim. Even if you dredge something up modern revisionism will not trump the words of the men that made the decisions.

I'll tell you a secret, but it may be a little unsettling:
Politicians occasionally lie.

Like I said earlier, I'm at school, and therefore don't have my books with me.

How do you know?

Going on memory, don't have my books with me..

They were only supplying food and similar items. No weapons. And the South started shooting before the ship arrived.

Yep, so they could hold the fort longer.

Demanding a surrender isn't exactly defensive either. It was federal soil. Literly.

What's a nice friendly suggestion between states?
Nonetheless, the feds said they were surrendering when they obviously had no intention of surrendering.

Nonsense. They were doing the seceding. They had allready denied states the choice. They wanted to deny more states the choice.

The fate of the states would be determined by popular sovereignty. They had the choice, but saw adding another slave state that was not dominated by agricultural interests not worth the effort of doing something similar to what they did in Kansas.

The fact is they pitched a fit that they FEARED they wouldn't be allowed to force more states is evidence they didn't care one bit about states rights.

Irrelevant. I never claimed anything about states' rights.

I never said that.

But I did.

Anyways, I gotta do my Physics homework now. Later.

[loinburger]

Ethelred: The South must have considered the issue of tariffs to be quite important, considering that they specifically mention them in their constitution, which is modelled after the original Constitution except that it specifically mentions free trade as a right afforded to all states.

Section VIII
The Congress shall have power-
1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; [my emphasis] and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; [my emphasis]...

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


I have a claim supported by logic. You have a claim supported by propaganda. 'Nuff said.

You claim support by repeating yourself. I claim support by going on the word of the men that made the decisions.

Like I said, it was a legalistic appeal. It was meant to legally, not morally, justify secession to the European leadership.

Got some evidence to support that? I know I have evidence against it. It didn't work at all if that was the intent. That it couldn't have worked is my evidence.

They didn't like slavery, but they didn't have significant objections to the Confederacy as long as the war didn't become about slavery (which changed after the Emancipation Proclamation).

England especially would have liked to help split the US. However the fact that the South had rebelled to retain slavery stopped them from helping the South.

The papers mention "states' rights," for instance. You think that's a real reason for secession?

The right was the right to keep slaves. We both know I think that was the reason. And we allready covered how hypocritical their claims of states rights were since they wanted to force slavery on new states.

Yep, England would've perfectly understood how the North used tariffs to exploit the South, just as it had used tariffs to exploit its colonies, particularly in South Asia. If the South was looking for English sympathy, free trade wasn't exactly the best appeal.

Nor was slavery. In fact the Brittish were boarding ships to stop slave shipments. Anyones ships. Any countries ships. Claiming a desire to want to enslave men was not going to endear anyone with the Brittish.

I'll tell you a secret, but it may be a little unsettling:
Politicians occasionally lie.

Gosh and to think I once voted for Tricky Dicky. I never knew.

Like I said earlier, I'm at school, and therefore don't have my books with me.

Use the WEB Luke. It will protect you and aid you in your endevours.

Going on memory, don't have my books with me..

The net is better. Its my memory. I make more mistakes when I fail to consult it.

Yep, so they could hold the fort longer.

It was their fort. It was federal soil with federal troops that were short on food and under seige and blockade. Blockade and seige are acts of war even if a shot isn't fired. Buchanan didn't have the guts to call it an act of war. He knew it was but he was a Lame Duck so he was waiting for Lincoln.

What's a nice friendly suggestion between states?
Nonetheless, the feds said they were surrendering when they obviously had no intention of surrendering.

No they didn't. They were negotiating and only because the seige had cut them off from supply. Again, the siege itself was an act of war.

If they didn't get supplies they would have surrendered in a few days. The South was impatient.

The fate of the states would be determined by popular sovereignty. They had the choice, but saw adding another slave state that was not dominated by agricultural interests not worth the effort of doing something similar to what they did in Kansas.

The fate of the state is something the South wanted to force. Against states rights.

Irrelevant. I never claimed anything about states' rights.

Really and then what is this?

Yes, and the Confederate argument over secession had always been over the legality of federal actions.

That is States rights. The rights of the states vs the powers of the federal government.

And you just quoted the session documents reference to states rights.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger
Ethelred: The South must have considered the issue of tariffs to be quite important, considering that they specifically mention them in their constitution, which is modelled after the original Constitution except that it specifically mentions free trade as a right afforded to all states.

Important yes. Just not important enough mention at all when they seceded. They were clearly quite enraged that they might lose slavery. It was not mere propaganda and it didn't help them at all with international relations. In fact was exceedingly harmfull. The tarrif issue was more than enough reason legally since they felt the US had no legal hold on them anyway.

Legally all they had to do was say 'we quit' from their point of view. As far as I can see they were right then as well. Since then things are different. A major war has a powerful legal precedent.

Boy would the US transportation system be a mess with that article. I think the next bigest change is the term of office for the President. One single six year term.

[AzNmYsTiKaLdEmO]

damn dat abraham lincoln..... if it weren't for him, slaves would still be making out clothing and it would sell for cheap prices. now without slaves, clothing prices hav gone up tenfold...... damn hiM!!!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Important yes. Just not important enough mention at all when they seceded.

The Declaration of Independence makes no reference to the separation of Church and State (something which the English government impeded upon, IIRC), but that doesn't lessen the importance of the First Amendment. The Constitution is a far more important legal document than the Declaration of Independence; the former outlines the functioning of the government, the latter was really just a propoganda tool.

The tarrif issue was more than enough reason legally since they felt the US had no legal hold on them anyway.

The tariffs that the North imposed were extremely damaging to the South, but they were not illegal. Mentioning them in the secession documents would therefore have accomplished nothing. Instead, they are expicitely dealt with in the CSA Constitution, where their treatment would accomplish something.

Legally all they had to do was say 'we quit' from their point of view.

From their point of view that is all they had to say. Not everybody necessarily shared their point of view, so they also had the need to bring up the illegal actions taken by the North (which do not include tariffs).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo

No, you're changing whatever "argument" you previously had after I refuted it (hell, the two arguments are contradictory), into an argument that does not help your case.

I never changed my argument after you refuted it. I told you that I already knew what you said -- that there was already slavery in Cuba and Mexico, and so forth. That is like, history 101.

You thought I meant that I claimed that Southern politicians wanted to expand slavery where it did NOT exist yet.

I really claimed that Southern politicians wanted to conquer countries where slavery already existed.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger


The Declaration of Independence makes no reference to the separation of Church and State (something which the English government impeded upon, IIRC),

That should be on the Creationism thread. England wasn't messing much with religion in the colonies. They had given that up for lent. Lent too.

but that doesn't lessen the importance of the First Amendment. The Constitution is a far more important legal document than the Declaration of Independence; the former outlines the functioning of the government, the latter was really just a propoganda tool.

There is a difference. Winning. Yes I agree the Declaration was a propaganda tool.(some think its a legal, document it isn't) It covered actual grievances though. It wasn't a stealth document that ignored the real grievance.

You and Ramo are basicaly claiming the various documents of session weren't real grievances but a snow job to fox the foreigners. Well that just isn't true.

First the Declaration is a single document assembled by three men and primarily written by one and then approved by a single body of representitives. The session documents that I linked to are four seperate documents written by at least four different people completly independently for the four different sets of STATE voters and not for the foreigners. If it had been for foreigners they wouldn't have even mentioned slavery as no major European nation agreed with the South on that.

The tariffs that the North imposed were extremely damaging to the South, but they were not illegal. Mentioning them in the secession documents would therefore have accomplished nothing. Instead, they are expicitely dealt with in the CSA Constitution, where their treatment would accomplish something.

Slavery wasn't ilegal and no one was about to abolish it. So now we are left with nothing to write about.

From their point of view that is all they had to say. Not everybody necessarily shared their point of view, so they also had the need to bring up the illegal actions taken by the North (which do not include tariffs).

Which they didn't do. The actions were legal. It was a fear of future actions that they acted on. The tariffs had been around for a long time. I am still going on their own words about their decisions. Their decisions were on a state by state basis. The Confederate Constitution was a decision by all the states as a collective body. They are different things and have different requirements. One is a set of laws and the other is a statement about why they are leaveing another set of laws.

Its not like they changed the tariff laws AND made slavery ilegal.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes I agree the Declaration was a propaganda tool.(some think its a legal, document it isn't) It covered actual grievances though. It wasn't a stealth document that ignored the real grievance.

The grievances it brings up are all legal violations. Tariffs imposed on the South by the North were not illegal and are therefore disanalogous.

You and Ramo are basicaly claiming the various documents of session weren't real grievances but a snow job to fox the foreigners. Well that just isn't true.

They contain real grievances, particularly concerning states' rights (where the North had violated the Constitution). Just like the Declaration of Independence, they do not contain grievances with absolutely no legal basis; the North's tariff policy was not illegal, therefore it would not be in the secession documents as it would not constitute a legal grievance.

Slavery wasn't ilegal and no one was about to abolish it. So now we are left with nothing to write about.

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with the fact that the North's tariffs were not in the secession documents because they were not illegal?

Which they didn't do. The actions were legal.

The secession documents bring up several legal grievances. Notable among these are the lack of enforcement on the Fugitive Slave Law (thereby failing to enforce interstate property rights as guaranteed in the Constitution).

It was a fear of future actions that they acted on.

Yes, higher tariffs.

The tariffs had been around for a long time.

But Lincoln was going to make them worse. He was all for Clay's American System.

I am still going on their own words about their decisions.

By "their own words," do you mean "diaries and journals of those responsible for writing up the secession documents," or do you mean "the secession documents"? I would hardly call the secession documents "their own words," rather I would call them "a propoganda tool."

I am still going off of the actual Constitutional changes enacted by the CSA government, which deal almost exclusively with tariffs.

One is a set of laws and the other is a statement about why they are leaveing another set of laws.

One, the Consitution, is a binding legal document and a nearly unimpeachable source. The other, the secession documents, are not binding legal documents and were intended as propoganda tools.

Its not like they changed the tariff laws AND made slavery ilegal.

No, they didn't really add or delete anything regarding slavery, just an expanded set of laws for how slaves that already exist in newly acquired territories would be dealt with. The primary changes they made were to the laws concerning states' free trade (tariffs), because tariffs were of primary concern while slavery was only of secondary or tertiary concern.

[Ramo]

I claim support by going on the word of the men that made the decisions.

Your claim is supported by misinterpreting their propaganda, mine is based on analyzing the context of these statements. Quotes are well and good, but they're meaningless if they're interpreted in a vacuum.

Got some evidence to support that? I know I have evidence against it. It didn't work at all if that was the intent. That it couldn't have worked is my evidence.

Read the bloody papers. They were legal appeals, not moral appeals. Do I really have to walk you through one of them?

However the fact that the South had rebelled to retain slavery stopped them from helping the South.

If this had happened, perhaps that would follow.

But history tells us that England, France, and Spain were courting the CSA with possible alliances until Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation.

The right was the right to keep slaves. We both know I think that was the reason.

Riiight.

And we allready covered how hypocritical their claims of states rights were since they wanted to force slavery on new states.

Ah, I see. The Secession papers should be taken at face value only when supporting your claims. Interesting philosophy there, seeing as how the secession papers is your only argument.

It was their fort. It was federal soil

Court decisions had consistently spelled out state jursdiction over lands in their within the borders, regardless whether the land was ceded to the federal gov't, before and after 1860. At best, you have an extremely nebulous conflict over legal rights to the land. It was an unprecedented situation, so it was not necessarily federal or Confederate soil. Calling it an "act of war" is a fairly long strech.

The fate of the state is something the South wanted to force. Against states rights.

"Blah, blah, blah states' rights." If you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing about the South's defense of states' rights.

Really and then what is this?

quote:

Yes, and the Confederate argument over secession had always been over the legality of federal actions

I was referring in particular to the secession papers, smart guy. I didn't say that the South actually seceded over states' rights.

I never changed my argument after you refuted it.

"Before the Civil War, the Southern states wanted to aggressively expand the institution of slavery in the western territories, Nicragua, Cuba, and Mexico. ..."

"The Southern politicians wanted to take over countries where slavery already existed, so they can establish more plantations for more profits for themselves. "

No, no change at all.

Look, you're either lying, had a pretty bad case of amnesia, or made a big typo.

I don't mind the latter case, but I wish you'd take responsibility for whatever mistakes you make instead of accusing me of not understanding and changing your statement into something it was not.

I told you that I already knew what you said -- that there was already slavery in Cuba and Mexico, and so forth. That is like, history 101.

Furthermore, your pretentious "I already knew that" that you write every in every other one of your posts is starting to get on my nerves. Look dude, you may have know whatever was written in response to you, but you generally either have either neglected to take that fact into consideration or have written something contradicting it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo

"Before the Civil War, the Southern states wanted to aggressively expand the institution of slavery in the western territories, Nicragua, Cuba, and Mexico. ..."

"The Southern politicians wanted to take over countries where slavery already existed, so they can establish more plantations for more profits for themselves. "

No, no change at all.

Look, you're either lying, had a pretty bad case of amnesia, or made a big typo.

I don't mind the latter case, but I wish you'd take responsibility for whatever mistakes you make instead of accusing me of not understanding and changing your statement into something it was not.

Furthermore, your pretentious "I already knew that" that you write every in every other one of your posts is starting to get on my nerves. Look dude, you may have know whatever was written in response to you, but you generally either have either neglected to take that fact into consideration or have written something contradicting it.

The way I first wrote my statement was a mistake, since I neglected to write it explicitly enough, to convey that slavery was already in existence in those countries.

[Ramo]

The way I first wrote my statement was a mistake, since I neglected to write it explicitly enough,

And you think you wrote the latter statement explicitly at all, or even implicitly?

[qutoe] to convey that slavery was already in existence in those countries.[/quote]

Then you'd be wrong again. Nicaragua did not have slavery in 1861. Walker, the American dictator who tried to reinstate slavery, was kicked out in 1857.

(Please don't write "Tell me something I didn't know." or some variation of that statement)

[MrFun]

You're right -- Nicaragua did not have slavery at that time.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger

The grievances it brings up are all legal violations. Tariffs imposed on the South by the North were not illegal and are therefore disanalogous.

The grievances in the Declaration of Independence were about things that were legal. In fact many of the complaints were about laws that had been passed by Parliment which makes them legal. England has NO ilegal laws unlike the US because they have no Constitution.

Since you have only your own speculation here is another dose of reality.

Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb: "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections."

Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."

Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina: "The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . . This war is the servant of slavery." [The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861)


The Republican Platform for 1860 does mention import duties but they don't say anything about high duties. Or discriminatory duties against certain states.

Democratic Platform Douglas faction has no mention of duties or tariffs.

Democratic Platform Breckinridge faction also has no such mention.

Constitutional Union Party Platform is really short and only has platidutes.

So I don't see much evidence that tariffs were driving any of the parties.

Easy to read them. They are short unlike modern platforms.

The attempts at compromise to short circuit the secession were directed at slavery. Not tariffs.

The comprimise proposal by Jefferson Davis.


Resolved, That it shall be declared, by amendment of the Constitution, that property in slaves, recognized as such by the local law of any of the States of the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized; and, like other property, shall not be subject to be divested or impaired by the local law of any other State, either in escape thereto or of transit or sojourn of the owner therein; and in no case whatever shall such property be subject to be divested or impaired by any legislative act of the United States, or of any of the Territories thereof.

I see slavery not tariffs and that is Jeferson Davis himself. Aparently he didn't agree with you either.

They contain real grievances, particularly concerning states' rights (where the North had violated the Constitution). Just like the Declaration of Independence, they do not contain grievances with absolutely no legal basis; the North's tariff policy was not illegal, therefore it would not be in the secession documents as it would not constitute a legal grievance.

Good ol states rights. The tyrants answer to laws against human rights. Sure was popular in the South in the 50's and 60's.

The complaints in the Declaration of Independence while legitmate were not about things that were illegal. The King was within his legal rights as was Pariliment.

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with the fact that the North's tariffs were not in the secession documents because they were not illegal?

What are you talking about? Nothing in the secesion documents were about ilegal things. They were about things they feared might become illegal. Slavery.

The law was on the side of the South.

The secession documents bring up several legal grievances. Notable among these are the lack of enforcement on the Fugitive Slave Law (thereby failing to enforce interstate property rights as guaranteed in the Constitution).

Yes where the South attempted to force THEIR laws on other states. More evidence that the South had no respect for State Rights outside of Southern States. If they wanted to enforce their laws that was their responsibility.

You are aware aren't you that by seceding they made things worse in that respect. Secession meant that the escaped slaves would become legal refugees.

Yes, higher tariffs.

Funny how they failed to mention that. You seem to be reading minds.

But Lincoln was going to make them worse. He was all for Clay's American System.

All you have to do is look at what the people of the time were saying. They were mostly talking slavery not tariffs. Tariffs were a secondary issue that was something were comprimise was more likely.

By "their own words," do you mean "diaries and journals of those responsible for writing up the secession documents," or do you mean "the secession documents"? I would hardly call the secession documents "their own words," rather I would call them "a propoganda tool."

You call them a propaganda tool to avoid what they say. There is no reason to say they were mere propaganda except to avoid what they so clearly say about their reasons for secession.

Diaries and journals would be usefull to support your point. Inventing claims of propaganda isn't.

I am still going off of the actual Constitutional changes enacted by the CSA government, which deal almost exclusively with tariffs.

Only because you skipped over the parts about slavery that I have here farther down.

One, the Consitution, is a binding legal document and a nearly unimpeachable source. The other, the secession documents, are not binding legal documents and were intended as propoganda tools.

Again you unsupported claim that it was propaganda. Now that you can see that slavery also part of the Constitutional changes you will have to give some support for that propaganda claim.

No, they didn't really add or delete anything regarding slavery, just an expanded set of laws for how slaves that already exist in newly acquired territories would be dealt with.The primary changes they made were to the laws concerning states' free trade (tariffs), because tariffs were of primary concern while slavery was only of secondary or tertiary concern.

ARTICLE I.Section IX.
1- The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.


ARTICLE IV. Section II.
1- The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

3- No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.


All of those are additions regarding slavery.

Its exceedinly clear from what the people of the time actually said that slavery was the primary concern. There simply is no reason that tariffs wouldn't have been mentioned in any of those secession documents if they were the primary concern. Those were state documents by individual states not foreign aid proposals by a national government.

----------------------------
Oh and here is something interesting from the Confederate Constitution.


ARTICLE I. Section IX.
3 - The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

If Lincoln had the Confederate Constitution his suspension of Habeus Corpus would have been legal.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


Your claim is supported by misinterpreting their propaganda, mine is based on analyzing the context of these statements. Quotes are well and good, but they're meaningless if they're interpreted in a vacuum.

I didn't take them from vacuum. Its clear by many other things said by many people that slavery was the primary issue. Your claims that the secession documents were pure propaganda is unsupported by anything resembling evidence. So far it is a mere assertion by you and Loinburger.

Read the bloody papers. They were legal appeals, not moral appeals. Do I really have to walk you through one of them?

I was the one that posted the links. I read them. They weren't legal apeals so much much as a statement of why they were seceeding. The law was on their side.

In fact you just called them propaganda. Make up your mind. Oh and support your claim that they were propaganda rather than heartfelt statements about their desire to retain slavery.

If this had happened, perhaps that would follow.

But history tells us that England, France, and Spain were courting the CSA with possible alliances until Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation.

History also shows us that the Brits weren't going to do anything ever since they were against slavery.

Ah, I see. The Secession papers should be taken at face value only when supporting your claims. Interesting philosophy there, seeing as how the secession papers is your only argument.

Legal then propaganda. Funny how YOU keep switching.

I didn't. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in them. The secession papers are not my only arguement but even they are far more than you have. You have only a personal claim that they are propaganda. Or is that a legal claim? You keep changing.

Court decisions had consistently spelled out state jursdiction over lands in their within the borders, regardless whether the land was ceded to the federal gov't, before and after 1860. At best, you have an extremely nebulous conflict over legal rights to the land. It was an unprecedented situation, so it was not necessarily federal or Confederate soil. Calling it an "act of war" is a fairly long strech.

Blockade and siege is an act of war. That is reality and not a stretch.

It was definitly Federal soil. It wasn't ceded to the federal government at any time. It was BUILT by the Federal Government.

Fort Sumter is built on an artificial island paid for with Federal funds. The granite even came from the North.

http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Sumter.html

Fort Sumter, named after a South Carolina Revolutionary War hero, was designed as part of a defensive system for Charleston Harbor. Plans were drawn in 1827, and construction began two years later. Located on a man-made island of sea shells and grani te from northern quarries, it was a pentagonal structure, fifty feet high, with walls eight to twelve feet thick.

[MrFun]

Ethelred, you presented some very good arguments.

But I don't think you will be able to get through to them. Most white Southerners and some white Northerners today, have this bias that will not let them see the continuum of the issue of expanding slavery into new territory, with secession, then the creation of the Confederacy, and then the Civil War.

All the books I have read outside of my classes and studies have emphasized how slavery was the main issue that brought about the greatest crisis the United States ever faced.

Thanks for your counter-arguments to theirs, Ethelred.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
But I don't think you will be able to get through to them. Most white Southerners and some white Northerners today, have this bias that will not let them see the continuum of the issue of expanding slavery into new territory, with secession, then the creation of the Confederacy, and then the Civil War.

I'm sorry that I'm more willing to believe a legally binding document like the CSA Constitution than non-binding documents like the secession papers. Given your previous statements about how the US Constitution is a vacuous piece of paper with no real meaning or objectivity, I can't blame you for calling this "bias" on my part.

[Ramo]

England has NO ilegal laws unlike the US because they have no Constitution.

Ever hear of the Magna Carta?

but they don't say anything about high duties

You're telling me that they supported lower duties?
The Morrill Tariff was one the first pieces of legislation Congress was to pass. It doubled tariff duties. The subsequent tariffs (in the next few years), increased duties even more.

You'll note that that the Republican platform (which is relatively long) does not mention abolition as its goal in any way whatsoever.

I suppose it's my turn for a quote.

For example, in Lincoln's first campaign he told the electorate, "My politics can be briefly stated. I am in favor of internal improvements and protective tariffs. These are my sentiments and my political principles."

Democratic Platform Douglas faction has no mention of duties or tariffs.

Democratic Platform Breckinridge faction also has no such mention.

Yes, the Democratic party was not homogenous in its opposition to tariffs. That's why it wasn't in the platform. The parties were extremely lose coalitions. For example, a significant portion of the Republican party consisted of former-Democrats.

Look at regional campaigns if you want a clear picture.

Or discriminatory duties against certain states.

What? First of all, protective tariffs hurt everyone in the country. Even in the North, farmers made up the majority of the population. It was only because manufacturing interests ran the North that the Northern gov'ts supported higher tariff duties. Secondly, protective tariffs inherentely disproportionately hurt the South, since they were so much more reliant on agriculture.

The attempts at compromise to short circuit the secession were directed at slavery. Not tariffs.

The comprimise proposal by Jefferson Davis.

Or you can look at the compromise proposed by the New York Chamber of Commerce to get Congress to reject the Morrill Tariff. The US didn't much like it.

Oh and here is something interesting from the Confederate Constitution.


ARTICLE I. Section IX.
3 - The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

If Lincoln had the Confederate Constitution his suspension of Habeus Corpus would have been legal.

That's in the US Constitution too. The only reason (as I explained earlier in this thread) that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional was because he didn't have Congressional approval initially, which he got later.

I didn't take them from vacuum.

No, that's exactly what you did. You ignore the political machinery of the coutnry. Again, abolition had absolutely no chance of getting enacted in the South, while higher tariff duties were on the verge of gettting passed. That's important. More important than a bunch of rhetoric.

I was the one that posted the links. I read them. They weren't legal apeals so much much as a statement of why they were seceeding. The law was on their side.

No, they were explaining why they were seceding through legalistic reasons. Again, would you prefer if I took you through one of the papers?

In fact you just called them propaganda. Make up your mind.

They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, one implies the other (legal appeal implies propaganda). Again, they only mention legal grievances. They made the federal gov't out into in illegal organization to justify the secession. Ergo, propaganda.

Legal then propaganda. Funny how YOU keep switching.

I didn't "switch" anything.

I didn't. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in them.

I thought it was a the secession papers were "heartfelt statements." You can't have it both ways.

Of course, it's a "heartfelt statement" only when it supports your assertion, namely that the South seceded to preserve slavery. Nevermind, of course, that abolition wasn't anywhere close to a threat.

The secession papers are not my only arguement but even they are far more than you have.

Reread the thrad.

You have only a personal claim that they are propaganda. Or is that a legal claim? You keep changing.

No, you keep on being unable to read my posts correctly.

But I don't think you will be able to get through to them. Most white Southerners and some white Northerners today, have this bias

**** off. You have no idea who I am.

[Ramo]

Doh, forgot about this:

Blockade and siege is an act of war. That is reality and not a stretch.

It was definitly Federal soil. It wasn't ceded to the federal government at any time. It was BUILT by the Federal Government.

Fort Sumter is built on an artificial island paid for with Federal funds. The granite even came from the North.

It was in the Charleston Harbor. The state ceded that to the federal gov't, so there would be legal issues about Ft. Sumter's ownership.

History also shows us that the Brits weren't going to do anything ever since they were against slavery.

Not if you look at the diplomatic correspondence between the Confederacy and the Europeans. Intervention by European powers was very possible; they wanted to take over American spheres of influence. Of course, that changed with the Emancipation Proclamation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Ever hear of the Magna Carta?

That isn't the English Constitution. I defy you to find an English Constitution.

[Ramo]

No, that implies that there were "illegal laws" (a bad phrase, but you get the gist), not that there is an English Constitution.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
What are you talking about? Nothing in the secesion documents were about ilegal things. They were about things they feared might become illegal. Slavery.

The law was on the side of the South.

So you would call "failure to respect consitutionally guaranteed property rights" a "legal" action taken by the north?

Yes where the South attempted to force THEIR laws on other states. More evidence that the South had no respect for State Rights outside of Southern States. If they wanted to enforce their laws that was their responsibility.

Read the Constitution, it was a property rights issue. It's not called "forcing THEIR laws on other states" when THEIR laws are Consitutionally guaranteed.

You are aware aren't you that by seceding they made things worse in that respect. Secession meant that the escaped slaves would become legal refugees.

I've said before that had the issue only been slavery that the South would not have seceded, since it hurt their chances to maintain slavery to secede. You asked me what the other reasons for secession could possibly have been, I brought up tariffs, and you dismissed me out of hand.

Funny how they failed to mention that. You seem to be reading minds.

Yeah, funny, seeing as how I've said time and time again why tariffs would not be in the secession documents.

All you have to do is look at what the people of the time were saying. They were mostly talking slavery not tariffs. Tariffs were a secondary issue that was something were comprimise was more likely.

All you have to do is look at the economic situation. Slavery was dying out anyway, outlawing it would have had little to no economic impact on the South. Tariffs were what was and what were going to have all of the economic impact. What Ramo and I have said and what you repeatedly ignore is that the secession documents were propoganda instruments. They bring up slavery because it is an emotionally charged issue. Tell me, do you get emotionally charged about tariffs? Even if the war were exclusively over tariffs, don't you think they'd try to incorporate something more emotionally charged? "Fight for tariffs" just doesn't work as well as "Fight for states' rights," and tariffs were not in violation of states' rights.

You call them a propaganda tool to avoid what they say. There is no reason to say they were mere propaganda except to avoid what they so clearly say about their reasons for secession.

I thought you admitted yourself that they were intended for propoganda. You certainly admitted it about the Declaration.

Diaries and journals would be usefull to support your point. Inventing claims of propaganda isn't.

If you could economically establish that the removal of slavery would have had anywhere near the impact of the North's tariff policies, then I'll concede the issue and say "Yup, the whole war was about slavery." That's a promise.

ARTICLE I.Section IX.
1- The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Ever read the US Constitution? If you had, you'd notice that this is included in there as well. IIRC, importation of slavery had been illegal in the US since before its existence (when it was still a group of colonies).

ARTICLE IV. Section II.
1- The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

3- No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.

These are the same as the property rights granted in the US Constitution. The only difference is that they make clear that slaves are property. Other than this (which is hardly a change, only a clarification), the property rights in the CSA were not fundamentally different than the property rights granted in the US Constitution.

All of those are additions regarding slavery.

I'd call the last two clarifications. I'd call the first one "the same thing as was in the US Constitition."

Its exceedinly clear from what the people of the time actually said that slavery was the primary concern. There simply is no reason that tariffs wouldn't have been mentioned in any of those secession documents if they were the primary concern. Those were state documents by individual states not foreign aid proposals by a national government.

Again, propoganda. Could you even imagine fighting a war over tariffs, regardless of which side you were on? Even if they were more economically crippling than the ending of slavery, they were a. not as emotionally charged and b. far too complicated for Joe Schmoe to understand. Try a little experiment and ask ten pseudo-random people their thoughts on slavery as well as their thoughts on tariffs. If even one or two people give you a response on tariffs, I would be very surprised indeed.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


That isn't the English Constitution. I defy you to find an English Constitution.

Do the Aussies have one?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Do the Aussies have one?

Yes.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger




I'm sorry that I'm more willing to believe a legally binding document like the CSA Constitution than non-binding documents like the secession papers.

No what you are believing is your interpetation of what that means. Since they also had quite a few new items specificaly to retain Slavery for all time I don't think you have much to go on there. After all the Constitution is a what not a WHY.

The secession papers were just as binding as the Declaration of Independence. They were lucky not to hang when they lost. The signers of the Declaration would not have been so lucky. Those were no mere propaganda broadsheets there were declarations of rebellion.

Jeferson Davis knew it was about slavery, why don't you believe the President of the Confederate States of America?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


Ever hear of the Magna Carta?

Yes. And as someone else has already been pointed out it wasn't a Constitution. It was a document of extortion by barons against the King.

Its been at least partly overturned. English Nobility are no longer above the law. And it wasn't done by an amendment but by a simple majority decision of Parliment. Its real value was the precedent of putting limits on the King. It did nothing for the commoners. In fact it made commoners literly second class citizens for centuries in England.

You're telling me that they supported lower duties?
The Morrill Tariff was one the first pieces of legislation Congress was to pass. It doubled tariff duties. The subsequent tariffs (in the next few years), increased duties even more.

Thank you making up my side of the argument. I apreciate that very much.

There was war or hadn't you noticed. A war that cost money. A war started by people that chose war rather than sticking around and getting a compromise. The Morrill Tariff had nothing to do with Secession. It came after.

Tariffs had been higher and lower and was on the lower end of the spectrum in 1860. The South was quite happy with tariffs on foreign cotton and sugar by the way. That tariff didn't bother them one single bit.

They didn't mention tariffs in the Secession documents because it wasn't the issue.

I suppose it's my turn for a quote.

For example, in Lincoln's first campaign he told the electorate, "My politics can be briefly stated. I am in favor of internal improvements and protective tariffs. These are my sentiments and my political principles."

The South favored protective tariffs as well. On sugar and cotton.

Yes, the Democratic party was not homogenous in its opposition to tariffs. That's why it wasn't in the platform.

Yeah they certainly weren't. They were all for tariffs on things that the South produced and sold to the North.

Or you can look at the compromise proposed by the New York Chamber of Commerce to get Congress to reject the Morrill Tariff. The US didn't much like it.

Why? It had nothing to do with the causes of the Civil War. It came after the South Seceded. Over slavery issues.

Again, abolition had absolutely no chance of getting enacted in the South, while higher tariff duties were on the verge of gettting passed. That's important. More important than a bunch of rhetoric.

They weren't on the verge of getting passed till the South left. With little opposition compromise went out. Considering that the South didn't bother mentioning Tariffs even once in the secession documents, which were not mere rhetoric, I don't see any reason for thinking they thought tariffs more significant than slavery.

That "rhetoric" was an act of rebellion. Its just a bit more than a bunch of rhetoric to be dismissed as propaganda. People don't often put their lives on the line for things they think are minor issues.

No, they were explaining why they were seceding through legalistic reasons. Again, would you prefer if I took you through one of the papers?

Why don't you so you that you will have a clue about what you are talking about. I did look at editorials. Guess whose side of this arguement they are on?



Charleston Mercury
February 28, 1860
Prospects of Slavery Expansion


Its all about slavery and nothing about tariffs. A bit long to post here so - Link

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/merc2.html

Another

An editorial from the Washington, Arkansas, Telegraph of January 13, 1865.

Sample sentence.
The great conservative institution of slavery, so excellent in itself, and so necessary to civil liberty and the dignity of the white race, is one of the grand objects of our struggle.

Link to the rest.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ark.html

Now wasn't that special. Who needs Nazis?

Richmond Enquirer

Saturday Morning, March 23, 1861

Sample

1 - That African slavery in the Territories shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the Territorial Legislatures.

2 - That the right to slaveholders of transit and sojourn in any State of the Confederacy, with their slaves and other property, shall be recognized and respected.

3 - That the provision in regard to fugitive slaves shall extend to any slave lawfully carried from one State into another, and there escaping or taken away from his master.

Link
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/richmond.html

There now are you happy? Southern papers. They don't agree with you. They think it was slavery. Just like Jefferson Davis.

They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, one implies the other (legal appeal implies propaganda).

Well there sure is propaganda in that statement. Legal appeal implies facts and laws. If they really thought slavery wasn't going to be abolished why did they talk about it so much.

Your switching again.

I thought it was a the secession papers were "heartfelt statements." You can't have it both ways.

I leave that to YOU. I am not having it both ways. Hypocrisy is often a heartfelt sentiment.