# Think Tank > History >  How We Know The So-Called Civil War Was Not Over Slavery

## charrob

How We Know The So-Called Civil War Was Not Over Slavery





> Paul Craig Roberts
> 
> When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzos article the question that lept to mind was, How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasnt fighting against slavery?
> 
> *Two days before Lincolns inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
> 
> Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.
> 
> Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

I love Paul Craig Roberts but he is wrong as two left shoes on this.  To fully understand the history of the civil war it is important not to just look at the motivations of the North but to look at the motivations of the South.  The southern states stated in their declarations of secession that their main beef was protecting slavery.  They wanted slavery to be allowed to expand to the new territories and the wanted the fugitive slave law enforced.  In his first inaugural, Lincoln made it clear that he wasn't going to enforce the fugitive slave law, nor allow slavery to expand further.  The proposed constitutional amendment that Paul Craig Roberts was referencing did not address either of those issues.  The other issue people cite as a cause for secession was tariffs.  But tariffs were at an all time low when the South seceded.  Had the southern states gone along with South Carolina and seceded when southern slave owner Andrew Jackson was president, then could have legitimately claimed their main beef was tariffs.  Tariffs were high back then.  Incidentally Andrew Jackson threatened to hang all secessionists and yet for some odd reason Andrew Jackson is still revered in the south.  But after the nullification crisis, congress reduced tariffs to the lowest ever in the nation's history.  After the southern senators resigned post secession, tariffs were raised.  In other words *all the South had to do to prevent tariffs from being raised was to NOT secede!*  Either southerners were the biggest group of stupid bumpkins in history, or the U.S. Civil War was not chiefly about tariffs.

It's really silly for libertarians to try to defend the South.  You and everyone else should watch the movie "The Free State of Jones."  It tells the true story of poor southern whites and escaped black slaves who seceded from Mississippi during the Civil War and created their truly libertarian state.  People talk about wanting to create a libertarian state in New Hampshire?  Well a libertarian state existed in Mississippi.  There was no slavery and *there were no taxes*!  And why were these poor whites willing to throw in their lot with escaped slaves?  *Because the Confederacy in effect was enslaving white people along with blacks!*  The Confederacy was the first side in the civil war to institute a draft.  *But after the emancipation proclamation, the confederacy exempted slave owners from the draft!  For every 9 slaves you had, you got one exemption!*  Also Confederate "tax collectors" would conduct raids on the crops of poor white farmers to have food to feed an army fighting in a war that in no way benefited poor whites.  Lincoln did a lot of things wrong too.  But what rich whites were doing to poor whites during the Civil War was worthy of a counter civil war.  Other areas of the South seceded from their states as well.  That's how we have West Virginia.  An area in North Alabama also seceded.  Troops from this area were some of General Sherman's best fighters as he went "Marching through Georgia."  Learn your history, *all of it*.

----------


## oyarde

One thing we know . The US was such a backward and ignorant nation it is surprising there is still not slavery . And yes , poor stupid , white people were just pawns to the southern ruling class . As far as the fugitive slave " laws " , those should never have received support from anyone outside slave states . Nothing has changed here , any slavers caught on the property will be killed and buried .

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

The North was certainly not concerned with abolishing slavery in 1861.  But I think some of the facts have been misrepresented.

Lincoln was against slavery, he just wasn't as anti-slavery as others.  Views on slavery in both the North and the South existed on a spectrum.  One one end, you had people who wanted an immediate end to slavery and who would accept no compromise, such as John Brown.  On the other hand, you had radical fire-eaters who wanted to reopen the Atlantic Slave Trade and expand slavery throughout all territories of the United States like Robert Rhett.  The majority of Americans, including Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Steven Douglas, Robert E. Lee, and Ulysses S. Grant all fell somewhere in between.

The Mexican-American War is what caused the bitter arguments over slavery in the 1850s.  Abolitionists were worried about the possibility of slavery expanding through all of the territories conquered from Mexico.  And slaveholders were concerned about their institution being shut out of these territories.  And this often led to bloodshed, like in Kansas.  Slavery became the main issue of that decade, replacing expansionism, tariffs, and central banking that decided elections in the previous two decades.  The Democrats and Whigs became deeply divided over slavery and a group of anti-slavery politicians from both parties formed the Republican Party.  The Republican Party, while not calling for immediate abolition, was hostile to slavery and would not permit its expansion into new territories.  Slaveholders were not content with having their institution limited to the states where it already existed, and were alarmed by the election of Lincoln in 1860.

Lincoln, while hating slavery, was more concerned with preserving the Union, and offered the Corwin Amendment as a compromise.  While on the surface it looks like it would have granted slaveholders everything they wanted, that's not really the case.  If enacted, the number of free states would continue to increase, while the number of slave states couldn't increase.  And slave states like Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware may very well have peacefully ended slavery in the 1870s.  This means that the power of the slave states in Congress would shrink as time went on.  And if free states have enough power in Congress, they could just pass an amendment that declared that the Corwin Amendment was not permanent.

----------


## William Tell

> Lincoln was against slavery, he just wasn't as anti-slavery as others.


 Hm, that explains why he defended a slave owner against a slave as a lawyer in Matson v. Ashmore which set the stage for Dred Scott....

/s

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Hm, that explains why he defended a slave owner against a slave as a lawyer in Matson v. Ashmore which set the stage for Dred Scott....
> 
> /s


I didn't know that, I'll have to read into that.

----------


## 1stvermont

what causes southern secession? well i cover this on these threads, *the main issue was state sovereignty*. Tariffs, states rights, slavery and a host of other issues also contributed. 

*
Ill Take my Stand  Causes of Southern Secession- the Upper South
*http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South

*Causes of Southern Secession- the Cotton States*

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States


I invite all to come post and debate it there.

----------


## charrob

> Learn your history, *all of it*.


Thanks for your explanation and post.  My knowledge of history isnt so good, so it helps to converse with others.

Ive seen this argument regarding why the civil war was fought being bandied about by both sides, so when I saw Roberts article, I thought to post it to see what arguments might arise here on RPForums.





> The southern states stated in their declarations of secession that their main beef was protecting slavery. They wanted slavery to be allowed to expand to the new territories and they wanted the fugitive slave law enforced. *In his first inaugural, Lincoln made it clear that he wasn't going to enforce the fugitive slave law, nor allow slavery to expand further.* The proposed constitutional amendment that Paul Craig Roberts was referencing did not address either of those issues.


Went ahead and looked this up and from what I am seeing it appears that Lincoln, in his inaugural, actually said he would enforce the fugitive slave law and he would not stop slavery from expanding further:

Slavery in the Territories: *Lincoln asserted that nothing in the Constitution expressly said what either could or could not be done regarding slavery in the territories. He indicated his willingness to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, so long as free blacks could be protected from being kidnapped and illegally sold into slavery through its misuse.    * 
So Lincoln, in his inaugural speech, seems to be giving the south everything they wanted regarding slavery.  Yet they still wanted their independence from the union.  So that would seem to confirm what Roberts is saying  that they were fighting for reasons other than slavery.  Add to that the book of letters from both union and confederate soldiers which Roberts' discusses in which a reading of their letters gives no indication that they were fighting about slavery.  





> The other issue people cite as a cause for secession was tariffs. But tariffs were at an all time low when the South seceded. Had the southern states gone along with South Carolina and seceded when southern slave owner Andrew Jackson was president, then could have legitimately claimed their main beef was tariffs. Tariffs were high back then. [] But after the nullification crisis, congress reduced tariffs to the lowest ever in the nation's history. After the southern senators resigned post secession, tariffs were raised. In other words all the South had to do to prevent tariffs from being raised was to NOT secede! Either southerners were the biggest group of stupid bumpkins in history, or the U.S. Civil War was not chiefly about tariffs.


Jim, here is a counter-argument:

The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.   Also, according to this article, the south was paying for 90% of the federal government via tariffs:  At the time, 90 percent of the federal governments annual revenue came from these taxes on imports [from the south].  


Dates southern States seceded:

Seven states seceded by February 1861:South Carolina (December 20, 1860)Mississippi (January 9, 1861)Florida (January 10, 1861)Alabama (January 11, 1861)Georgia (January 19, 1861)Louisiana (January 26, 1861)Texas (February 1, 1861)
After President Lincoln called for "troops to suppress the rebellion in the Southern states," four more states seceded:Virginia (April 17, 1861)Arkansas (May 6, 1861)North Carolina (May 20, 1861)Tennessee (June 8, 1861)




> It's really silly for libertarians to try to defend the South. You and everyone else should watch the movie "The Free State of Jones." It tells the true story of poor southern whites and escaped black slaves who seceded from Mississippi during the Civil War and created their truly libertarian state.


Thanks, just added this to my Netflix Queue!  😊   btw, am not trying to defend the south; am just trying to figure out what the truth is.

----------


## Danke

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017...merica-empire/
The Lincoln Myth: Ideological Cornerstone of the America Empire


Thomas DiLorenzo


“Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom . . . are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him . . . with rare exceptions, you can’t believe what any major Lincoln scholar tells you about Abraham Lincoln and race.”
–Lerone Bennett, Jr., _Forced into Glory_, p. 114


The author of the above quotation, Lerone Bennett, Jr., was the executive editor of Ebony magazine for several decades, beginning in 1958. He is a distinguished African-American author of numerous books, including a biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. He spent twenty years researching and writing his book, _Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream_, from which he drew the above conclusion about the so-called Lincoln scholars and how they have lied about Lincoln for generations. For obvious reasons, Mr. Bennett is incensed over how so many lies have been told about Lincoln and race.


Few Americans have ever been taught the truth about Lincoln and race, but it is all right there in _The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln_ (CW), and in his actions and behavior throughout his life. For example, he said the following:


“Free them [i.e. the slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot then make them equals” (CW, vol. II, p. 256.


“What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, vol. II, p. 521).


“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary” (CW, vol. III, p, 16). (Has there ever been a clearer definition of “white supremacist”?).


“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” (CW, vol. III, pp. 145-146).


“I will to the very last stand by the law of this state [Illinois], which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes” (CW, vol. III, p. 146).


“Senator Douglas remarked . . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for the negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too” (CW, vol. II, p. 281)


Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of “colonization,” or the deportation of black people from America. He was a “manager” of the Illinois Colonization Society, which procured tax funding to deport the small number of free blacks residing in the state. He also supported the Illinois constitution, which in 1848 was amended to prohibit the immigration of black people into the state. He made numerous speeches about “colonization.” “I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation . . . . such separation must be effected by colonization” (CW, vol. II, p. 409). And, “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime” (CW, vol. II, p. 409). Note how Lincoln referred to black people as “the African,” as though they were alien creatures. “The place I am thinking about having for a colony,” he said, “is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia” (CW, vol. V, pp. 373-374).


Bennett also documents how Lincoln so habitually used the N word that his cabinet members – and many others – were shocked by his crudeness, even during a time of pervasive white supremacy, North and South. He was also a very big fan of “black face” minstrel shows, writes Bennett.


For generations, the so-called Lincoln scholars claimed without any documentation that Lincoln suddenly gave up on his “dream” of deporting all the black people sometime in the middle of the war, even though he allocated millions of dollars for a “colonization” program in Liberia during his administration. But the book _Colonization After Emancipation_ by Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page, drawing on documents from the British and American national archives, proved that Lincoln was hard at work until his dying day plotting with Secretary of State William Seward the deportation of all the freed slaves. The documents produced in this book show Lincoln’s negotiations with European governments to purchase land in Central America and elsewhere for “colonization.” They were even counting how many ships it would take to complete the task.


_Lincoln’s Slavery-Forever Speech: The First Inaugural_


Lincoln’s first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, is probably the most powerful defense of slavery ever made by an American politician. In the speech Lincoln denies having any intention to interfere with Southern slavery; supports the federal Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution, which compelled citizens of non-slave states to capture runaway slaves; and also supported a constitutional amendment known as the Corwin Amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in Southern slavery, thereby enshrining it explicitly in the text of the U.S. Constitution.


Lincoln stated at the outset of his first inaugural address that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Furthermore, “Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the [Republican Party] platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend . . .” By “domestic institutions” Lincoln meant slavery.


Lincoln also strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Clause and the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act in his first inaugural address by reminding his audience that the Clause is a part of the Constitution that he, and all members of Congress, swore to defend. In fact, the Fugitive Slave Act was strongly enforced all during the Lincoln administration, as documented by the scholarly book, _The Slave Catchers_, by historian Stanley Campbell (University of North Carolina Press, 2011). “The Fugitive Slave Law remained in force and was executed by federal marshals” all during the Lincoln regime, writes Campbell. For example, he writes that “the docket for the [Superior] Court [of the District of Columbia] listed the claims of twenty-eight different slave owners for 101 runaway slaves. In the two months following the court’s decision [that the law was applicable to the District], 26 fugitive slaves were returned to their owners . . .” This was in Washington, D.C., Lincoln’s own residence.


Near the end of his first inaugural address (seven paragraphs from the end) Lincoln makes his most powerful defense of slavery by saying: “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service [i.e., slaves]. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, _I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable_” (emphasis added).


The Corwin Amendment, named for Rep. Thomas Corwin of Ohio, said:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which shall authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor [i.e., slaves] or service by the laws of said State.”


After all the Southern members of Congress had left, the exclusively-Northern U.S. Congress voted in favor of the Corwin Amendment by a vote of 133-65 in the House of Representatives on February 28, 1861, and by a vote of 24-12 in the U.S. Senate on March 2, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration.


Lincoln lied in his first inaugural address when he said that he had not seen the Corwin Amendment. Not only did he support the amendment in his speech; it was his idea, as documented by Doris Kearns-Goodwin in her worshipful book on Lincoln entitled _Team of Rivals_. Based on primary sources, Goodwin writes on page 296 that after he was elected and before he was inaugurated Lincoln “instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield.” “These proposals” were 1) the Corwin Amendment; and 2) a federal law to nullify personal liberty laws created by several states to allow them to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act.


In 1860-61 Lincoln and the Republican Party fiercely defended Southern slavery while only opposing the extension of slavery into the new territories. They gave three reasons for this:


(1) “Many northern whites . . . wanted to keep slaves out of the [new territories] in order to keep blacks out. The North was a pervasively racist society . . . . Bigots, they sought to bar African-American slaves from the West,” wrote University of Virginia historian Michael Holt in his book, _The Fate of Their Country_ (p. 27).


(2) Northerners did not want to have to compete for jobs with black people, free or slave. Lincoln himself said that “we” want to preserve the territories for “free white labor”.


(3) If slaves were brought into the territories it could inflate the congressional representation of the Democratic Party once a territory became a state because of the three-fifths clause of the Constitution that counted five slaves as three persons for purposes of determining how many congressional representatives each state would have. The Republican Party feared that this might further block their economic policy agenda of high protectionist tariffs to protect Northern manufacturers from competition; corporate welfare for road, canal, and railroad-building corporations; a national bank; and a giving away, rather than selling, of federal land (mostly to mining, timber, and railroad corporations). Professor Holt quotes Ohio Congressman Joshua Giddings explaining: “To give the south the preponderance of political power would be itself to surrender our tariff, our internal improvements [a.k.a. corporate welfare], our distribution of proceeds of public lands . . .” (p. 28).


Lincoln called the Emancipation Proclamation a “war measure,” which meant that if the war ended the next day, it would become null and void. It only applied to “rebel territory” and specifically exempted by name areas of the South that were under Union Army control at the time, such as most of the parishes of Louisiana; and entire states like West Virginia, the last slave state to enter the union, having been created during the war by the Republican Party. That is why historian James Randall wrote that it “freed no one.” The apparent purpose was to incite slave rebellions, which it failed to do. Slavery was finally ended in 1866 by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, with virtually no assistance from Lincoln, as described by Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald in his book, _Lincoln_. On page 545 of his magnum opus David Donald writes of how Lincoln refused to lift a finger to help the genuine abolitionists accumulate votes in Congress for the Thirteenth Amendment. Stories that he did help, such as the false tale told in Steven Spielberg’s movie about Lincoln, are based on pure “gossip,” not documented history, wrote Donald.


_Lincoln Promises War Over Tax Collection_


In contrast to his compromising stance on slavery, Lincoln was totally and completely uncompromising on the issue of tax collection in his first inaugural address, literally threatening war over it. For decades, Northerners had been attempting to plunder Southerners (and others) with high protectionist tariffs. There was almost a war of secession in the late 1820s over the “Tariff of Abominations” of 1828 that increased the average tariff rate (essentially a sales tax in imports) to 45%. The agricultural South would have been forced to pay higher prices for clothing, farm tools, shoes, and myriad other manufactured products that they purchased mostly from Northern businesses. South Carolina nullified the tariff, refusing to collect it, and a compromise was eventually reached to reduce the tariff rate over a ten-year period.


By 1857 the average tariff rate had declined to about 15%, and tariff revenues accounted for at least 90% of all federal tax revenue. This was the high water mark of free trade in the nineteenth century. Then, with the Republican Party in control of Congress and the White House, the average tariff rate was increased, by 1863, back up to 47%, starting with the Morrill Tariff, which was signed into law on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration by Pennsylvania steel industry protectionist President James Buchanan. (It had first passed in the House of Representatives during the 1859-60 session).


Understanding that the Southern states that had seceded and had no intention of continuing to send tariff revenues to Washington, D.C., Lincoln threatened war over it. “[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence,” he said in his first inaugural address, “and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the national authority.”


And what could “force” the “national authority” to commit acts of “violence” and “bloodshed”? Lincoln explained in the next sentence: “The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” “Pay up or die; the American union is no longer voluntary” was his principal message. In Lincoln’s mind, the union was more like what would become the Soviet union than the original, voluntary union of the founding fathers. He kept his promise by invading the Southern states with an initial 75,000 troops after duping South Carolinians into firing upon Fort Sumter (where no one was harmed, let alone killed).


_The Stated Purpose of the War_


The U.S. Senate issued a War Aims Resolution that said: “[T]his war is not waged . . . in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those [Southern] states, but to defend . . . the Constitution, and to preserve the Union . . .” By “established institutions” of the Southern states they meant slavery.


Like the U.S. Senate, Lincoln also clearly stated that the purpose of the war was to “save the union” and not to interfere with Southern slavery. In a famous August 22, 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, he wrote that:


“My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Of course, Lincoln’s war destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers and replaced it with an involuntary union held together by threat of invasion, bloodshed, conquest, and subjugation.


_The Very Definition of Treason_


Treason is defined by Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The most important word here is “them.” As in all the founding documents, “United States” is always in the plural, signifying that the “free and independent states,” as they are called in the Declaration of Independence, are united in forming a compact or confederacy with other states. Levying war against “them” means levying war against individual states, not something called “the United States government.” Therefore, Lincoln’s invasion and levying of war upon the Southern states is the very definition of treason in the Constitution.


Lincoln took it upon himself to arbitrarily redefine treason, not by amending the Constitution, but by using brute military force. His new definition was any criticism of himself, his administration, and his policies. He illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus (illegal according to this own attorney general, Robert Bates) and had the military arrest and imprison without due process tens of thousands of Northern-state citizens, including newspaper editors, the Maryland legislature, the mayor of Baltimore, the grandson of Francis Scott Key who was a Baltimore newspaper editor, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, his chief critic in the U.S. Congress, and essentially anyone overheard criticizing the government. (See _Freedom Under Lincoln_ by Dean Sprague and _Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln_ by James Randall).


More than 300 Northern newspapers were shut down for criticizing the Lincoln regime as documented by James Randall, the preeminent Lincoln scholar of the twentieth century.


_Lincoln’s Real Agenda: A Mercantilist Empire_


Lincoln began his political career in 1832 as a Whig. Northern Whigs like Lincoln were the party of the corporate plutocracy who wanted to use the coercive powers of government to line the pockets of their big business benefactors (and of themselves). They proclaimed to stand for what their political predecessor, Alexander Hamilton, called the “American System.” This was really an Americanized version of the rotten, corrupt system of British “mercantilism” that the colonists had rebelled against. Its planks included protectionist tariffs to benefit Northern manufacturers and their banking and insurance industry business associates; a government-run national bank to provide cheap credit to politically-connected businesses; and “internal improvement subsidies,” which we today would call “corporate welfare,” for canal-, road-, and railroad-building corporations. So when Lincoln first ran for political office in Illinois in 1832 he announced: “I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.” He would devote his entire political career for the next twenty-nine years on that agenda.


The major opposition to Lincoln’s agenda of a mercantilist empire modeled after the British empire had always been from the South, as Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Tyler, among others, vetoed or obstructed Whig and later, Republican, legislation. There were Southern supporters of this agenda, and Northern, Jeffersonian opponents of it, but it is nevertheless true that the overwhelming opposition to this Northern, Hamiltonian scheme came from the Jeffersonian South.


Henry Clay was the leader of the Whigs until his death in 1852, and Lincoln once claimed that he got all of his political ideas from Clay, who he eulogized as “the beau ideal of a statesman.” In reality, the Hamilton/Clay/Lincoln “American System” was best described by Edgar Lee Masters, who was Clarence Darrow’s law partner and a renowned playwright (author of _The Spoon River Anthology_). In his book, _Lincoln the Man_ (p. 27), Masters wrote that:
“Henry clay was the champion of that political system which doles favors to the strong in order to win and to keep their adherence to the government. His system offered shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises . . . He was the beloved son of Alexander Hamilton with his corrupt funding schemes, his superstitions concerning the advantage of a public debt, and a people taxed to make profits for enterprises that cannot stand alone. His example and his doctrines led to the creation of a party that had not platform to announce, because its principles were plunder and nothing else.”


This was the agenda that Abraham Lincoln devoted his entire political life to. The “American System” was finally fully enacted with Lincoln’s Pacific Railroad Bill, which led to historic corruption during the Grant administration with its gargantuan subsidies to railroad corporations and others; fifty years of high, protectionist tariffs that continued to plunder Agricultural America, especially the South and the Mid-West, for the benefit of the industrial North; the nationalization of the money supply with the National Currency Acts and Legal Tender Acts; and the beginnings of a welfare state with veterans’ pensions. Most importantly, the system of federalism that was established by the founding fathers was all but destroyed with a massive shift in political power to Washington, D.C. and away from the people, due to the abolition (at gunpoint) of the rights of nullification and secession.


_Lincoln’ Biggest Failure_


Slavery was ended peacefully everywhere else in the world during the nineteenth century. This includes Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, where slaves were once used to build slave ships that sailed out of New York, Providence, Hartford, Providence, and Boston harbors. There were still slaves in New York City as late as 1853.


Nobel prize-winning economist Robert Fogel and co-author Stanley Engerman, in their book, _Time on the Cross_, describe how the British, Spanish, and French empires, as well as the Swedes, Danes, and Dutch, ended slavery peacefully during the nineteenth century. Whenever slaves did participate in wars in Central America and elsewhere, it was because they were promised freedom by one side in the war; the purpose of the wars, however, was never to free the slaves.


The British simply used tax dollars to purchase the freedom of the slaves and then legally ended the practice. The cost of the “Civil War” to Northern taxpayers alone would have been sufficient to achieve the same thing in the U.S. Instead, the slaves were used as political pawns in a war that ended with the death of as many as 850,000 Americans according to the latest research (the number was 620,000 for the past 100 years or so), with more than double that amount maimed for life, physically and psychologically. (Lincoln did make a speech in favor of “compensated emancipation” in the border states but insisted that it be accompanied by deportation of any emancipated slaves. He never used his “legendary” political skills, however, to achieve any such outcome, as a real statesman would have done – minus the deportation).


_The Glory of the Coming of the Lord?_


By the mid nineteenth century the world had evolved such that international law and the laws of war condemned the waging of war on civilians. It was widely recognized that civilians would always become casualties in any war, but to intentionally target them was a war crime.


The Lincoln regime reversed that progress and paved the way for all the gross wartime atrocities of the twentieth century by waging war on Southern civilians for four long years. Rape, pillage, plunder, the bombing and burning of entire cities populated only by civilians was the Lincolnian way of waging war – not on foreign invaders but on his own fellow American citizens. (Lincoln did not consider secession to be legal; therefore, he thought of all citizens of the Southern states to be American citizens, not citizens of the Confederate government).


General Sherman said in a letter to his wife that his purpose was “extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people” (Letter from Sherman to Mrs. Sherman, July 31, 1862). Two years later, he would order his artillery officers to use the homes of Atlanta occupied by women and children as target practice for four days, while much of the rest of the city was a conflagration. The remaining residents were then kicked out of their homes – in November with the onset of winter. Ninety percent of Atlanta was demolished after the Confederate army had left the city.


General Philip Sheridan similarly terrorized the civilians of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. All of this led historian Lee Kennett, in his biography of Sherman, to honestly state that “had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified . . . in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants” (Lee Kennett, _Marching Through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers and Civilians During Sherman’s Campaign_, p. 286).


_About All Those Statues_


Professor Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was perhaps the most famous academic libertarian in the world during the last half of the twentieth century. A renowned Austrian School economist, he also wrote widely on historical topics, especially war and foreign policy. In a 1994 essay entitled “Just War” (online at https://mises.org/library/just-war), Rothbard argued that the only two American wars that would qualify as just wars (defined as wars to ward off a threat of coercive domination) were the American Revolution and the South’s side in the American “Civil War.” Without getting into his detailed explanation of this, his conclusion is especially relevant and worth quoting at length:


“_n this War Between the States, the South may have fought for its sacred honor, but the Northern war was the very opposite of honorable. We remember the care with which the civilized nations had developed classical international law. Above all, civilians must not be targeted; wars must be limited. But the North insisted on creating a conscript army, a nation in arms, and broke the 19th-century rules of war by specifically plundering and slaughtering civilians, by destroying civilian life and institutions so as to reduce the South to submission. Sherman’s famous march through Georgia was one of the great war crimes, and crimes against humanity, of the past century-and-a-half. Because by targeting and butchering civilians, Lincoln and Grant and Sherman paved the way for all the genocidal horrors of the monstrous 20th century. . . . As Lord Acton, the great libertarian historian, put it, the historian, in the last analysis, must be a moral judge. The muse of the historian, he wrote, is not Clio but Rhadamanthus, the legendary avenger of innocent blood. In that spirit, we must always remember, we must never forget, we must put in the dock and hang higher than Haman, those who, in modern times, opened the Pandora’s Box of genocide and the extermination of civilians: Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln._

_Perhaps, some day, their statues will be toppled and melted down; their insignias and battle flag will be desecrated, and their war songs tossed into the fire._

_Perhaps, some day. But in the meantime, and for the past 150 years, the mountain of lies that has concocted the Lincoln Myth has been invoked over and over again to “justify” war after war, all disguised as some great moral crusade, but in reality merely a tool to enrich the already wealthy-beyond-their-wildest-dreams military/industrial complex and its political promoter class. As Robert Penn Warren wrote in his 1960 book, The Legacy of the Civil War, the Lincoln Myth, painstakingly fabricated by the Republican Party, long ago created a “psychological heritage” that contends that “the Northerner, with his Treasury of Virtue” caused by his victory in the “Civil War,” feels as though he has “an indulgence, a plenary indulgence, for all sins past, present, and future.” This “indulgence,” wrote Warren, “is the justification for our crusades of 1917-1918 and 1941-1945 and our diplomacy of righteousness, with the slogan of unconditional surrender and universal rehabilitation for others” (emphasis added). Robert Penn Warren believed that most Americans were content with all of these lies about their own history, the work of what he called “the manipulations of propaganda specialists,” referring to those who describe themselves as “Lincoln scholars.”_

_Thomas DiLorenzo is a professor at Loyola University in Maryland. Among his books are: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe; Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch-Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution and What It Means for Americans Today._

----------


## jmdrake

> Thanks for your explanation and post.  My knowledge of history isn’t so good, so it helps to converse with others.
> 
> I’ve seen this argument regarding why the civil war was fought being bandied about by both sides, so when I saw Roberts’ article, I thought to post it to see what arguments might arise here on RPForums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Went ahead and looked this up and from what I am seeing it appears that Lincoln, in his inaugural, actually said he would enforce the fugitive slave law and he would not stop slavery from expanding further:
> 
> ...


You shouldn't just read someone else's interpretation of Lincoln's speech.  You should read the actual speech.  Here's the part in question.  It doesn't say what the person you quoted said it said.

_  I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.	5
  There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping 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 service or labor may be due.

  It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?	7
  There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?	8
  Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?_

Note what is actually said by Lincoln.

1. The U.S. Constitution itself required escaped slaves to be returned and Lincoln in this speech was not going to overturn the Constitution.
2. The Constitution did not say who should return fugitive slaves to their masters.  *Southern states wanted federal enforcement of fugitive slave laws because free states had begun non enforcement of such laws!*  Think of it in terms of the "sanctuary cities" question of today.  It the states don't enforce a law, and the federal government doesn't step in and enforce the law, how is the law at all enforced?
3. Lincoln specifically called out the practice of free blacks, blacks who had actually purchased their freedom, had their freedom purchased for them, or were born free, being kidnapped and forced into slavery.  That practice was documented in the recent Hollywood docudrama "Thirteen years a slave" which covers the story of a free black man who was kidnapped and forced into slavery and escaped back North.

It's simply not at all accurate to say that Lincoln's speech was "everything the South wanted."  If it was, the South would not have seceded.

More from Lincoln's speech.

_  All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say._

And:

_One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other._

Lincoln here clearly lays out one issue, the expansion of slavery into new territory, and tries to gloss over the other issue, the non-enforcement of the fugitive slave laws.  To the fugitive slave laws he says "Oh their being enforced but it's just not the federal government's job."  But southern states *specifically objected* to non-enforcement of fugitive slave laws.  You can find archives of southern declarations of secession here:

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/prima...eceding-states

This is what Mississippi said:

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

Can you see it now?  Lincoln said "The constitution doesn't require the federal government to enforce the fugitive slave law."  Mississippi and other states complained that, as far as they were concerned, the lack of enforcement of the fugitive slave law amounted to "nullification" of the fugitive slave law.  And *this shows that the south really didn't give a rip about states rights!*  Seriously.  They were mad because other states were exercising their "right" not to enforce laws they found morally objectionable.  And in a way, while I disagree with what the sanctuary cities are doing, that is another states rights issue.  However the federal government can withhold funds from allocated to law enforcement from states and cities that don't enforce the law.  But in the 19th century there was not so much federal funding going to states that the "power of the purse" on that regard didn't exist.

The other issue, *the expansion of slavery into new territory* is an issue that everyone agreed was front and center leading up to the civil war.  I already quoted you what Lincoln said.  Here's what Mississippi said.

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

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

Can you see it now?  Mississippi and other states came to the logical conclusion that by seeking to stop the expansion of slavery, the free states were seeking to end slavery.  Lincoln made it clear that he did not believe the constitution required the expansion of slavery in his inaugural address.  The republican party was founded on the idea that slavery should not be allowed to expand and Lincoln was a republican.  Lincoln was certainly not trying to throw gasoline on the secession fire, but he made it clear that the policies he supported were in line with what Mississippi and other states wanted.  They wanted the expansion of slavery.  They wanted federal enforcement of fugitive slave laws.  Lincoln was going in the opposite direction, even though he wasn't being bombastic about it because he didn't want to see the union dissolved.  Ron Paul is against abortion.  But Ron Paul is not bombastic in his approach against abortion.  Some in the pro-life community criticize Dr. Paul for not being bombastic.





> Jim, here is a counter-argument:
> 
> “The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.”   Also, according to this article, the south was paying for 90% of the federal government via tariffs:  “At the time, 90 percent of the federal government’s annual revenue came from these taxes on imports [from the south].”


That is a *very weak counter argument*.  The North did not have the votes to increase tariffs until the South seceded.  *All the South had to do was to not secede in order to keep tariffs low!* 




> Dates southern States seceded:
> 
> Seven states seceded by February 1861:South Carolina (December 20, 1860)Mississippi (January 9, 1861)Florida (January 10, 1861)Alabama (January 11, 1861)Georgia (January 19, 1861)Louisiana (January 26, 1861)Texas (February 1, 1861)
> After President Lincoln called for "troops to suppress the rebellion in the Southern states," four more states seceded:Virginia (April 17, 1861)Arkansas (May 6, 1861)North Carolina (May 20, 1861)Tennessee (June 8, 1861)


Note that the timeline you posted actually supports what I'm saying.  The Morrill Tariff was not adopted until March 2, 1861.  By that time seven states had already seceded.  That's 14 senators.  The Tariff passed by a vote of 25 to 14.  Do the math.  Take the 14 senators who did not vote because their states had seceded, add that to the 14 senators who voted against the tariff, and the tariff would have failed by a vote of 25 to 28.  Add in the 5 southern democrats who abstained, likely because they didn't see a way to get to a majority of votes, and the tariff would have failed 25 to 32.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morril...#Senate_action
_The Morrill bill was brought to the Senate floor for a vote on February 20, and passed 25 to 14. The vote was split almost completely down party lines. It was supported by 24 Republicans and Democrat William Bigler of Pennsylvania. It was opposed by 10 Southern Democrats, 2 Northern Democrats, and 2 Far West Democrats. 12 Senators abstained, including 3 Northern Democrats, 1 California Democrat, 5 Southern Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 Unionist from Maryland.[10]_




> Thanks, just added this to my Netflix Queue!  ��   btw, am not trying to defend the south; am just trying to figure out what the truth is.


You're welcome!  And I think discussions like this are helpful.  I neither support the "Saint Lincoln" view of history nor the "beloved South" view of history.  All of the facts should be put out on the table.

----------


## jmdrake

> http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017...merica-empire/
> The Lincoln Myth: Ideological Cornerstone of the America Empire
> 
> 
> Thomas DiLorenzo


Hello Danke.  For the record I don't consider Thomas DiLorenzo much of a historian.  To be a real historian you have to look at all sides of an issue.  Thomas simply focuses on the "hate Lincoln" side.  He does not at all delve into the abuses of the confederacy, not just against blacks but also against poor whites.  I doubt you will ever, for instance, see Mr. DiLorenzo give much thought to the confederacy enslaving poor white farmers through a draft on the right of southerners who didn't agree with secession to secede from their respective states.  Lincoln's inaugural address, which I've posted a link to and you can read for yourself, sets out the two main issues that were dividing the country.

1) Who should enforce the fugitive slave laws?
2) Should slavery be allowed to expand?

The southern states made it clear that they saw the non enforcement to the point of "nullification" of the fugitive slave laws and the blocking of the expansion of slavery into new territories as existential threats to their way of life.  Mr. DiLorenzo's single minded focus on "taking Lincoln down a peg" really does nothing to address either of those two issues, and while interesting in the biological sense, tell us nothing about whether or not the Civil War was fought over slavery.  It's really just ad hominem on the part of Mr. DiLorenzo.

----------


## jmdrake

> what causes southern secession? well i cover this on these threads, *the main issue was state sovereignty*. Tariffs, states rights, slavery and a host of other issues also contributed. 
> 
> *
> Ill Take my Stand  Causes of Southern Secession- the Upper South
> *http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South
> 
> *Causes of Southern Secession- the Cotton States*
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States
> ...


Hello 1stvermont.  The South didn't give a crap about state sovereignty.  If they did then the nullification of the fugitive slave laws by Northern states would not have bothered them.  This is what Mississippi had to say about nullification.

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

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

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

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

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

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better._

Note the blatant racism in Mississippi's declaration of secession.  They were angry at the idea that the "negro" could be equal to the white man and the same time claiming they were seeking the "betterment" of the "negro" by keeping him a slave.

----------


## Pericles

*jmdrake* has make a good summary of the role slavery plays in the war. It became the proxy issue of federal vs. state authority and the Dred Scot decision was a clear victory for the southern point of view which was not shared by the free states. As a result of the SCOTUS case (A) even freed slaves and free born blacks could not be citizens unless naturalized as citizens by Congress. (B) Slaves were defined as property and thus had no rights at all - including the ability of a slave holder to transmit through a free state with a slave that the free state could not free unless the slave owner established residence in the free state (not including military personnel, who were assigned to free states) (C) The decision of free state or slaves was ruled a power exclusive to state sovereignty invalidating the Missouri Compromise and ability of Congress to prohibit slavery in territories not yet states. 

That SCOTUS decision insured that the only way slavery would end would be if (A) the state prohibited it (B) Constitutional amendment. It was also clear by 1860, that at the national level, slavery was dead. Over 60% of the House members represented free districts, and after the 1860 census, free states would have even a higher percentage of Representatives. 15 of the 34 states permitted slavery, and Senators from Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky would frequently vote with the free states on slavery issues. It was clear, the 13th Amendment was on the way. It was a matter of time.

1859 and 1860 saw record cotton exports, and the tariffs related to that were going to increase substantially in 1861 to soak off those "extra profits" for the US Government. The issue of the 1830s came back in full force. The south complained about money for improvements being spent to benefit the north, but that was an also ran complaint.

If slavery did not exist, there would still have been conflict, slavery just ensured the resolution would be much less likely to be political, especially as the southern states decided on secession as the remedy for their complaints.

The value that those with historical backgrounds bring to these discussions is that we have been exposed to the different interpretations of what happened and why, so that we can weigh who makes the better case and where we can obtain additional information to support or attack a particular point of view. The history buff may have complete ares of historical knowledge missing, and are more easily disposed toward believing whatever case is presented that align with previously held beliefs.

----------


## TheTexan

Of course the civil war was fought over slavery.  Why else would the North have decided to force the South into a violent conflict costing hundreds of thousands of lives?  It's because the North just really hated slavery *that* much.

(Source: I took a history course in high school)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Hello Danke.  For the record I don't consider Thomas DiLorenzo much of a historian.  *To be a real historian you have to look at all sides of an issue.*  Thomas simply focuses on the "hate Lincoln" side.  He does not at all delve into the abuses of the confederacy, not just against blacks but also against poor whites.  I doubt you will ever, for instance, see Mr. DiLorenzo give much thought to the confederacy enslaving poor white farmers through a draft on the right of southerners who didn't agree with secession to secede from their respective states.  Lincoln's inaugural address, which I've posted a link to and you can read for yourself, sets out the two main issues that were dividing the country.
> 
> 1) Who should enforce the fugitive slave laws?
> 2) Should slavery be allowed to expand?
> 
> The southern states made it clear that they saw the non enforcement to the point of "nullification" of the fugitive slave laws and the blocking of the expansion of slavery into new territories as existential threats to their way of life.  Mr. DiLorenzo's single minded focus on "taking Lincoln down a peg" really does nothing to address either of those two issues, and while interesting in the biological sense, tell us nothing about whether or not the Civil War was fought over slavery.  It's really just ad hominem on the part of Mr. DiLorenzo.


If that were the case, there aren't many "real" historians in Murica. Have you seen a book on the American Revolution published by an American historian that tells the story honestly from the British POV? History tends to be written by the winners. The point of "revisionist" history like DiLorenzo, et al. is to give voice to the losers and/or tell the story from a different POV with new evidence.

----------


## fisharmor

> The southern states stated in their declarations of secession that their main beef was protecting slavery.


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

This sentiment is, as Roberts pointed out, absent in the above linked _Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. _ That document reads exactly the way Roberts described it.

You made a false claim at the beginning of your post, so I'm not sure why I should feel compelled to investigate the rest of your claims.

----------


## otherone

> Of course the civil war was fought over slavery.  Why else would the North have decided to force the South into a violent conflict costing hundreds of thousands of lives?  It's because the North just really hated slavery *that* much.
> 
> (Source: I took a history course in high school)


In addition, being critical of St. Abraham makes you a Southern sympathizer.  Which means racist.

----------


## jmdrake

> If that were the case, there aren't many "real" historians in Murica. Have you seen a book on the American Revolution published by an American historian that tells the story honestly from the British POV? History tends to be written by the winners. The point of "revisionist" history like DiLorenzo, et al. is to give voice to the losers and/or tell the story from a different POV with new evidence.


I didn't say there were.  There are few statesmen in America too.  I'm not going to go back a dishonest right wing politician just to counterbalance dishonest left wing politicians.  I feel the same way about history.

----------


## jmdrake

> http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
> 
> This sentiment is, as Roberts pointed out, absent in the above linked _Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. _ That document reads exactly the way Roberts described it.
> 
> You made a false claim at the beginning of your post, so I'm not sure why I should feel compelled to investigate the rest of your claims.


Your own link proves you are being willfully ignorant.

_The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.  The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.  In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States._ 

Seriously, did you even read your own source?

----------


## fisharmor

Yes, and in particular i read the stuff you didn't bold.
Did you even read the OP?  Because you are engaging in the exact reasoning Roberts wrote the article specifically to decry.

----------


## fisharmor

Seriously, your whole argument is "Roberts is wrong and to prove it I'm going to follow the exact pattern he pointed out".

----------


## oyarde

> In addition, being critical of St. Abraham makes you a Southern sympathizer.  Which means racist.


Those are novice racists  , I despise St Abraham and slavers among many others . I am a skilled professional .

----------


## oyarde

I think is important to remember nearly all enlisted southerners would have come from farms with out slave labor and most would have been there because of his state being invaded . That said they would certainly been ignorant enough to believe people as property was fine .

----------


## 1stvermont

> Hello 1stvermont.  The South didn't give a crap about state sovereignty.  If they did then the nullification of the fugitive slave laws by Northern states would not have bothered them.  This is what Mississippi had to say about nullification.
> 
> _It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> ...



wow you have a bulletproof argument there how ever would i respond to such an argument, it truly refutes history and historical context.  My whole posts are know wrong know......Or maybe you could post on my thread, read my thread, and i will gladly respond to any questions. It should also clear up your misconception on states rights.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Those are novice racists  , I despise St Abraham and slavers among many others . I am a skilled professional .


I imagine being a professional despiser is pretty hard on your health...

----------


## oyarde

> I imagine being a professional despiser is pretty hard on your health...


Not really , you have to have balance . That is the key .

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Not really , you have to have balance . That is the key .




Do you teach Karate too?

----------


## oyarde

> Do you teach Karate too?


 No , but I can teach you where the tomahawk  goes .

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, and in particular i read the stuff you didn't bold.
> Did you even read the OP?  Because you are engaging in the exact reasoning Roberts wrote the article specifically to decry.


Apparently all you read is what isn't in bold.  I never said slavery was the only issue.  But it's the only issue that you can find repeatedly in *all* of the southern declarations of secession.  Roberts treated slavery as if it wasn't an issue at all.  And yes, I read the OP.  I've read it repeatedly over the years.  It's simply void of logic.  Roberts logical fallacy is that just because many in the North wanted to placate the South over slavery, that meant the South's main concern wasn't slavery.  But the South *stated in their declarations of secession that they felt the North was seeking to extinguish slavery by restricting its expansion!* 

Seriously.  If Obama had proposed an amendment that said "The second amendment can never be changed", but continued all of his anti-gun policies, would you actually believe that meant he was really pro-gun?  Because your swallowing of Roberts illogical argument is about as bad.

----------


## jmdrake

> Seriously, your whole argument is "Roberts is wrong and to prove it I'm going to follow the exact pattern he pointed out".


Roberts "pattern" is a logical fallacy and requires one to put his brain in neutral and/or decide Southerners were either really stupid and/or intent on lying for the sake of making themselves look bad.  The Southern states said, even after the proposed amendment (which never actually passed) *THE NORTH SEEKS TO EXTINGUISH SLAVERY BY NOT ALLOWING IT TO EXPAND!*

----------


## jmdrake

> wow you have a bulletproof argument there how ever would i respond to such an argument, it truly refutes history and historical context.  My whole posts are know wrong know......Or maybe you could post on my thread, read my thread, and i will gladly respond to any questions. It should also clear up your misconception on states rights.


Or you could just post your oh so brilliant argument here.  But let me guess.  When southern states attack states rights they are really defending states rights.  Got it.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think is important to remember nearly all enlisted southerners would have come from farms with out slave labor and most would have been there because of his state being invaded . That said they would certainly been ignorant enough to believe people as property was fine .


I think it's also important to remember that the confederacy had to institute a draft first, that they ultimately exempted slave owners from that draft, and areas in the south where slavery wasn't profitable tended to secede from confederate states.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Or you could just post your oh so brilliant argument here.  But let me guess.  When southern states attack states rights they are really defending states rights.  Got it.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South



> *The Upper South 
> 
> *_“Upper south, which had cried equally against coercion as succession”
> -E Merton Coulter The Confederate States of America Louisiana State university Press 
> _
> There were really two major successions from the union. The original  seven “Cotton states” [AL, MS,TX,SC,FL,GA,LA] and later the upper south  secession of [VA, NC, TENN, ARK, Pro south MO, KY]. The upper south  states of VA,NC,Tenn and Ark alone had a larger free population than the  deep south representing the majority. There was a difference in general  between the The original seven seceding “cotton states” of the deep  south, and of the remaining upper southern states. When historians and  textbooks talk of the reasons for secession, they almost unanimous point  to the cotton states and sadly, the upper south is almost always  unrepresented.
> 
> *Lincolns Call For Volunteers/ Self Government/ State Sovereignty* 
> 
> ...





> *Slavery's Impact on the Upper South
> 
> *_“Secessionists were well aware that slavery was under no  immediate threat within the Union. Indeed, some anti-secessionists,  especially those with the largest investment in slave property, argued  that slavery was safer under the Union than in a new experiment in  government.” 
> -Clyde Wilson distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina  
> 
> “The condition of slavery in the several states would remain just the same weather it [the rebellion] succeeds or fails”
> -Secretary Seward to US Ambassador to France_ 
> 
> With slavery equally protected north or south and even more so in the  north, the upper south states of VA, NC, TENN, ARK, KY, MO makes it hard  to conclude slavery had much or anything to do with their reasons for  leaving. When the original deep south states left the union, there were  more slaves and more slave states remaining in the union, than within  the newly formed confederacy. Most upper south state declarations did  not even mention slavery or only in passing, and that usually associated  with violations of states rights or the constitution. But they heavily  spoke on states rights, states sovereignty and Lincolns call for  volunteers as the reason for secession. Those states chose to stay with  the union before Lincolns call for volunteers, that they saw as a  massive violation of state sovereignty. 
> ...






...

----------


## Swordsmyth

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States



> *The Cotton States*
> 
> _[the south was]"Forced to take up arms to vindicate the political  rights, the freedom, equality, and state sovereignty which were the  heritage purchased by the blood of our revolutionary sires"
> -Jefferson Davis 1863 quoted in Battle cry of freedom James McPherson Oxford U Press 
> _
> The first states to leave the union were the original deep south “cotton  states.” Leaving as individual states to later form a confederacy and a  constitution. Those states were Alabama, Mississippi, Louisianan,  Texas, Georgia, Florida and South Carolina. Even within the deep south  cotton states their were multiple reasons that led to secession.
> 
> *The Election of A Republican President*
> 
> ...





> *Slavery's Impact on the Cotton States*
> 
> _“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery”
> -Mississippi Declaration for Causes of secession
> 
> “The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.” 
> -Georgia Secession Document_ 
> 
> Slavery had varying degrees of influence on the deep south reasons for  secession, from none at all, to the main reason. No question there were  some in the south that were willing to leave the union simply to keep  slavery. The south thought slavery was a constitutional, biblical, and  state right. The south viewed slaves as any other legal property the  federal could not interfere with. If they tried to do so, it was  tyrannical. In the cotton states they had more financial gain and loss  riding on slavery and were more apt to maintain slavery and their  economy. No better example than Mississippi who very much seems to have  left the union for the protection of their economic system of slavery.  With 4 billion dollars worth of value and the whole economic system of  the state dependent on slavery, they wished to defend their economic  system that had brought them so much wealth. However even in  Mississippi, slavery was not the sole cause.
> ...


...

----------


## jmdrake

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States
> 
> _Fight to Maintain Slavery? Or put Down Arms to Maintain Slavery?
> 
> “As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
> -Confederate Major General John B. Gordon Causes of the Civil War_
> 
> ...


And this is where the southern apologist argument falls apart.  The South had to institute a draft in order to field an army.  And as a part of the draft they exempted slave owners.  Thus southern whites were forced into slavery themselves on behalf of greedy plantation owners.  This is the "libertarian states rights" ideal you are supporting?  Well then you can have it.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And this is where the southern apologist argument falls apart.  The South had to institute a draft in order to field an army.  And as a part of the draft they exempted slave owners.  Thus southern whites were forced into slavery themselves on behalf of greedy plantation owners.  This is the "libertarian states rights" ideal you are supporting?  Well then you can have it.


I have already declared a cease fire with you on this subject, I was just posting the contents of 1stV's threads for you.

My one parting comment is that ALL nations back then drafted people and exempted the rich and connected.

----------


## jmdrake

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Much of what you posted is the tariff argument I already debunked.  The Morrill Tariff wasn't passed until *after* enough Southern states seceded that the anti tariff block didn't have the votes to stop it.  Without secession there would not have been a Morrill Tariff.

As for the "Well I just seceded to protect my sister states that seceded"....what was the main issue of the states that seceded first?  Come on...you can say it....it won't kill you.  It was slavery.

And Paul Craig Roberts anti-nullification = states rights argument is just plain laughable.

----------


## phill4paul

> Much of what you posted is the tariff argument I already debunked.  The Morrill Tariff wasn't passed until *after* enough Southern states seceded that the anti tariff block didn't have the votes to stop it.  Without secession there would not have been a Morrill Tariff.
> 
> As for the "Well I just seceded to protect my sister states that seceded"....what was the main issue of the states that seceded first?  Come on...you can say it....it won't kill you.  It was slavery.
> 
> And Paul Craig Roberts anti-nullification = states rights argument is just plain laughable.


  Gunny has already posted why N.C. seceded. One doesn't allow themselves to be partitioned behind battle lines or allow aggressive armies to cross their land to attack another.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Much of what you posted is the tariff argument I already debunked.  The Morrill Tariff wasn't passed until *after* enough Southern states seceded that the anti tariff block didn't have the votes to stop it.  Without secession there would not have been a Morrill Tariff.
> 
> As for the "Well I just seceded to protect my sister states that seceded"....what was the main issue of the states that seceded first?  Come on...you can say it....it won't kill you.  It was slavery.
> 
> And Paul Craig Roberts anti-nullification = states rights argument is just plain laughable.


One last point: Slavery was safe in the Union, Lincoln himself promised to protect it, the situation was extremely complex and not worth our time arguing about.

----------


## jmdrake

> Gunny has already posted why N.C. seceded. One doesn't allow themselves to be partitioned behind battle lines or allow aggressive armies to cross their land to attack another.


And yet the southern states had to resort to a draft and had to content with parts of their states seceding from the confederacy, especially the parts of their states that didn't own slaves.  Imagine that?




> One last point: Slavery was safe in the Union, Lincoln himself promised to protect it, the situation was extremely complex and not worth our time arguing about.


Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.  Mississippi and other states either didn't think it was or they were lying their collective butts off for reasons that have never been explained.  Is the 2nd amendment safe?  Do you think Obama was pro 2nd amendment simply because he gave lip service to it?

----------


## oyarde

> I think it's also important to remember that the confederacy had to institute a draft first, that they ultimately exempted slave owners from that draft, and areas in the south where slavery wasn't profitable tended to secede from confederate states.


War is not always popular with those smart enough to know they are exploited and that is about all I imagine that boils down to . I live now near what was at that time  the northern most point of Copperhead strength , yet a couple counties northeast of me at Boggstown that entire area seceded in 1861 and has never repealed that .

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And yet the southern states had to resort to a draft and had to content with parts of their states seceding from the confederacy, especially the parts of their states that didn't own slaves.  Imagine that?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.  Mississippi and other states either didn't think it was or they were lying their collective butts off for reasons that have never been explained.  Is the 2nd amendment safe?  Do you think Obama was pro 2nd amendment simply because he gave lip service to it?


You claim the south could block the Tariff, but not an end to slavery?

I promise to hit myself if I respond further.

----------


## phill4paul

> One last point: Slavery was safe in the Union, Lincoln himself promised to protect it, the situation was extremely complex and not worth our time arguing about.


  It was extremely complex. When we look at it through the binders of the 21st century then anything could be pointed out as the cause. The trouble is we look  at it through 21st century blinders.
  It doesn't matter if it were slavery or tariffs. The fact of the matter is that the people of the mid-1800's had a VERY different view of what it believed were Federal limitations versus State sovereignty. 
  And unless you can wrap your head around that simple fact then it's easy to point a finger at causes, when the actual cause, above any other, was simply the belief in State > Union.

----------


## phill4paul

> And yet the southern states had to resort to a draft and had to content with parts of their states seceding from the confederacy, especially the parts of their states that didn't own slaves.  Imagine that?


  You are aware that the North also had a draft? You are aware that parts of the North such as the 'Tri-Insula' seriously came close to secession? The New York draft riots?
 People all over had different ideas about how they wanted to be governed. Imagine that.

----------


## jmdrake

> You are aware that the North also had a draft? You are aware that parts of the North such as the 'Tri-Insula' seriously came close to secession? The New York draft riots?
>  People all over had different ideas about how they wanted to be governed. Imagine that.


1) The North had a draft first.

2) Your argument, unless I'm just not understanding it, is that southerners were so incensed on being invaded that they lined up in droves to volunteer.  If that's the case, why the need for the draft?  Northerners would have no such self preservation motivation.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> It was extremely complex. When we look at it through the binders of the 21st century then anything could be pointed out as the cause. The trouble is we look  at it through 21st century blinders.
>   It doesn't matter if it were slavery or tariffs. The fact of the matter is that the people of the mid-1800's had a VERY different view of what it believed were Federal limitations versus State sovereignty. 
>   And unless you can wrap your head around that simple fact then it's easy to point a finger at causes, when the actual cause, above any other, was simply the belief in State > Union.


The second main cause was a (VALID) belief that the North would use any means (noble or vile) to subjugate and destroy the south, they did not actually believe that such devices as abolition were right but simply that the south was weak to that line of attack.

----------


## jmdrake

> You claim the south could block the Tariff, but not and end to slavery?


Blocking the tariff was a simple matter of having the votes in the senate to not raise taxes.  Forcing the North to continue allowing the expansion of slavery was a much more difficult proposition.  Did your American History class just skip over the section about bloody Kansas and the compromises brokered by Daniel Webster?  Also the South had absolutely no way to coerce northern states and/or the federal government into enforcing fugitive slave laws.  In fact that's what the backwards from Paul Craig Roberts is asserting.  Because the North wouldn't uniformly round up escaped slaves and send them South they were violating a "sacred compact" and that was a violation of states rights.  So....the North had to be proactively pro slavery in order for the civil war to not happen, therefore the civil war had nothing to do with slavery.    That's seriously the argument that was put forward.

----------


## jmdrake

> The second main cause was a (VALID) belief that the North would use any means (noble or vile) to subjugate and destroy the south, they did not actually believe that such devices as abolition were right but simply that the south was weak to that line of attack.


Yes.  The North just wanted to destroy the South.

----------


## phill4paul

> 1) The North had a draft first.
> 
> 2) Your argument, unless I'm just not understanding it, is that southerners were so incensed on being invaded that they lined up in droves to volunteer.  If that's the case, why the need for the draft?  Northerners would have no such self preservation motivation.


  1)No, the South had a draft first. In '62. The Union didn't pass an actual draft until '63 although they drafted a War Powers Act in '62. 

  2) Southerners did line up, at first, as they did in the North. Something lies within the heart of young men to prove themselves in battle. It doesn't take long for them to change their mind once they get in the thick of it. Remember also that the south was an agrarian culture. There were farms to attend to. The farms that the basic infantryman held. The ones without slaves.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> On the afternoon of February 28, 1861,  President Davis sent his first veto message to the Confederate Congress.  Congress had passed legislation enabling the constitutional ban and  detailing punishment for those convicted. It spelled out the options for  return of the Free Africans to Africa. Davis said he had carefully  considered this bill “in relation to the slave trade and to punish  persons offending therein”. He objected to the option that if the Free  Africans could not be returned to Africa and all other options insuring  their freedom could not be met, then these Free Africans could be sold  on the internal Slave markets.
> 
> Davis wrote, “This latter provision seems to me in opposition to the  policy declared in the Constitution, the prohibition of African Negroes,  and in derogation of its mandate to legislate for the effectuation of  that object.” He, therefore, vetoed the legislation. There was no  attempt to override.
> 
> Establishing the Slave Trade would be a critical leg in upholding a  Slave Republic. Instead, here was the first American Constitutional  Mandate to end this noxious commerce that New England had begun and was  still engaged in at this very time.
> 
>     1.9.2  (Congress can bar slaves coming from States remaining in the  United States) “Congress shall also have power to prohibit the  introduction of slaves from any State not a member of or Territory not  belonging to this Confederacy.”
> 
> There was no need for this in 1787. All the original States were  involved with domestic slavery and New England was heavily into the  Transatlantic Slave Trade. In 1861 this was a safeguard against Union  slave states outlawing slavery and the owners “selling South”. At this  time there were 7 Slave States in the Confederacy and 8 Slave States in  the United States.
> ...





> *Confederate Emancipation*
> 
> Ultimately,  of course, Confederate emancipation was a failure, as  modern-day  critics like Levine love to crow. Instead of solving the  problem of  slavery themselves, as Southerners had always struggled to do  in and  out of the Union, slavery was abolished in the worst way  possible: as  an unintended consequence of a deadly, devastating conquest  by  outsiders with no interest in the welfare of black or white   Southerners. Virginian slaveholder Thomas Jefferson’s fear, that   emancipation would be a ‘bloody process…excited and conducted’ by an   enemy in wartime, rather than a change ‘brought on by the generous   energy of our own minds,’ had come true. The significance of Confederate   emancipation is not in its effect, however, but in its intent. As   Abbeville Institute Chair Donald Livingston concludes, ‘This failure   does not take away from what we learn about the character of the   Southern people: that they had the moral and political resources to   effect emancipation when the right political circumstances presented   themselves.’ Surely, the fact that Southerners were willing to make the   sacrifice at all—no other people in history living among slaves had  ever  considered freeing them, much less arming them!—and not the trite   observation of ‘too little, too late,’ is the moral of this heroic   story.
> 
> More at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/r...-emancipation/





> Let’s consider the war and slavery. Again and  again I encounter  people who say that the South Carolina secession  ordinance mentions the  defense of slavery and that one fact proves  beyond argument that the war  was caused by slavery. The first States to  secede did mention a threat  to slavery as a motive for secession. They  also mentioned decades of  economic exploitation and the seizure of the  common government for the  first time ever by a sectional party  declaredly hostile to the Southern  States. Were they to be a  permanently exploited minority, they asked?  This was significant to  people who knew that their fathers and  grandfathers had founded the  Union for the protection and benefit of ALL  the States.
>  It is no surprise that they mentioned potential interference with   slavery as a threat to their everyday life and their social structure.   Only a few months before, John Brown and his followers had attempted   just that. They murdered a number of people including a free black man   who was a respected member of the Harpers Ferry community and a   grand-nephew of George Washington because Brown wanted Washington’s   sword as a talisman. In Brown’s baggage was a constitution making him   dictator of a new black nation and a supply of pikes to be used to stab   to death the slave-owner and his wife and children.
>  It is significant that not one single slave joined Brown’s attempted   blow against slavery. It was entirely an affair of outsiders.   Significant also is that six Northern rich men financed Brown and that   some elements of the North celebrated him as a saint, an agent of God,   ringing the church bells at his execution. Even more significantly,   Brown was merely acting out the venomous hatred of Southerners that had   characterized some parts of Northern society for many years previously.
>  Could this relentless barrage of hatred directed by Northerners   against their Southern fellow citizens have perhaps had something to do   with the secession impulse? That was the opinion of Horatio Seymour,   Democratic governor of New York. In a public address he pointed to the   enormity of making war on Southern fellow citizens who had always been   exceptionally loyal Americans, but who had been driven to secession by   New England fanaticism.
>  Secessionists were well aware that slavery was under no immediate   threat within the Union. Indeed, some anti-secessionists, especially   those with the largest investment in slave property, argued that slavery   was safer under the Union than in a new experiment in government.
>  Advocates of the “slavery and nothing but slavery” interpretation  also  like to mention a speech in which Confederate Vice-President  Alexander  Stephens is supposed to have said that white supremacy was the   “cornerstone” of the Confederacy. The speech was _ad hoc_ and   badly reported, but so what? White supremacy was also the cornerstone of   the United States. A law of the first Congress established that only   white people could be naturalized as citizens. Abraham Lincoln’s   Illinois forbade black people to enter the State and deprived those who   were there of citizenship rights.
>  Instead of quoting two cherry-picked quotations, serious historians   will look into more of the vast documentation of the time. For instance,   in determining what the war was “about,” why not consider Jefferson   Davis’s inaugural address, the resolutions of the Confederate Congress,   numerous speeches by Southern spokesmen of the time as they explained   their departure from the U.S. Congress and spoke to their constituents   about the necessity of secession. Or for that matter look at the entire   texts of the secession documents.
>  Our advocates of slavery causation practice the same superficial and   deceitful tactics in viewing their side of the fight. They rely mostly   on a few pretty phrases from a few of Lincoln’s prettier speeches to   account for the winning side in the Great Civil War. But what were   Northerners really saying?
>  I am going to do something radical. I am going to review what   Northerners had to say about the war. Not a single Southern source,   Southern opinion, or Southern accusation will I present. Just the words   of Northerners (and a few foreign observers) on what the war was   “about.”
> ...


...

----------


## jmdrake

> 1)No, the South had a draft first. In '62. The Union didn't pass an actual draft until '63 although they drafted a War Powers Act in '62.


Actually I meant to say the South had the draft first *which supports my point*.  The South couldn't field enough volunteers even though they were fighting on their own turf.




> 2) Southerners did line up, at first, as they did in the North. Something lies within the heart of young men to prove themselves in battle. It doesn't take long for them to change their mind once they get in the thick of it. Remember also that the south was an agrarian culture. There were farms to attend to. The farms that the basic infantryman held. The ones without slaves.


The farms with slaves got exceptions from the draft.  The others would get shot as deserters for leaving.

----------


## 1stvermont

> And this is where the southern apologist argument falls apart.  The South had to institute a draft in order to field an army.  And as a part of the draft they exempted slave owners.  Thus southern whites were forced into slavery themselves on behalf of greedy plantation owners.  This is the "libertarian states rights" ideal you are supporting?  Well then you can have it.


Well it seems my post has been brought into this after all, so I will post. And this is where the northern apologist argument falls apart. Slave owners were not excepted, large plantation owners that were relied on for food for the armies [as well as other important classes just like the north excepted certain classes] that owned 20 or more were. I will also add the south had to turn away volunteers in the beginning of the war and the north instituted a draft to invade fellow americans. So unless your claiming the draft equally enslaved northerners [i agree i hate the draft no matter who does it, i like that North Carolina nullified the csa draft] you have exposed your bias.


I will also mention this post was nothing but a red harring. You want to ignore the clear evidence for secession on try and make it all about a small side issue. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../red%20herring
something that distracts attention from the real issue

----------


## 1stvermont

> Much of what you posted is the tariff argument I already debunked.  The Morrill Tariff wasn't passed until *after* enough Southern states seceded that the anti tariff block didn't have the votes to stop it.  Without secession there would not have been a Morrill Tariff.


Please share with me where you get your history? The Morrill Tariff Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on* May 10, 1860*, on a sectional vote, with nearly all northern representatives in support and nearly all southern representatives in opposition. With the election of Abraham Lincoln whose central campaign objective was to triple the tariff. Tariff was the “keystone” of the republican party “protection for home industry” was the campaign poster of the 1860 republican party. South Carolina did what it had done decades before, and seceded from the Union over the higher tariff rates soon to be imposed on the south by the north. It was not just the south, NYC mayor Fernando Wood wanted to make NYC a “free city” [free trade] and secede from the Union. T

The *Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased import tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861,
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff







> As for the "Well I just seceded to protect my sister states that seceded"....what was the main issue of the states that seceded first?  Come on...you can say it....it won't kill you.  It was slavery.


or we could tell the truth about what caused the secession of the cotton states

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States


But even so, lets pretend the deep south left simply to maintain slavery, that has nothing to do with the reason the upper south left. You are avoiding the question and the cause, that of state sovereignty. 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South

----------


## 1stvermont

> And yet the southern states had to resort to a draft and had to content with parts of their states seceding from the confederacy, especially the parts of their states that didn't own slaves.  Imagine that?


as did the north resort to a draft, the south because they were invaded by a larger force,  fought longer and harder for the cause than the north ever would have. Clearly the north had the same problem with secession. and west Virginia was stolen, never by a fair election and the election was done after troops went to fight for the south. 





> Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.  Mississippi and other states either didn't think it was or they were lying their collective butts off for reasons that have never been explained.  Is the 2nd amendment safe?  Do you think Obama was pro 2nd amendment simply because he gave lip service to it?


I would argue they did tell us why they left, you just wont listen

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States

----------


## 1stvermont

> It was extremely complex. When we look at it through the binders of the 21st century then anything could be pointed out as the cause. The trouble is we look  at it through 21st century blinders.
>   It doesn't matter if it were slavery or tariffs. The fact of the matter is that the people of the mid-1800's had a VERY different view of what it believed were Federal limitations versus State sovereignty. 
>   And unless you can wrap your head around that simple fact then it's easy to point a finger at causes, when the actual cause, above any other, was simply the belief in State > Union.



very well said.

*From Union to Empire The Political Effects of the Civil war*http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?511837-From-Union-to-Empire-The-Political-Effects-of-the-Civil-war

----------


## 1stvermont

> Gunny has already posted why N.C. seceded. One doesn't allow themselves to be partitioned behind battle lines or allow aggressive armies to cross their land to attack another.



do you have a link for that thread?

----------


## 1stvermont

> 1) The North had a draft first.
> 
> 2) Your argument, unless I'm just not understanding it, is that southerners were so incensed on being invaded that they lined up in droves to volunteer.  If that's the case, why the need for the draft?  Northerners would have no such self preservation motivation.


there was no draft in the south originally, they had to end men back because they could not arm them. Both sides instituted drafts as the war progressed.

----------


## 1stvermont

> Blocking the tariff was a simple matter of having the votes in the senate to not raise taxes.  Forcing the North to continue allowing the expansion of slavery was a much more difficult proposition.  Did your American History class just skip over the section about bloody Kansas and the compromises brokered by Daniel Webster?  Also the South had absolutely no way to coerce northern states and/or the federal government into enforcing fugitive slave laws.  In fact that's what the backwards from Paul Craig Roberts is asserting.  Because the North wouldn't uniformly round up escaped slaves and send them South they were violating a "sacred compact" and that was a violation of states rights.  So....the North had to be proactively pro slavery in order for the civil war to not happen, therefore the civil war had nothing to do with slavery.    That's seriously the argument that was put forward.


witch they did not have.


 I suggest sir you stop going to government education for your history, you wont get it there. The south had *constitutionally* from the beginning protected rights of its property that included recognized slaves property. The north would not allow them their property and would steal it [by not working with federal workers]by not  returning slaves. What if a Vermonter went to new york ,they claimed horses were not property and stole it, would that be protecting their individual rights? This is in no way a violation of northern states rights, but a protection of southern states rights to own slaves. The north was not forced to have slavery, neither were southerners, it was optional, but all north or south under the Constitution, had equal rights to own their property, the north violated that with the fugitive slave laws.

----------


## 1stvermont

> Actually I meant to say the South had the draft first *which supports my point*.  The South couldn't field enough volunteers even though they were fighting on their own turf.


and what was the population north vs south?  and how many of lincolns armies were made up of immigrants during the war? who fielded a higher % of men compared to population? i will let you look up those stats.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Look at the political situation between the Mexican-American War and the Civil War.  People weren't killing each other over tariffs, they were killing each other over slavery.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Look at the political situation between the Mexican-American War and the Civil War.  People weren't killing each other over tariffs, they were killing each other over slavery.


They were killing eachother over economics and power, slavery and tariffs affected both.

Slavery was safe in the Union, Secession doomed it to a slow but certain death.

----------


## fisharmor

> Roberts "pattern" is a logical fallacy and requires one to put his brain in neutral and/or decide Southerners were either really stupid and/or intent on lying for the sake of making themselves look bad.  The Southern states said, even after the proposed amendment (which never actually passed) *THE NORTH SEEKS TO EXTINGUISH SLAVERY BY NOT ALLOWING IT TO EXPAND!*


I refuse to believe you've never encountered the ideas of proximate and ultimate causes.
Slavery was the proximate cause for the South leaving: the SC declaration is abundantly clear that the ultimate cause was that their nullifying the constitution made the constitution void, and therefore they were going their own way.
Nobody has ever said slavery wasn't wrapped up in why the Southern states seceded.  But since we can practice reading comprehension, and because we're more able to put aside our personal feelings of slavery, we can see that the primary reason for secession was that the Northern states had broken the compact.

In short, SC said this:


And every other Southern states said "No, no you're not".
I'm not sure why you think it's more complicated than that (I have my suspicions), but it's not.

Your arguments remind me of when Bill Clinton got caught perjuring, and everyone said "Yeah but it was ok because it was about sex".

----------


## Ender

This should go right here:




> *The So-Called Civil War Was Not Over Slavery*
> 
> By Paul Craig Roberts
> 
> August 26, 2017
> 
> When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzos article the question that lept to mind was, How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasnt fighting against slavery?
> 
> *Two days before Lincolns inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.*
> ...


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/...ought-slavery/

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> They were killing eachother over economics and power, slavery and tariffs affected both.
> 
> Slavery was safe in the Union, Secession doomed it to a slow but certain death.


Slavery was an issue that had eclipsed the tariff issue by 1860.  It was unarguably the most important issue in American politics in the decade preceding the War.

And slavery was dying a slow death in the Union.  And Lincoln wanted to stop expansion of slavery, meaning that the free states will continue to increase in number and in influence.  Eventually, the free states have the votes necessary to pass an Amendment.

----------


## 1stvermont

> Look at the political situation between the Mexican-American War and the Civil War.  People weren't killing each other over tariffs, they were killing each other over slavery.



There was many political differences going on, not just the extension of slavery. But we are talking on what actually caused the secession, the extension of slavery had nothing to do with the upper south secession, it did play its part in the cotton states secession, read the following 



*Western States Free or Slave? Slavery was not the Cause but the Occasion/ States Rights

*_“Slavery is no more the cause of this war than gold is the cause of robbery”
-Joel Parker 1863 New jersey Governor

“Slavery, although the occasion, was not the producing cause of dissolution”
-Rose Oneal Greehow- My improvement and the first year of abolition Rule in Washington 1863

“The war was not a war of slavery versus freedom, it was a war between those who preferred a federated nation to those who preferred a confederation of sovereign states. Slavery was the ink thrown into the pool to confuse the issue”
-Andrew Nelson lytle the Virginia Quarterly Review 1931__“

The struggle over the expansion of slavery into the territories....was almost a purely political issue”
-Robert William Fogel The rise and Fall of American Slavery

_The major impact slavery had on the war and what some north and south would have said the war was over is the extension of slavery into the new western territories. This has led some to falsely conclude the deep south left the union only to maintain slavery.

_“The people who say slavery had nothing to do with the war are just as wrong as the people who say slavery had everything to do with the war”
-Historian Shelby Foote

_Slavery's involvement in southern secession is often overstated because slavery was the “occasion” to witch the fight over states rights was fought. Just as Calhoun had said of the tariff of abomination was “The occasion, rather than the real cause” that cause was federal power expansion. The deep south saw the republicans as violating the 9th and 10th amendment – and Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 Supreme Court ruling for trying to decide the fate of slavery by federal control rather than state. The Democratic plank 9 of the 1852 elections [and carried on to 1860] plainly stated that a attack on slavery was a attack on states rights, the two issues could not be separated_.

_That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.
-Democrat plank 9 1852

_“slavery was not the cause, but the occasion of strife...Rights of the states were the bulwarks of the liberties of the people but that emancipation by federal aggression would lead to the destruction of all other rights”
-R.L Dabney A Defense Of Virginia And The South 1867

_It would be hard to accept that southerners were willing to leave the country they loved and fight a war simply to have slavery extended into new territories where it would simply provide more competition to southern slave states domination on cotton. In 1843 many rich southern planters and no less than Calhoun voted against Texas for statehood because they said it would reduce the price of cotton. Instead they would want a monopoly within the south where they lived. By leaving the union the south was giving up federal protection for there runaway slaves under the fugitive slave laws, as well as giving up there right to bring there slaves into the united states territories something they fought so hard for. Because the issue was much deeper as it involved states rights, constitutional protection, and the nature of the union.

_“The conflict over the extension of slavery was a contest of political power between the north and the south which had grown steadily apart in economics, religion, customs, values, and ways of life...”
-Clyde Wilson professor at university of South Carolina

“After the bombardment of ft Sumter...patriots signed up to fight for states rights or union”
-John Cannon The Wilderness Campaign Combined Books PA

The war was fought to “Preserve the sovereignty of their respective States.”
-Raphael Semmes Confederate Admiral 1868

_The fight over new western territories was  a battle over the very nature of the federal government. The republicans and Lincoln said they would not allow new states, the rights granted in the constitution. Were these states coming into the union allowed their state sovereignty and states rights as had all previous states, or was the federal government allowed to violate those rights and dictate the states? Where states sovereign or subject to a federal master? Thomas Jefferson commenting on federal intrusion in the Missouri compromise stated “ this certainly is the exclusive right of every state, which nothing in the constitution has taken from them and given to the general government. could congress, for example say that the Non-freemen of Connecticut, shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other state?" What the south asked for was that these new states coming in be allowed on their own to chose.

_“That when the settlers in a Territory, having an adequate population, form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences, and being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States, and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery.”
-Southern Democrat Party Platform 1860

“It is not slavery that [Thomas] Jefferson fears as “the death kneel of the union” it is antislavery, the notion that has been raised for the first time that congress could tamper with the institutions of new states as a condition for admission”
-Clyde Wilson from Union to Empire

“The south saw the attack on the issue of slavery not so much as an attempt to end slavery in the united states as much as an attempt to end southern influence in the national government”
-Walter D Kennedy Myths of American slavery

_This political battle even turned to blood in Missouri/Kansas. Republicans backed by the industrialist pushed for western territories to be free. If these states were free they would than industrialize and want rail laid to connect these distant lands to the east. They would support high tariffs and internal improvements and give the north more political power. Yet if these states were allowed to decide on their own slave or free, than the south might maintain agrarian, free trade, policies. British historian Marc Egnal said the fight over the extension of slavery was “more on economical policy” But of more concern to many in the south was that of states rights.

_“When the Government of the United States disregarded and attempted to trample upon the rights of the States, Georgia set its power at defiance and seceded from the Union rather than submit to the consolidation of all power in the hands of the Central or Federal Government..her sovereignty the principles for the support of which Georgia entered into this revolution.
-Georgia Governor Joseph E Brown 1862

“The war was at first was not about slavery, but was a struggle over the limits of states rights and the powers of the government in washington”
-David G Martin PHD in History from Princeton University
_*
SC secession document*_
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

_South Carolina was the first state to seceded from the union, It being a deep south “cotton state” gives the reasons for secession. If read in full it gives a good example of slavery as a states rights issue. Slavery was an occasion that states rights were fought over, not the sole cause. The cause of dissolving the union is given right off the bat “Declared that the frequent violations of the constitution by the united sates, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union.” The document is a states rights succession document. The writers of the document wanted that to stand out, that is why the first thing noticed at a glance of the document you will see “FREE AND INDEPENDANT STATES” capitalized three times in the document to stand out. South Carolina was also letting it be known in their declaration of Independence, that it was “FREE AND INDEPANDANT STATES” and state rights, that they were declaring independence. The document goes into the history of states rights in America mentions the failure of the federal government in upholding the constitution and its interfering with states rights. South Carolina said if they were to stay in the union the “constitution will then no longer exists, equal rights of the states will be lost” and that the federal government would become its enemy. While slavery is mentioned four or five times, states rights, independent state, and state sovereignty is mentioned sixteen times. States rights are mentioned not in connection with slavery, yet slavery is always mentioned in connection with states rights. Just as southern democrats had been saying for decades in there political party planks, an attack on slavery was an attack on states rights. Just as South Carolina when it first threatened to success was over states rights, that time [1830's] over tariffs, not slavery.

_“The bottom line, slavery was a issue but not an absolute cause”
-John C Perry Myths and realities of American Slavery

“States rights dogma...produced secession and the confederacy”
-E Merton Coulter The Confederate States of America Louisiana State University press

_States rights were so important to southerners it became a name, a Brigade general in the confederate army's name was “States Rights Gist.” The town Phillippi Virginia, was named after states rights advocate Supreme court justice Phillip Pendleton Barbour. In the 1820's Georgia armed solders against the federal government over states rights regarding land in Georgia [non slavery issues] and president Adams backed down. States rights was originally used by southerners rejecting federal tariff in the 1830's. The song titled “Bonnie blue flag” some say was more popular than Dixie at the time of the civil war, in it the lyrics speak of southern rights being threatened by northern treachery. The original southern secession movement in the 1820's-30's by founders like Jefferson, Madison, Charles Pickney, John Randalf

_“Gained strength not on the question of slavery. But on constitutional questions....expansion of federal power and over states rights”
-Robert Wiliima Fogel The Rise and Fall of American Slavery

_Most important, southerners knew consolidation of power in a central government would be Americas worst nightmare and the destruction of republican government.
_
"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." 
--Thomas Jefferson

_*Abolitionist Ignored the Constitution to try and Abolish Slavery*_“

"By focusing upon slavery, the bona fide story of the death of real states rights and the beginning of imperial america is overlooked...we stand naked before the awesome power to our federal master”
-Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy Lincolns Marxists

_The north was by and large for keeping the original continual republic of America from its foundation. However some were influenced by various abolitionist works of fiction like Uncle Toms cabin. Because of this They came to view southern slavery as a great moral evil and a biblical sin. Slavery was a vast enough evil in there eyes that the constitution, and state sovereignty had to be overlooked. Speaking of the constitution a famous abolitionist said

_“Covenant with death and an agreement with hell”
-William Lloyd Garrison

_The sinful slave owning south had to end. The north was also more influenced by the federalist party, with a more centralized view of government. The south who had first hand knowledge of American servitude saw the vast majority as being beneficial to the native African, elevating his position from slavery in Africa. They saw the slaves well treated and cared for. The majority did not see slavery as a great morale evil or a biblical sin. They viewed the northern abolitionist movement more from a political viewpoint.

_“ When abolition overthrow slavery in the south, it also would equally overthrow the constitution”
-R.L Dabney 1867 A Defense of Virginia and the South_

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Slavery was an issue that had eclipsed the tariff issue by 1860.  It was unarguably the most important issue in American politics in the decade preceding the War.
> 
> And slavery was dying a slow death in the Union.  And Lincoln wanted to stop expansion of slavery, meaning that the free states will continue to increase in number and in influence.  Eventually, the free states have the votes necessary to pass an Amendment.


Slavery would have lasted longer in the Union than it could have after Secession.
The Tariff issue was coming to a head.
The fundamental reason underlying all the symptoms like slavery and tariffs was that the North was abandoning the limits of the Constitution and actively targeting the South for economic destruction and subjugation by any means at hand, whether that means was violent abolition or tariffs or anything else they could think of, it all started when the southern states paid their own revolutionary war debts and the northern states used the Constitution to make the South help pay for theirs.

----------


## jmdrake

> I refuse to believe you've never encountered the ideas of proximate and ultimate causes.
> Slavery was the proximate cause for the South leaving: the SC declaration is abundantly clear that the ultimate cause was that their nullifying the constitution made the constitution void, and therefore they were going their own way.
> Nobody has ever said slavery wasn't wrapped up in why the Southern states seceded.  But since we can practice reading comprehension, and because we're more able to put aside our personal feelings of slavery, we can see that the primary reason for secession was that the Northern states had broken the compact.
> 
> In short, SC said this:
> 
> 
> And every other Southern states said "No, no you're not".
> I'm not sure why you think it's more complicated than that (I have my suspicions), but it's not.
> ...


 Uhhh...no.  You're being the Bill Clinton liar here.  Once again, *the Northern States not enforcing fugitive slaves laws was NOT in violation of the U.S. Constitution!*  The U.S. Constitution *did not specify who had to enforce fugitive slave laws*.  Further more, the issue that united the south, was, come on you can be honest about it and say it, *slavery*.  South Carolina tried to get other states to secede over tariffs when southern slave owner Andrew Jackson was president and they failed miserably.  *South Carolina only succeeded in getting other states to join their Exodus once the framed the issue around slavery!*  Mississippi was so adamant about the slavery part that they didn't just complain about the fugitive slave law issue, but also *the expansion of slavery* and even *criticism of slavery by abolitionists*.  You have to be totally devoid of logic, reason and/or honesty to just sweep that under the rug.

By the way, it's clear from your ranting that you don't understand the meaning of the term "proximate cause."

----------


## jmdrake

> There was many political differences going on, not just the extension of slavery. But we are talking on what actually caused the secession, the extension of slavery had nothing to do with the upper south secession, it did play its part in the cotton states secession, read the following


Okay.  So your point is that while the initial group of states who bailed were motivated by slavery that wasn't everybody's motivation?  Fine.  That doesn't change the fact that slavery was a "but for" cause  as well as a proximate cause for secession and ultimately the civil war.

----------


## 1stvermont

> Uhhh...no.  You're being the Bill Clinton liar here.  Once again, *the Northern States not enforcing fugitive slaves laws was NOT in violation of the U.S. Constitution!*  The U.S. Constitution *did not specify who had to enforce fugitive slave laws*.  Further more, the issue that united the south, was, come on you can be honest about it and say it, *slavery*.  South Carolina tried to get other states to secede over tariffs when southern slave owner Andrew Jackson was president and they failed miserably.  *South Carolina only succeeded in getting other states to join their Exodus once the framed the issue around slavery!*  Mississippi was so adamant about the slavery part that they didn't just complain about the fugitive slave law issue, but also *the expansion of slavery* and even *criticism of slavery by abolitionists*.  You have to be totally devoid of logic, reason and/or honesty to just sweep that under the rug.
> 
> By the way, it's clear from your ranting that you don't understand the meaning of the term "proximate cause."


No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article 4 clause 3 us Constitution 


The south had constitutionally from the beginning protected rights of its property that included recognized slaves property. The north would not allow them their property and would steal it [by not working with federal workers]by not returning slaves. What if a Vermonter went to new york ,they claimed horses were not property and stole it, would that be protecting their individual rights? This is in no way a violation of northern states rights, but a protection of southern states rights to own slaves. The north was not forced to have slavery, neither were southerners, it was optional, but all north or south under the Constitution, had equal rights to own their property, the north violated that with the fugitive slave laws.

The south was not united and uniform on many issues [including tariffs]  not related to slavery. The upper south was united in state sovereignty as well.  

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South

The cotton states were united in slavery because that is where the federal was in violation of the Constitution. The north was united to not end slavery. You also keep ignoring the fight over slavery and when states like Mississippi mention slavery as a cause, has everything to do with states rights and the nature of the union. 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States



but you keep ignoring that instead listening to a few words of one state declaration and ignoring its historical context to keep a conclusion you like.

----------


## 1stvermont

> Okay.  So your point is that while the initial group of states who bailed were motivated by slavery that wasn't everybody's motivation?  Fine.  That doesn't change the fact that slavery was a "but for" cause  as well as a proximate cause for secession and ultimately the civil war.


I am saying the upper south left over state sovereignty. the original cotton states left  for many reasons including the issues over the extension of slavery in the west. The direct cause was the election of a republican president. But as i said the issue of slavery brought in the nature of the union, it was not simply slavery

_“When the Government of the United States disregarded and attempted to trample upon the rights of the States, Georgia set its power at defiance and seceded from the Union rather than submit to the consolidation of all power in the hands of the Central or Federal Government..her sovereignty the principles for the support of which Georgia entered into this revolution.
-Georgia Governor Joseph E Brown 1862

_So in that way "slavery" and "states rights" are one in the same thing and battle. I would also say i agree if there were no issues about the extension of slavery, secession would not have happened at that time. But we need to be careful if we say "slavery" caused it, as that does not tell thew whole story

_“By focusing upon slavery, the bona fide story of the death of real states rights and the beginning of imperial america is overlooked...we stand naked before the awesome power to our federal master”
-Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy Lincolns Marxists_

----------


## jmdrake

> This should go right here:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/...ought-slavery/


  You do understand that you just reposted the OP right?

Recap of the arguments.  Yes Lincoln understood that the constitution as it was written protected slavery and he wasn't against a new amendment to further codify what was already there.  At the same time Lincoln made it clear in the same inaugural address that he didn't think the constitution protected the expansion of slavery or said who in fact had to enforce fugitive slave laws.  The South saw both restrictions on fugitive slave laws and the expansion of slavery as, in the words of Mississippi, and attempt to eventually *extinguish slavery*.  That's not what I said.  That's not what some liberal historian said.  That's what states like Mississippi said.  To draw an analogy, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both give lip service to the second amendment.  I'm sure they would be fine with an amendment that said "You can never change the second amendment."  And yet they are undermining the second amendment on the sly.  Now here is where @fishamor goes off the rails.  His argument is "South Carolina didn't care about slavery, just about the constitution."  That's like saying "People who support the right to own guns don't actually support the right to own guns.  They just support the constitution."  Well...the reason to support the second amendment isn't just because it's in the constitution.  It's also because it's actually a good thing.  Sometimes the constitution has gone off track in a way that actually restricts liberty, such as prohibition.  If South Carolina and other slave states had said "You know what?  We need to amend the constitution so we can come up with a peaceable way to end slavery."  Then the argument that Paul Craig Roberts is trying to make would be valid.  But I see no historical evidence of that.  Lincoln attempted to do compensated emancipation with the border states but that failed to pass in congress.  He was able to do compensated emancipation in Washington D.C.  I have yet to see any evidence of any moves by any southern states to actually end slavery.  Quite the contrary, they wanted slavery protected even to the point of sending escaped slaves back south (and in some cases kidnapping free blacks and making them slaves).  

Really, it's the historical dishonesty that bugs me the most.  I don't hate Robert E. Lee.  I'm "meh" about the confederate flag.  I'm "meh" about the nazi flag.  Adolf Hitler never did anything to me or mine.  In fact, according to Jesse Owens, Hitler shook his hand.  It was U.S. propaganda that made the false claim that Hitler turned his back on Jesse Owens.  So I don't have to go along with what is mental gymnastics to pretend the South didn't stand for what it actually stood for to not be a fan of antifa's antics.  Seriously this neo-confederate revisionism is simply another form of political correctness.  I had an open mind about why the South seceded.  I had a southern apologist for a history teacher in high school who actually knew less facts about U.S. history than I did.  I did my own research, read all of the pro slavery references and straight up racism in the southern declarations of secession and the confederate constitution, read Lincoln's first and second inaugural addresses, and came to the logical conclusion that slavery was a but for and proximate cause of the U.S. Civil War.  Others come to a different conclusion through mental gymnastics?  Fine.  They have that right.  But all of the acrimony that flows from the "How dare you say the South wanted to protect slavery....even though they said clearly said they wanted to protect slavery" crowd is sad.

----------


## jmdrake

> I am saying the upper south left over state sovereignty. the original cotton states left  for many reasons including the issues over the extension of slavery in the west. The direct cause was the election of a republican president. But as i said the issue of slavery brought in the nature of the union, it was not simply slavery


And again "That doesn't change the fact that slavery was a "but for" cause as well as a proximate cause for secession and ultimately the civil war."




> _“When the Government of the United States disregarded and attempted to trample upon the rights of the States, Georgia set its power at defiance and seceded from the Union rather than submit to the consolidation of all power in the hands of the Central or Federal Government..her sovereignty the principles for the support of which Georgia entered into this revolution.
> -Georgia Governor Joseph E Brown 1862
> 
> _So in that way "slavery" and "states rights" are one in the same thing and battle. I would also say i agree if there were no issues about the extension of slavery, secession would not have happened at that time. But we need to be careful if we say "slavery" caused it, as that does not tell thew whole story
> 
> _“By focusing upon slavery, the bona fide story of the death of real states rights and the beginning of imperial america is overlooked...we stand naked before the awesome power to our federal master”
> -Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy Lincolns Marxists_


Except states don't have the right to demand other states enforce federal law.  Also the very term "states rights" is....well....*STATIST!*  Can states rights protect from an overactive federal government?  Sure.  But at the end of the day, the NAP is really about individual rights.  The state, whether it is the state of Tennessee or the state of Russia, is an artificial construct.  I no more want the state of Tennessee passing a law which says I can't have a Ron Paul bumper sticker than I want the United States passing such a law.  And I would appeal both to the U.S. Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution to oppose such a law.  Some here would argue "Oh but you're violating states rights!"  To that I would say "And?"  It's funny that with a Trump presidency and threatened funding of "sanctuary cities", the left has rediscovered "states rights."

One more thing.  Those who argue about Lincoln abolishing states rights are hypocrites for ignoring Andrew Jackson.  He's the president who first threatened to hang secessionists.  But southerners love Andrew Jackson.  Southerners pitched a fit about Obama's move to take him off the $20.  Explain that one to me.

----------


## 1stvermont

> You do understand that you just reposted the OP right?
> 
> Recap of the arguments.  Yes Lincoln understood that the constitution as it was written protected slavery and he wasn't against a new amendment to further codify what was already there.  At the same time Lincoln made it clear in the same inaugural address that he didn't think the constitution protected the expansion of slavery or said who in fact had to enforce fugitive slave laws.  The South saw both restrictions on fugitive slave laws and the expansion of slavery as, in the words of Mississippi, and attempt to eventually *extinguish slavery*.  That's not what I said.  That's not what some liberal historian said.  That's what states like Mississippi said.  To draw an analogy, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both give lip service to the second amendment.  I'm sure they would be fine with an amendment that said "You can never change the second amendment."  And yet they are undermining the second amendment on the sly.  Now here is where @fishamor goes off the rails.  His argument is "South Carolina didn't care about slavery, just about the constitution."  That's like saying "People who support the right to own guns don't actually support the right to own guns.  They just support the constitution."  Well...the reason to support the second amendment isn't just because it's in the constitution.  It's also because it's actually a good thing.  Sometimes the constitution has gone off track in a way that actually restricts liberty, such as prohibition.  If South Carolina and other slave states had said "You know what?  We need to amend the constitution so we can come up with a peaceable way to end slavery."  Then the argument that Paul Craig Roberts is trying to make would be valid.  But I see no historical evidence of that.  Lincoln attempted to do compensated emancipation with the border states but that failed to pass in congress.  He was able to do compensated emancipation in Washington D.C.  I have yet to see any evidence of any moves by any southern states to actually end slavery.  Quite the contrary, they wanted slavery protected even to the point of sending escaped slaves back south (and in some cases kidnapping free blacks and making them slaves).  
> 
> Really, it's the historical dishonesty that bugs me the most.  I don't hate Robert E. Lee.  I'm "meh" about the confederate flag.  I'm "meh" about the nazi flag.  Adolf Hitler never did anything to me or mine.  In fact, according to Jesse Owens, Hitler shook his hand.  It was U.S. propaganda that made the false claim that Hitler turned his back on Jesse Owens.  So I don't have to go along with what is mental gymnastics to pretend the South didn't stand for what it actually stood for to not be a fan of antifa's antics.  Seriously this neo-confederate revisionism is simply another form of political correctness.  I had an open mind about why the South seceded.  I had a southern apologist for a history teacher in high school who actually knew less facts about U.S. history than I did.  I did my own research, read all of the pro slavery references and straight up racism in the southern declarations of secession and the confederate constitution, read Lincoln's first and second inaugural addresses, and came to the logical conclusion that slavery was a but for and proximate cause of the U.S. Civil War.  Others come to a different conclusion through mental gymnastics?  Fine.  They have that right.  But all of the acrimony that flows from the "How dare you say the South wanted to protect slavery....even though they said clearly said they wanted to protect slavery" crowd is sad.



I call BS. had you done the research you would have found more than enough to convince you of what you speak. Had you actually read the SC document of secession, you would have found what you claimed is  revisionism. I would argue the opposite, the winner writes the history and that can be easily shown. But lets challenge each other. Here I have collected just the sort of info you claim you looked for to make the case for a historical understanding of secession. 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South


so why dont we start there, and than we can deal with any objections you have.

----------


## jmdrake

> I call BS.


Then you are full of shyt.




> had you done the research you would have found more than enough to convince you of what you speak. Had you actually read the SC document of secession, you would have found what you claimed is  revisionism.


I've read it.  I've talked about it in this thread.  You are full of shyt.  South Carolina was complaining about nullification of fugitive slave laws, when South Carolina had earlier used nullification against tariffs.  So they were being hypocrites of the first order.  You know where I first heard about nullification of fugitive slave laws?  By none other than "The Southern Avenger" and he was using it in *defense* of states rights, and here you are defending South Carolina attacking fugitive slave laws as being *against* states rights.  Your side can't have it both ways.  Either nullification is a part of states rights....or it isn't.

----------


## 1stvermont

> And again "That doesn't change the fact that slavery was a "but for" cause as well as a proximate cause for secession and ultimately the civil war."
> 
> 
> 
> Except states don't have the right to demand other states enforce federal law.  Also the very term "states rights" is....well....*STATIST!*  Can states rights protect from an overactive federal government?  Sure.  But at the end of the day, the NAP is really about individual rights.  The state, whether it is the state of Tennessee or the state of Russia, is an artificial construct.  I no more want the state of Tennessee passing a law which says I can't have a Ron Paul bumper sticker than I want the United States passing such a law.  And I would appeal both to the U.S. Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution to oppose such a law.  Some here would argue "Oh but you're violating states rights!"  To that I would say "And?"  It's funny that with a Trump presidency and threatened funding of "sanctuary cities", the left has rediscovered "states rights."
> 
> One more thing.  Those who argue about Lincoln abolishing states rights are hypocrites for ignoring Andrew Jackson.  He's the president who first threatened to hang secessionists.  But southerners love Andrew Jackson.  Southerners pitched a fit about Obama's move to take him off the $20.  Explain that one to me.



well if we take that logic, the declaration of Independence caused the civil war because it caused the union that later fought each other.  But the direct cause of secession was lincolns election, the direct cause of war was wholly from the north, those are separate issues. 

You misunderstand states right friend. They are there to protect the Constitution against federal expansion past its legal limits to protect its citizens. So when its citizens  rights guarded by the Constitution [slaves runaways fugitive slave laws] is violated, states rights is their to help. So when other states violate the compact, than the states being violated have rights to protect themselves. More important, when the federal seeks to deny states sovereignty and rights [such as the issue of the expansion of slavery] they are there to protect against that federal expansion. 

this should help

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-Civil-war


I am not hear to defend jackson, i like some of what he did and dont like some of what he did so i wont put myself in that position. This thread is on the cause of secession.

----------


## 1stvermont

> Then you are full of shyt.
> 
> 
> 
> I've read it.  I've talked about it in this thread.  You are full of shyt.  South Carolina was complaining about nullification of fugitive slave laws, when South Carolina had earlier used nullification against tariffs.  So they were being hypocrites of the first order.  You know where I first heard about nullification of fugitive slave laws?  By none other than "The Southern Avenger" and he was using it in *defense* of states rights, and here you are defending South Carolina attacking fugitive slave laws as being *against* states rights.  Your side can't have it both ways.  Either nullification is a part of states rights....or it isn't.



You claim to have read these?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States

than by all means give a refutation to them, a direct refutation. All i have seen is you ignore them or at least admit the upper south left for other reasons. Since you only talk about the cotton states than we can assume you admit the upper south left over state sovereignty. So lets talk deep south. It is true the South Carolina declaration mentions its reasons for leaving as 

*“Declared that the frequent violations of the constitution by the united sates, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union.”

*yet that same document complained of northern states nullification of the federal fugitive slave laws as a violation of south Carolina rights, is this hypocritical? not if we properly understand states rights in antebellum america. First and this must happen, you must read this thread to get a historical understanding of states rights and the union. 

*From Union to Empire The Political Effects of the Civil war*http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?511837-From-Union-to-Empire-The-Political-Effects-of-the-Civil-war


Than understand states rights is not to resist the Constitution, but to protect it from overreaching federal government. Or in this case, northern states violating south Carolina [states right to protect its own citizens] constitutional rights. _Northern federalist Daniel Webster said in 1851 that if the north would not comply with the fugitive slave law, “The south would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side”_

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article 4 clause 3 us Constitution 


The south had constitutionally from the beginning protected rights of its property that included recognized slaves property. The north would not allow them their property and would steal it [by not working with federal workers]by not returning slaves. What if a Vermonter went to new york ,they claimed horses were not property and stole it, would that be protecting their individual rights? This is in no way a violation of northern states rights, but a protection of southern states rights to own slaves. The north was not forced to have slavery, neither were southerners, it was optional, but all north or south under the Constitution, had equal rights to own their property, the north violated that with the fugitive slave laws.

----------


## jmdrake

> You claim to have read these?
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States
> 
> than by all means give a refutation to them, a direct refutation. All i have seen is you ignore them or at least admit the upper south left for other reasons. Since you only talk about the cotton states than we can assume you admit the upper south left over state sovereignty. So lets talk deep south. It is true the South Carolina declaration mentions its reasons for leaving as


Yes.  And I gave you a direct refutation.  The argument is that South Carolina feels Northern nullification is a violation of the constitutional pact.  But, as "Southern Avenger" Jack Hunter pointed out, nullification of fugitive slave laws was an [b]exercise[b] in states rights.  That's the "direct refutation" of your argument.  Here ya go.




You can't have it both ways and you are being intellectually dishonest.  I agreed with Jack Hunter's point that Rachel Maddow was wrong about nullification and that nullification of fugitive slave laws was a proper exercise of states rights.

But here you destroy your own argument.

_south under the Constitution, had equal rights to own their property, the north violated that with the fugitive slave laws_

What you euphemistically call "property" was actual human beings.  Yes, South Carolinians wanted to keep their "property" which, in this case, were *slaves* so they were seceding over *S-L-A-V-E-R-Y*!  Ignoring that the property in question were slaves does not change the historical facts.  Good grief, your arguments are beyond stupid.

----------


## jmdrake

> well if we take that logic, the declaration of Independence caused the civil war because it caused the union that later fought each other.  But the direct cause of secession was lincolns election, the direct cause of war was wholly from the north, those are separate issues. 
> 
> You misunderstand states right friend.


I'm not your friend and I'm not misunderstanding states rights.  I agree with Judge Andrew Napolitano and Jack Hunter that the nullification of fugitive slave laws was a proper execution of states rights.

----------


## oyarde

No man or his bloodhound dogs have a right to trespass on my property . None . Ever . The fugitive slave act signed off on in congress in 1850 was never going to be observed here and if it was no jury would convict . It is within our rights to determine that .By 1855 the Wisconsin Supreme Court had determined the law to be UnConstitutional , something everyone , everywhere knew anyway . Vermont publicly announced in 1850 they would not observe . The fugitive slave law and the unbearable pompous behaviour of southern slavers is what turned the north to give a blind eye to any argument of any kind of southern politicians and aristocrats  legitimate or not  . All were widely viewed as people with  an improper amount of respect for others and generally untrustworthy by the common man here .

----------


## oyarde

Where we were there was no real support for the war , invading other states seems like a bad idea in any times . It also was pretty common opinion that when it happened it would be because they brought it on themselves .

----------


## charrob

_
_
Thank you everyone for all of your posts on this thread!!!  Although my college was good, I took no history courses (just took courses within my major).  And you really don't want to know how awful my public schooling was (1 semester of U.S. history in 12 years of public school).  So I am *constantly* craving to learn history and expand what little knowledge i have on the subject.  And this thread is rich with information that I look forward to delving into as time permits.  Thank you all!!!





> You shouldn't just read someone else's interpretation of Lincoln's speech.  You should read the actual speech.  Here's the part in question.  It doesn't say what the person you quoted said it said.


Thanks Jim.  That's as far as I got tonight on your reply as before I read the rest of your statements, I wanted to do just that:  to read Lincoln's actual inauguration address and decipher exactly what my interpretation of his speech is without any other interpretations clouding my understanding.  (This is the first time looking at this thread since my last post, and I don't even remember particularly at this point anymore what Paul Craig Roberts said and would need first to quickly overlook to refresh my memory.  So the following is my understanding of Lincoln's inaugural address without any other person's interpretations to make conclusions from.)  Words *written in red* are my understanding of paragraphs from Lincoln's speech that precede it.  *Highlighted are parts relevant to this discussion.*  After the ending of Lincoln's speech, I extracted all of my *interpretations written in red* and consolidated them at the end of this post; the only changes were sentences beginning with "Lincoln said" were changed to "I".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fellow-citizens of the United States:

In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."

I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that *"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."* Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

*Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."* 

I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.

*Above Lincoln says he will not interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.*

*There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping 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 service or labor may be due."* 


*Above Lincoln says fugitive slaves escaping a State and going to another State will be apprehended and delivered to the person that claims ownership of that slave.  Lincoln says this is plainly written in the Constitution, and so this law will be followed and dominates any law within a free State that would say otherwise.*

*It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution -- to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause, "shall be delivered," their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law, by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?* 

*Lincoln says congress should write a law which mirrors what the Constitution says:  ie. That fugitive slaves should be delivered to the person that claims ownership of that slave.* 

*There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him, or to others, by which authority it is done. And should any one, in any case, be content that his oath shall go unkept, on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? * 

*Lincoln says it doesn’t matter if the Feds or the State apprehend and deliver the fugitive slave.  One method is not better than the other.* 

*Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well, at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?*

*Lincoln is saying that the law written by Congress (referenced several paragraphs above) should also address free blacks (not fugitives) who live in the North so that these free blacks living in the north will never be surrendered to slavery.* 

I take the official oath to-day, with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws, by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to, and abide by, all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.

*Lincoln:  Obey the laws of the Constitution  - all of them.* 

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens, have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils; and, generally, with great success. Yet, with all this scope for [of] precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

*Lincoln is worried about southern secession.* 

I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

*Lincoln:  Secession of some States is unlawful since the Union could only lawfully end if all members of that Union agree it should end.* 

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

* (again):  Lincoln:  Secession of some States is unlawful since the Union could only lawfully end if all members of that Union agree it should end.* 

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

*Lincoln:  ‘my job is to keep the Union together’ unless otherwise directed by the American people.* 

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.

*Lincoln wants to keep the country together without force.* 

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

*Lincoln:  ‘I have nothing to say to those dead set on having a Civil War.  Here I speak to those who love the Union:* 

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step, while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to, are greater than all the real ones you fly from? Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

*Lincoln:  Civil War is not worth it and is a mistake; what we have is not worth losing.* 

All profess to be content in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted, that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution -- certainly would, if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. 

*Lincoln:  Both sides say they are happy when the Constitution is followed.  Yet there has not been a single instance when it has not been followed!  If a clause in the Constitution were not followed it might justify revolution. But such is not our case.* 

But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. * Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.* 

*Lincoln:  Though the organic law of the Constitution is good, it cannot document every single possible case which may arise:

Shall fugitive slaves be apprehended by the Feds or State?  Constitution does not say.May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories?  Constitution does not say.Must Congress protect slavery in the territories?   Constitution does not say.*
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. * If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other.*  If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments, are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

*For non-detailed parts of our Constitution, people will read it differently.  If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must or the government must end.* 

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

*However the minority cannot always have its way, else that is anarchy.  Rule by majority is the only true sovereign of a free people.* 

I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

*Though the Supreme Court can decide particular cases, and though the results of these particular cases can be used in parallel cases, even the Supreme Court parallel cases cannot always decide new cases.* 

*One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections, than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all, by the other.* 

*The only dispute between the north and the south is whether slavery can be extended to the [western] territories.  The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, while not being completely followed by a few Americans here and there, are both being followed by the majority of Americans.  Secession would make the following of both of these laws much worse.* 

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

*Things will just be much worse afterwards if secession occurs.* 

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.

*This country belongs to all the people.  If all the people decide to destroy the Union that is fine.  If all the people decide to amend the Constitution that is fine too.  But it has to be decided by a majority.* 

I will venture to add that to me the Convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions, originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. *I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.* 

*Lincoln:  ‘I understand there’s a new Constitutional Amendment that has passed Congress.  This Amendment says that the federal government shall __NEVER__ interfere with slavery inside the States that currently have it.  I have no problem with that.* 

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope, in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth, and that justice, will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.

While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.

*I have nothing to do with the separation of the States; only the people can decide this.  Let’s have confidence in the American people as a whole.* 

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, *on the sensitive point*, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. *If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action.*  Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, *are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty*.

*Don’t rush into war.  For those who are dissatisfied, you still have, unchanged in the Constitution, the laws in which you have written about slavery.  If you are currently correct in this dispute, there still is no reason to hastily get into war:  with time and God on our side, we can still make changes to your liking.* 

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

*It’s up to the south on whether you decide to attack the Federal Gov’t.  The Federal Gov’t will not attack you first.  You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect and defend it.”* 

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

_
_
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_
_
*Charrob's interpretation of what Lincoln stated in his inaugural address:
*


"I will not interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.

Fugitive slaves escaping a State and going to another State will be apprehended and delivered to the person that claims ownership of that slave.  This is plainly written in the Constitution, and so this law will be followed and dominates any law within a free State that would say otherwise. 

Congress should write a law which mirrors what the Constitution says:  ie. That fugitive slaves should be delivered to the person that claims ownership of that slave. 

It doesn’t matter if the Feds or the State apprehend and deliver the fugitive slave.  One method is not better than the other. 

The law written by Congress (referenced several paragraphs above) should also address free blacks (not fugitives) who live in the North so that these free blacks living in the north will never be surrendered to slavery. 

Obey the laws of the Constitution  - all of them. 

I am worried about southern secession. 

Secession of some States is unlawful since the Union could only lawfully end if all members of that Union agree it should end. 

(again):  Secession of some States is unlawful since the Union could only lawfully end if all members of that Union agree it should end. 

My job is to keep the Union together unless otherwise directed by the American people. 

I want to keep the country together without force. 

I have nothing to say to those dead set on having a Civil War.  Here I speak to those who love the Union:  Civil War is not worth it and is a mistake; what we have is not worth losing. 

Both sides say they are happy when the Constitution is followed.  Yet there has not been a single instance when it has not been followed!  If a clause in the Constitution were not followed it might justify revolution. But such is not our case. 

Though the organic law of the Constitution is good, it cannot document every single possible case which may arise:

Shall fugitive slaves be apprehended by the Feds or State?  Constitution does not say.May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories?  Constitution does not say.Must Congress protect slavery in the territories?   Constitution does not say.
For non-detailed parts of our Constitution, people will read it differently.  If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must or the government must end. 

However the minority cannot always have its way, else that is anarchy.  Rule by majority is the only true sovereign of a free people. 

Though the Supreme Court can decide particular cases, and though the results of these particular cases can be used in parallel cases, even the Supreme Court parallel cases cannot always decide new cases. 

The only dispute between the north and the south is whether slavery can be extended to the [western] territories.  The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, while not being completely followed by a few Americans here and there, are both being followed by the majority of Americans.  Secession would make the following of both of these laws much worse. 

Things will just be much worse afterwards if secession occurs. 

This country belongs to all the people.  If all the people decide to destroy the Union that is fine.  If all the people decide to amend the Constitution that is fine too.  But it has to be decided by a majority. 

I understand there’s a new Constitutional Amendment that has passed Congress.  This Amendment says that the federal government shall __NEVER__ interfere with slavery inside the States that currently have it.  I have no problem with that. 

I have nothing to do with the separation of the States; only the people can decide this.  Let’s have confidence in the American people as a whole. 

Don’t rush into war.  For those who are dissatisfied, you still have, unchanged in the Constitution, the laws in which you have written about slavery.  If you are currently correct in this dispute, there still is no reason to hastily get into war:  with time and God on our side, we can still make changes to your liking. 

It’s up to the south on whether you decide to attack the Federal Gov’t.  The Federal Gov’t will not attack you first.  You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect and defend it.”"

----------


## Ender

> You do understand that you just reposted the OP right?


YES.

----------


## 1stvermont

> Yes.  And I gave you a direct refutation.  The argument is that South Carolina feels Northern nullification is a violation of the constitutional pact.  But, as "Southern Avenger" Jack Hunter pointed out, nullification of fugitive slave laws was an [b]exercise[b] in states rights.  That's the "direct refutation" of your argument.  Here ya go.



So many historical mistakes in a small post i am impressed, usually only liberals can do that. well it is clear to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the civil war or secession, you have no idea what you are talking about. Plus you have exposed *your lie that you read my links*. You dont know you exposed yourself because you lack basic knowledge of secession. You just claimed that south carolina was part of the upper south.  and offered it as a refutation. South Carolina is part of the deep south sir, that is basic knowledge. Than make a false statement [coming from a misunderstanding of states rights and nullification see here http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-Civil-war ]   that south carolina left the union because of northern states nullification [to witch south Carolina was known for doing] this is simply not true. 

*SC secession document

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

** The cause of dissolving the union is given right off the bat “Declared that the frequent violations of the constitution by the united sates, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union.”* 

Had you read it you would have known. South carolina was not objecting to nullification, something they themselves had used, but the northern states violation of the Constitution as I made clear to you on post 76 that you ignored. 






> Y
> You can't have it both ways and you are being intellectually dishonest.  I agreed with Jack Hunter's point that Rachel Maddow was wrong about nullification and that nullification of fugitive slave laws was a proper exercise of states rights.


I agree that i like those laws, they still violate the Constitution and the compact between north and south [see post 76] These disagreements can happen in a union of states that is why secession is vital to liberty. So yes you can have it both ways if both sides are willing and if you understand a historical understanding of nullification and states rights.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-Civil-war

If you understood states rights and the union, your objection would diaper. 





> But here you destroy your own argument.
> 
> _south under the Constitution, had equal rights to own their property, the north violated that with the fugitive slave laws_
> 
> What you euphemistically call "property" was actual human beings.  Yes, South Carolinians wanted to keep their "property" which, in this case, were *slaves* so they were seceding over *S-L-A-V-E-R-Y*!  Ignoring that the property in question were slaves does not change the historical facts.  Good grief, your arguments are beyond stupid.


I never said the federal government intrusion upon the rights of the states on slavery was not a cause of the cotton states secession. I said there was other causes and that the upper south left over state sovereignty. Had you read my post as you claimed to have, you would know that. 

I will post for you not in link, but in open text directed to you for you to respond to.

----------


## 1stvermont

> No man or his bloodhound dogs have a right to trespass on my property . None . Ever . The fugitive slave act signed off on in congress in 1850 was never going to be observed here and if it was no jury would convict . It is within our rights to determine that .By 1855 the Wisconsin Supreme Court had determined the law to be UnConstitutional , something everyone , everywhere knew anyway . Vermont publicly announced in 1850 they would not observe . The fugitive slave law and the unbearable pompous behaviour of southern slavers is what turned the north to give a blind eye to any argument of any kind of southern politicians and aristocrats  legitimate or not  . All were widely viewed as people with  an improper amount of respect for others and generally untrustworthy by the common man here .



No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article 4 clause 3 us Constitution

----------


## 1stvermont

> I'm not your friend and I'm not misunderstanding states rights.  I agree with Judge Andrew Napolitano and Jack Hunter that the nullification of fugitive slave laws was a proper execution of states rights.



as do i, illegal constitutionally, but i like them. But if we care to understand the union as was 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-Civil-war

we would not misunderstand states rights.

----------


## 1stvermont

*AT jmdrake* 
*
The Cotton States

*_[the south was]"Forced to take up arms to vindicate the political rights, the freedom, equality, and state sovereignty which were the heritage purchased by the blood of our revolutionary sires" 
-Jefferson Davis 1863 quoted in Battle cry of freedom James McPherson Oxford U Press  

_The first states to leave the union were the original deep south “cotton states.” Leaving as individual states to later form a confederacy and a constitution. Those states were Alabama, Mississippi, Louisianan, Texas, Georgia, Florida and South Carolina. Even within the deep south cotton states their were multiple reasons that led to secession. 

*The Election of A Republican President* _

“It [republican party] is, in fact, essentially a revolutionary party”
-New Orleans Delta 

“To nationalize as much as possible, even currency, so as to make men love country first before their states, all private interest, local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals everything should be subordinate now to the interests of the government”
-Senator John Sherman of Ohio [ This a change in philosophy from founders that government serves the people ]

_The election of the new “radical” republican party candidate Abraham Lincoln directly led to the secession of the deep south. This new political party was the first in American history based solely on sectional [northern] interests and boosted by recent immigration to the national stage. This was so clear to north and south that Many in the north blamed the republicans voters for disunion. President Buchanan [who did not believe in legal secession] and other northern democrats and unionist blamed republicans and said the south would be justified if they were elected in resisting._ 

“My politics are short and sweet...I am in favor of a national bank...in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff”
-Abraham Lincoln

_This northern sectional party's interests were the antithesis to the southern interests. The republicans were for higher tariffs, protective tariffs, federal internal improvements,in support of the homestead act, homestead act [ in 1858 the north supported 114 of 115 the south rejected 64 of 65] a pacific railroad act, and grants to states for agricultural and mechanical collages. 
_
T_he republicans were openly big government nationalist who placed authority and sovereignty with the federal government and not with, as they south had maintained from the first, the peoples of the sovereign states. This would play itself out in the fight over slavery in the territories. [see below] The republicans during the civil war and finishing with reconstruction, would radically transform the American union into their new radical version of America. So the south seceded. 
_
“to save us from a revolution”
Jeff Davis quoted in battle cry of freedom 


_*Tariffs*_

“The revenues of the General Government are almost entirely derived from duties on importations. It is time that the northern consumer pays his proportion of these duties, but the North as a section receiving back in the increased prices of the rival articles which it manufactures nearly or quite as much as the imposts which it pays thus in effect paying nothing or very little for the support of the government.”
-Florida causes of Secession 

“And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue–to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures... The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended at the North.  ” 
-Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States Convention of South Carolina 1860


“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states... the love of money is the root of this...the quarrel between the north and south is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel” 
-Charles Dickens, 1862

_As so often is the case in wars, money, in this case tariffs, had long been a point of conflict between the two sides. In 1824 the government tariff doubled. The south voting against the tariff being raised and the north voted for it, dividing the country along the 1860 civil war lines in 1824 over tariffs. Tariffs supplied the government 90% of it income and even gave a surplus to what the government needed. The majority was paid by the south given its inport/export agrarian economy. This the south thought was unconstitutional for the government to aim at a section or industry of the economy specifically for a tax. _

“High protective tariffs reduced the price of cotton and effective imposed a tax between 10-20% while they raised the income of northern labor and the profits of northern manufacturers”
-Robert William Fogel The Rise and fall of American Slavery

"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole"
-Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860 

_Tariffs would be Raised again in 1828. Congress passed what southerners called the tariff of abominations to help northern industry against southern agrarian lifestyle. only 1 out of 105 southerners voted positive, yet the north voted for it [as they received free southern money that was used largely in the north] and it passed. This led South Carolina to first use a threat of secession. South Carolina Senator John Callhoun in the 1820's said of conflict between the north and south over tariffs “The great central interest , around which all others revolved” South Carolina argued they had states rights to reject unconstitutional federal ruling as a sovereign state, something Thomas Jefferson recommended. Over the tariff Mary Chestnut said South Carolina "heated themselves into a fever that only bloodletting could ever cure." The tax had been 15% and the south had been complaining for decades. 

“It does not r_equire extraordinary sagacity to precive that trade is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return of the seceding states to the union”
-Boston Transcript March 18 1861

“The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other....abuse of the powers they had delegated to the Congress, for the purpose of enriching the manufacturing and shipping classes of the North at the expense of the South.... ” 
Jefferson Davis Message to Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution) 

_The Morrill Tariff Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, on a sectional vote, with nearly all northern representatives in support and nearly all southern representatives in opposition. With the election of Abraham Lincoln whose central campaign objective was to triple the tariff. Tariff was the “keystone” of the republican party “protection for home industry” was the campaign poster of the 1860 republican party. South Carolina did what it had done decades before, and seceded from the Union over the higher tariff rates soon to be imposed on the south by the north. It was not just the south, NYC mayor Fernando Wood wanted to make NYC a “free city” [free trade] and  secede from the Union. The debate over tariffs and internal improvements was not just a debate over those items, but a debate over the nature of the federal government. Free trade was a vital aspect of southern agrarian interests. The CSA Constitution allowed for free trade. In Jefferson Davis inaugural speech in Montgomery Alabama he stated the following. _

“An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade, which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union.”

“The south was being asked to pay to strengthen northern industry...the tariff would directly damage southern pocketbooks. This conflict played a important role in the division north vs south”
-Brevin Alexander Professor of History at Longwood University

“The tariff issue...exacerbated sectional tensions”
-James McPherson Battle cry of Freedom 
_*
Agrarian South vs Industrial North*_

“Ours is an agricultural people, and God grant that we may continue so. We never want to see it otherwise. It is the freest, happiest, most independent , and, with us, the most powerful condition on earth”
-Montgomery Daily Confederation 1858

“It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.”
-Mississippi Declaration for Causes of Secession 

_A cause of the war, and some would say the major cause for prominent interest groups. Is northern industrialist vs southern agrarians. The Souths primarily agrarian and agricultural lifestyle and the contrasted growing northern industrial, urban, lifestyle, led to difference of opinion on culture, education, religion, role of government, tariffs, trade policies, internal improvements and many other differences. There were as many factories in the north, as there were factories workers in the south. From Americans agrarian roots the south had “little dynamic change, weather through immigration, the growth of new cities or new industrial manufacturing, was allowed to come in and stir up the pot.”_

“Leisure orientated agrarian society is the antithesis to materialistic northern life”
-Rapheal Semmes CSA navy commander

“1850's southern agrarians had mounted a counter attack against the gospel of industrialization”
-James McPherson Battle cry of freedom 

_As argued in the book “I'll Take my Stand the south and the agrarian tradition.” The main cause of the war was the fight over western territories coming into the union. Before the civil war northern big business and industry needed industrial workers for factories for expansion, not farmers and planters. If these states were allowed to decide on their own slave or free, than the south might maintain agrarian, free trade, policies. If they were to all become free, than northern industrialist would dominate congress and high tariffs, internal improvements would rise. Both the industrialist and the southern planters backed politicians in the fight over western territories. Northern politicians thought slavery “Stifled technological progress, inhibited industrialization, and thwarted urbanization” and would lead to the “Destruction of all industry” Something had to happen._

“The game plan of northern industrialist, who were fighting not for black freedom, but for the freedom to exploit and devolve the American market...The only people who could say “free at last” after the civil war were northern industrialist and their allies”
-Lerone Vennett JR Forced into Glory Abraham Lincolns White Dream 

The freeing of the slaves was “Only an accident in the violent clash of interests between the Industrial north and the Agricultural south”
-African American Ralph Bunche 

_The industrialist “Hired” politicians to go anti-slavery and pro industrial expansion, fighting hard for western states to go anti slavery. The south wanted agrarian lifestyle, free trade, and states to decide on slavery. So as was said “The south had to be crushed out, it was in the way, it impeded the progress of the machine” if slavery could be abolished, than southern agrarian representation in congress would be reduced. Northern general Sherman said the civil war was a war between agriculturalist vs mechanics. Confederate General Jubal Early said Lees army was defeated by “Steam power, railroads, mechanism, and all the resources of physical science”_

“Great pains have been taken, by the North, to make it appear to the world, that the war was a sort of moral, and religious crusade against slavery. Such was not the fact. The people of the North were, indeed, opposed to slavery, but merely because they thought it stood in the way of their struggle for empire”
-Raphael Semmes 1868 

“They are now divided, between agricultural–and manufacturing, and commercial States; between slaveholding and non-slaveholding States. Their institutions and industrial pursuits, have made them, totally different peoples.”
-Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States Convention of South Carolina 1860

_The fight over agrarian vs industrial also led to a fight over tariffs. For example The agrarian south opposed high tariffs, but that is how internal improvements were founded for the industrial north. “The more the north became industrialized, the more the need arose for stronger national government to support its growth and finical interests.” The industrialist wanted higher tariffs as well to slow the flow of trade on the Mississippi. They instead wanted trade to flow west through rail supported by higher tariffs and internal improvements._ 

“Theodore Weld declared that the South had to be wiped out because it is “the foe to Northern industry—to our mines, our manufactures, our commerce.” 
-Clyde Wilson Professor of History at the University of South Carolina

_In the book Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War by Marc Egnal he said “Economics more than high moral concerns produced the civil war.” The heart of the war was economical differences growing between the protectionist, manufacturing northeast and the free trade agrarian south. In the book I'll take my stand a book on southern agrarian life, the authors argue if no other differences, the war would have still happened over industrial vs agrarian interests. The industrialist won. After the war the north profit went up 45% the south down 15%._

“Military defeat moved the scepter of wealth from the agrarian south to the industrial north”
-Robert William Fogel The Rise and Fall of American Slavery 

“If the North triumphs, it is not alone the destruction of our property; it is the prelude to anarchy,infidelity, the ultimate loss of free and responsible government on this continent. It is the triumph of commerce, the banks, factories. ”
-Confederate Gen. Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson

“Southern movement was a revolt of conservatism against the modernism of the north” a “Reaction to industry.”
-E Merton Coulter The Confederate States of America Louisiana State university press

_*Loss of Political Power* _

“The contest on the part of the north was for supreme control, especially in relation to the fiscal action of the government.. on the other hand southern states, struggling for equality, and seeking to maintain equilibrium in government”
-Rose Oneal Greehow My Improvement and the first year of Abolition rule in Washington 1863 

“The majority section may legislate imperiously and ruinously to the interests of the minority section not only without injury but to great benefit and advantage of their own section. In proof of this we need only refer to the fishing bounties, the monopoly of the coast navigation which is possessed almost exclusively by the Northern States and in one word the bounties to every employment of northern labor and capital such a government must in the nature of things and the universal principles of human nature and human conduct very soon lead as it has done to a grinding and degrading despotism.”
-Florida Declaration of Causes of Secession 

“The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. “The General Welfare,” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this “General Welfare” requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.” -Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States Convention of South Carolina 1860

_The very mature of the government was at stake in the fight over western territories. This political battle even turned to blood in Missouri/Kansas. The south was shown that even when unified, it could still be controlled by the growing urban population of the north and “mob rule” such as in the case with tariffs and the election of Lincoln. Both sides also saw the newer territories become states in the west as vital to control of congress. If these states were allowed to decide on their own slave or free, than the south might maintain agrarian, free trade, policies. If they were to all become free, than northern industrialist would dominate congress and High tariffs and internal improvements would rise. _

“We had had experience of the fact, that our partner-States of the North, who were in a majority, had trampled upon the rights of the Southern minority, and we desired, as the only remedy, to dissolve the partnership......liberty is always destroyed by the multitude, in the name of liberty. Majorities within the limits of constitutional restraints are harmless, but the moment they lose sight of these restraints, the many-headed monster becomes more tyrannical, than the tyrant with a single head; numbers harden its conscience, and embolden it, in the perpetration of crime. And when this majority, in a free government, becomes a faction, or, in other words, represents certain classes and interests to the detriment of other classes, and interests, farewell to public liberty; the people must either become enslaved, or there must be a disruption of the government. ” 
 -Confederate Admiral Raphael Semmes 1868

_Between 1800-1850 the House was controlled by the north but the south could block anything from the north in the senate. However with the edition of states like Minnesota 1858 Oregon 1859 and Kansas 1861 for the first time the north controlled the senate. Lincoln said he would not allow any more slave states into the union [Southerns felt a excuse for northern political dominance of both house and senate for his wanted major tariff increases] The south had seen their political power over tariffs in recent decades decline, and now saw the attack on slavery into new territories as a attack on the whole economic system of the south by the majority or mob of the north. The south saw the loss of political power, economic power and rights granted by the constitution under threat from the majority north. a Georgian sated “we are either slaves in the union or free men out of it”_

“Nothing but increasingly galling economical exploitation by the dominate sector and the rapid reduction of the south to political impotence”
-Robert William Fogel The Rise and Fall of American Slavery 

“Equality and safety in the union are at an end”
-Howell Cobb of Georgia 1860 

“The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. With complete sincerity the South fought to preserve its version of the republic of the Founding Fathers--a government of limited powers that protected the rights of property, including slave property, and whose constituency comprised an independent gentry and yeomanry of the white race undisturbed by large cities, heartless factories, restless free workers, and class conflict. The accession of the Republican party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian, free-labor capitalism, was a signal to the South that the Northern majority had turned irrevocably toward this frightening future."
-James M. McPherson Ante-bellum Southern Exceptionalism


_*Two Separate Cultures “Yankees” and American* _

“Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain “
-South Carolina Secession Document

“The best definition ever given. It was a war of one form of society against another form of society”
-Historian Shelby Fotte 

“If their was not a slave from Aroostock to the sabine, the north and the south could never permanent agree”
-Richmond Daily Whig April 23, 1862 

“The Southern people...maintained a species of separate interests, history, and prejudices. These latter became stronger and stronger, till they have led to a war which has developed the fruits of the bitterest kind.” 
-General Sherman to Union Maj. R.M. Sawyer 1864 


_The divide between the two sides was much deeper than most today realize. The north and south started growing apart from each other socially, religiously, economically and politically. At times both would refer to each other as a separate race of people usually northern Anglo saxson and southern scotch-Irish. These divides went back to early America. At this time there was not much love north for south or south for north. In some ways the war started politically with the federalist/anti-federalist and the nationalist and compact theorist in the late 1700's. The south being largely anti-federalist/ compact and the north federalist/nationalist . In fact these differences were predicted to lead to the civil war back in 1824. A Congressional committee on northern interference in the south stated_

“The hour is coming or is rabidly approaching, when the states from Virginia to Georgia, from Missouri to Louisianan, must confederate, and as one man say to the union we will no longer submit our retained rights to the sniveling insinuations of bad men on the floor of congress. Our constitutional rights to the dark and strained contraction of design men upon judicial benches. That we detest the doctrine, and disclaim the principle, of unlimited submission to the general [Federal] government.... Let the North, then, form national roads for themselves. Let them guard with tariffs their own interests. Let them deepen their public debt until a high minded aristocracy shall rise out of it. We want none of all those blessings. But in the simplicity of the patriarchal government, we would still remain master and servant under our own vine and our own fig-tree, and confide for safety upon Him who of old time looked down upon this state of things without wrath.”

“Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.” 
-South Carolina Senator John Calhoun 1831 

“Not over slavery but centralization and local sovereign government going back 70 years to federalist and anti federalist...they[ The south] quit the union to save the principles of the constitution"
- Alexander Hamilton Stephens A constitutional view of the late war between the states: its causes 1870

_The cultures were separating as well. The south was generally conservative in cultural and religion compared to the north. The north was being transformed by large number of European immigrants who often came from the failed socialist revolutions of 1848. The north was also increasingly influenced by New England. Before the 1850's new england was seen as out of the american mainstream and “southern” was the American mainstream. 9 of the first 11 presidents were southern plantation owners, 7 of the first 12 were Virginians [many two term] 9 were southern, and 1 from New York, at that time was “southern” in politics. Washington, jeferson, Jackson were the norm in America. After the war of 1812 New England was often seen with disdain by the rest of America. _

“There is at work in this land a Yankee spirit and an American spirit”
James Thornwell 1859

_New Englander's settled in western States and New York. New York became half populated by decedents from New England. Once new England could control half the north, the south was taken care of after the war, and new england was no longer outside mainstream, but know the south was out of the mainstream and the problem that needed to be fixed. _

“The north changed radically after the founders of the united states, especially in the 1850's”
-Dr. Clyde Wilson Professor of History University of South Carolina   

“Southern society has never generated any of the loathsome isms, which northern soil breeds...the north has its Mormons, her various sects of Communists, her free lovers, her spiritualists, and a multitude of corrupt visoniaries”
-R.L Dabney A defense of Virginia and the South 1867

“It was a profound conservative movement. It was in fact a counterrevolution against the excess of northern demagoguery, mob rule, and dangerous fanaticism imported from Europe”
-E. merton Coulter The confederate States of America Louisiana State University Press


“The central issue in the civil war, to which all other questions including slavery and centralization were subordinate, was the movement of American society into modernization. Modernization among other things, implies economic, political, and cultural centralization and nationalism. To modernization the south provided a formidable obstacle”
-Clyde Wilson From Union to Empire 

_*Northern Violations of the Constitution* _

“The one great evil, from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of Confederated Republics, but of a consolidated Democracy. It is, in face such a Government as Great Britain attempted to set over our Fathers; and which was resisted and defeated by a seven years’ struggle for independence. The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self-government, –and self-taxation, the criterion of self-government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free....The great object of the Constitution of the United States, in its internal operation, was, doubtless, to secure the great end of the Revolution — –a limited free Government– — a Government limited to those matters only, which were general and common to all portions of the United States. All sectional or local interests were to be left to the States. By no other arrangement, would they obtain free Government, by a Constitution common to so vast a Confederacy. Yet by gradual and steady encroachments on the part of the people of the North, and acquiescence on the part of the South, the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away; and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations. ”
-Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States Convention of South Carolina 1860

“announce a revolution in the government and to substitute an aggregate popular majority for the written constitution without which no single state would have voted its adoption not forming in truth a federal union but a consolidated despotism that worst of despotisms that of an unrestricted sectional and hostile majority, we do not intend to be misunderstood, we do not controvert the right of a majority to govern within the grant of powers in the Constitution. 
-Florida Declaration of causes of secession 

“The north sought to convert a union of brotherhood and mutual benefit into a “nation” which they would dominate in their own interests”
-Clyde Wilson University of South Carolina Professor 

“We are fighting for the god given rights of liberty and independence as handed down to us in the constitution by our fathers” -Confederate General John B Gordon to Pennsylvanian woman at York 1863

“I believe most solemley that it is for constitutional liberty”
-Confederate General Leonidas Polk June 22 1861 Reasons for Southern Secession

_The south saw the north as violating the constitution in many ways. The south thought their liberties threatened by a growing northern majority and political influence. Had the constitution not been violated, and their rights maintained, there would have been no need to separate. The south saw the tariffs aimed at certain industry [southern export] as a violation of the constitution. They saw the north's attempt to use that money to benefit the Norths wanted internal improvements as another violation of the constitution. The federal government under the control of Lincoln sought to violate the 10th amendment and states rights by not allowing the western states to decide on slavery, instead the federal government would overpower the states, and violate the constitution to the benefit of northern polices. The south complained that many northern states the refusal to obey the fugitive slave laws were a violation of the constitution and recognizance of southern property. _

“If the south did not protect itself against the north, its whole way of life would be destroyed”
-E Merton Coulter The Confederate States of America Louisiana State university Press 

“Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control. They learned to listen with impatience to the suggestion of any constitutional impediment to the exercise of their will, and so utterly have the principles of the Constitution been corrupted in the Northern mind that, in the inaugural address delivered by President Lincoln in March last, he asserts as an axiom, which he plainly deems to be undeniable, of constitutional authority, that the theory of the Constitution requires that in all cases the majority shall govern; and in another memorable instance the same Chief Magistrate did not hesitate to liken the relations between a State and the United States to those which exist between a county and the State in which it is situated and by which it was created.”  
-Jefferson Davis  Message to Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the CSA Constitution) 

“South Carolina has twice called her people together in solemn Convention, to take into consideration, the aggressions and unconstitutional wrongs, perpetrated by the people of the North on the people of the South.” -Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States Convention of South Carolina 1860


_*The Confederate Constitution* _

“Lincoln waged war in order to create a consolidated, centralized state or empire. The south seceded for numerous reasons, but perhaps the most important one was that it wanted no part in such a system”
-Thomas j Dilorenzo The Real Lincoln 

“It was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionist was not to establish a slaveholders reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to create the union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican party”
-Robert Divine T.H Bren George Fredrickson and R Williams America Past and Present

_The original deep south cotton States that left the union acted as sovereign republics, it was called “calhouns states right running riot.” But would soon join in a confederacy with its temporary capital in Montgomery, Alabama. They joined and formed the Confederate constitution on March 11 1861. The CSA saw it as the original America constitution properly interpreted and clarified. Later CSA president Jeff Davis said “The constitution framed by our founders, is that of these confederate states.” It was formed after the original united states constitution with some slight alterations. By these alterations we can see some of the reasons that the south left the union._

“CS constitution emphasis on small government and states rights”
-Lochlainn Seabrook The Constitution Of The Confederate States Of America Explained A Clause By Clause Study Of The Souths Magna Carta 

_*CSA State Sovereignty 
*_
“The CSA framers placed the government firmly under the heads of the states”
-Marshall L. Derosa Redeeming American Democracy Lessons from the Confederate Constitution 

_The CSA constitution limits central [ federal] power. The south thought to keep government weak and poor, so that states would do the majority of governing. Each state being sovereign had only one vote on the confederate constitution ratification regardless of population. A main change in the CSA constitution from the United states version of “we the people of the US in order to form a more perfect union.... CSA version reads “we the people of the confederate states, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character ...” The confederacy formed a decentralized government. The states had the right to recall powers delegated [ not granted] to congress. In the CSA 10th amendment In uncertainties in ruling between states and CSA government, the states would override the federal government. All power to amend the Constitution was taken out of congress and given to the states. “centralization and its corrupting influence were held in check.”_

“The CSA congress can have no such power over states officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states the foundation of the confederacy”
-1864 Virginia supreme Court Case 

_Some USA federal court cases were moved to the states in the CSA version. Confederate officials working only in a state are subject to impeachment by that state. The Confederate states also gain the power to make river-related treaties with each other. In the US, the federal government regulates bodies of water that overlap multiple states. CSA had Fewer members of congress. The states of the CSA had the right to coin money. The confederates had the idea that the country capital would not be permanent [ Even Richmond the second capital was never suppose to be I entered this revolutionpermanent] but float from state to state to avoid centralizing power. The CSA Presidents could not be reelected, not wanting politicians to say what was needed for reelection. Later during the war President Jeff Davis complained that he did not have the control like Lincoln to fight the war, because of local and states rights._

“The confederacy was founded upon decentralization”
-Ken Burns The Civil War PBS documentary

_*CSA Weak Federal Government and Fiscal Responsibility 

*The CSA constitution removed the term “general welfare” from the US preamble as they felt it was misused by Lincoln and earlier whigs to say the federal government had powers for internal improvements.“The confederacy was founded on the proposition that the central government should stay out of its citizens pockets.” The CSA allowed for fair trade, had uniform tax code and restricted ominous bills. No corporate bailouts, or government subsides. The post office must be self sufficient within two years. The CSA President had line item veto on spending, No cost overrun contracts were allowed. Congress could not foster any one branch of industry.

----------


## 1stvermont

*Slavery's Impact on the Cotton States 

*_“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery”
-Mississippi Declaration for Causes of secession 

“The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.”
 -Georgia Secession Document 

_Slavery had varying degrees of influence on the deep south reasons for secession, from none at all, to the main reason. No question there were some in the south that were willing to leave the union simply to keep slavery. The south thought slavery was a constitutional, biblical, and state right. The south viewed slaves as any other legal property the federal could not interfere with. If they tried to do so, it was tyrannical. In the cotton states they had more financial gain and loss riding on slavery and were more apt to maintain slavery and their economy. No better example than Mississippi who very much seems to have left the union for the protection of their economic system of slavery. With 4 billion dollars worth of value and the whole economic system of the state dependent on slavery, they wished to defend their economic system that had brought them so much wealth. However even in Mississippi, slavery was not the sole cause. 

_“Let not slavery prove a barrier to our independence...although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for..._ if it proves_ an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it”
-The Jackson Mississippian 1864 quoted in McPherson's Battle cry of Freedom p 833

_*Western States Free or Slave? Slavery was not the Cause but the Occasion/ States Rights*_

“Slavery is no more the cause of this war than gold is the cause of robbery”
-Joel Parker 1863 New jersey Governor

“Slavery, although the occasion, was not the producing cause of dissolution”
-Rose Oneal Greehow- My improvement and the first year of abolition Rule in Washington 1863

“The war was not a war of slavery versus freedom, it was a war between those who preferred a federated nation to those who preferred a confederation of sovereign states. Slavery was the ink thrown into the pool to confuse the issue”
-Andrew Nelson lytle the Virginia Quarterly Review 1931

“The struggle over the expansion of slavery into the territories....was almost a purely political issue”
-Robert William Fogel The rise and Fall of American Slavery

_The major impact slavery had on the war and what some north and south would have said the war was over is the extension of slavery into the new western territories. This has led some to falsely conclude the deep south left the union only to maintain slavery. 
_
“The people who say slavery had nothing to do with the war are just as wrong as the people who say slavery had everything to do with the war”
-Historian Shelby Foote

_Slavery's involvement in southern secession is often overstated because slavery was the “occasion” to witch the fight over states rights was fought. Just as Calhoun had said of the tariff of abomination was “The occasion, rather than the real cause” that cause was federal power expansion. The deep south saw the republicans as violating the 9th and 10th amendment – and Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 Supreme Court ruling for trying to decide the fate of slavery by federal control rather than state. The Democratic plank 9 of the 1852 elections [and carried on to 1860] plainly stated that a attack on slavery was a attack on states rights, the two issues could not be separated. 

That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions. 
-Democrat plank 9

That the federal government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the constitution, and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.
Democratic Plank 1_ 

“slavery was not the cause, but the occasion of strife...Rights of the states were the bulwarks of the liberties of the people but that emancipation by federal aggression would lead to the destruction of all other rights”
-R.L Dabney A Defense Of Virginia And The South 1867

_It would be hard to accept that southerners were willing to leave the country they loved and fight a war simply to have slavery extended into new territories where it would simply provide more competition to southern slave states domination on cotton. In 1843 many rich southern planters and no less than Calhoun voted against Texas for statehood because they said it would reduce the price of cotton. Instead they would want a monopoly within the south where they lived. By leaving the union the south was giving up federal protection for there runaway slaves under the fugitive slave laws, as well as giving up there right to bring there slaves into the united states territories something they fought so hard for. Because the issue was much deeper as it involved states rights, constitutional protection, and the nature of the union. 
_
“The conflict over the extension of slavery was a contest of political power between the north and the south which had grown steadily apart in economics, religion, customs, values, and ways of life...”
-Clyde Wilson professor at university of South Carolina 

“After the bombardment of ft Sumter...patriots signed up to fight for states rights or union”
-John Cannon The Wilderness Campaign Combined Books PA 

The war was fought to “Preserve the sovereignty of their respective States.”
-Raphael Semmes Confederate Admiral 1868 

_The fight over new western territories was also a battle over the very nature of the federal government. The republicans and Lincoln said they would not allow new states, the rights granted in the constitution. Were these states coming into the union allowed their state sovereignty and states rights as had all previous states, or was the federal government allowed to violate those rights and dictate the states? Where states sovereign or subject to a federal master? Thomas Jefferson commenting on federal intrusion in the Missouri compromise stated “ this certainly is the exclusive right of every state, which nothing in the constitution has taken from them and given to the general government. could congress, for example say that the Non-freemen of Connecticut, shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other state? What the south asked for was that these new states coming in be allowed on their own to chose. _

“That when the settlers in a Territory, having an adequate population, form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences, and being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States, and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery.”
-Southern Democrat Party Platform 1860 

“It is not slavery that [Thomas] Jefferson fears as “the death kneel of the union” it is antislavery, the notion that has been raised for the first time that congress could tamper with the institutions of new states as a condition for admission”
-Clyde Wilson from Union to Empire 

“The south saw the attack on the issue of slavery not so much as an attempt to end slavery in the united states as much as an attempt to end southern influence in the national government”
 -Walter D Kennedy Myths of American slavery

_This political battle even turned to blood in Missouri/Kansas. Republicans backed by the industrialist pushed for western territories to be free. If these states were free they would than industrialize and want rail laid to connect these distant lands to the east. They would support high tariffs and internal improvements and give the north more political power. Yet if these states were allowed to decide on their own slave or free, than the south might maintain agrarian, free trade, policies. British historian Marc Egnal said the fight over the extension of slavery was “more on economical policy” But of more concern to many in the south was that of states rights._

“When the Government of the United States disregarded and attempted to trample upon the rights of the States, Georgia set its power at defiance and seceded from the Union rather than submit to the consolidation of all power in the hands of the Central or Federal Government..her sovereignty the principles for the support of which Georgia entered into this revolution.
-Georgia Governor Joseph E Brown 1862

“The war was at first was not about slavery, but was a struggle over the limits of states rights and the powers of the government in washington”
-David G Martin PHD in History from Princeton University 

SC secession document 
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

_South Carolina was the first state to seceded from the union, It being a deep south “cotton state” gives the reasons for secession. If read in full it gives a good example of slavery as a states rights issue. Slavery was an occasion that states rights were fought over, not the sole cause. The cause of dissolving the union is given right off the bat “Declared that the frequent violations of the constitution by the united sates, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union.” The document is a states rights succession document. The writers of the document wanted that to stand out, that is why the first thing noticed at a glance of the document you will see “FREE AND INDEPENDANT STATES” capitalized three times in the document to stand out. South Carolina was also letting it be known in their declaration of Independence, that it was “FREE AND INDEPANDANT STATES” and state rights, that they were declaring independence. The document goes into the history of states rights in America mentions the failure of the federal government in upholding the constitution and its interfering with states rights. South Carolina said if they were to stay in the union the “constitution will then no longer exists, equal rights of the states will be lost” and that the federal government would become its enemy. While slavery is mentioned four or five times, states rights, independent state, and state sovereignty is mentioned sixteen times. States rights are mentioned not in connection with slavery, yet slavery is always mentioned in connection with states rights. Just as southern democrats had been saying for decades in there political party planks, an attack on slavery was an attack on states rights. Just as South Carolina when it first threatened to success was over states rights, that time [1830's] over tariffs, not slavery.
_
“The bottom line, slavery was a issue but not an absolute cause” 
-John C Perry Myths and realities of American Slavery 

“States rights dogma...produced secession and the confederacy”
-E Merton Coulter The Confederate States of America Louisiana State University press 

_States rights were so important to southerners it became a name, a Brigade general in the confederate army's name was “States Rights Gist.” The town Phillippi Virginia, was named after states rights advocate Supreme court justice Phillip Pendleton Barbour. In the 1820's Georgia armed solders against the federal government over states rights regarding land in Georgia [non slavery issues] and president Adams backed down. States rights was originally used by southerners rejecting federal tariff in the 1830's. The song titled “Bonnie blue flag” some say was more popular than Dixie at the time of the civil war, in it the lyrics speak of southern rights being threatened by northern  treachery. The original southern secession movement in the 1820's-30's by founders like Jefferson, Madison, Charles Pickney, John Randalf _

“Gained strength not on the question of slavery. But on constitutional questions....expansion of federal power and over states rights” 
-Robert Wiliima Fogel The Rise and Fall of American Slavery


_Most important, southerners knew consolidation of power in a central government would be Americas worst nightmare and the destruction of republican government. _

"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." --Thomas Jefferson 

[states rights] “was the fundamental issue of the most bloody war in which Americans were involved”
-Clyde Wilson Nullification Reclaiming Consent of the Governed 

_*Abolitionist Ignored the Constitution to try and Abolish Slavery* _

“By focusing upon slavery, the bona fide story of the death of real states rights and the beginning of imperial america is overlooked...we stand naked before the awesome power to our federal master”
-Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy Lincolns Marxists 

_The north was by and large for keeping the original continual republic of America from its foundation. However some were influenced by various abolitionist works of fiction like Uncle Toms cabin. Because of this They came to view southern slavery as a great moral evil and a biblical sin. Slavery was a vast enough evil in there eyes that the constitution, and state sovereignty had to be overlooked. Speaking of the constitution a famous abolitionist said _

“Covenant with death and an agreement with hell”
-William Lloyd Garrison 

_The sinful slave owning south had to end. The north was also more influenced by the federalist party, with a more centralized view of government. The south who had first hand knowledge of American servitude saw the vast majority as being beneficial to the native African, elevating his position from slavery in Africa. They saw the slaves well treated and cared for. The majority did not see slavery as a great morale evil or a biblical sin. They viewed the northern abolitionist movement more from a political viewpoint._

“ When abolition overthrow slavery in the south, it also would equally overthrow the constitution”
-R.L Dabney 1867 A Defense of Virginia and the South 

_*
Fight to Maintain Slavery? Or put Down Arms to Maintain Slavery?*_

“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
-Confederate Major General John B. Gordon Causes of the Civil War

_If the south fought only for slavery, with no connection to states rights, it only had to not fight the war. Slavery was protected and not under attack by Lincoln in the states it already existed. At any time as Lincoln promised, the south just had to lay down arms and come back into the union with slavery intact, yet they chose to fight for another cause._

“The emancipation proclamation was actually an offer permitting the south to stop fighting and return to the union by January 1st and still keep its slaves”
-John Canaan The Peninsula campaign 

“We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded.” -Moses Jacob Ezekiel 

_Virginia alone freed more slaves prior to civil war than NY, NJ, Pennsylvania,and New England put together. South Carolinian Mary Chestnut said slavery was a curse, yet she supported secession. She and others hoped the war would end with a “Great independent country with no slavery.” On June 1861 Mary Chestnut said “Slavery has got to go of course.”

----------


## 1stvermont

*At jmdrake 


The Upper South 

*_“Upper south, which had cried equally against coercion as succession”
-E Merton Coulter The Confederate States of America Louisiana State university Press 

_There were really two major successions from the union. The original seven “Cotton states” [AL, MS,TX,SC,FL,GA,LA] and later the upper south secession of [VA, NC, TENN, ARK, Pro south MO, KY]. The upper south states of VA,NC,Tenn and Ark alone had a larger free population than the deep south representing the majority. There was a difference in general between the The original seven seceding “cotton states” of the deep south, and of the remaining upper southern states. When historians and textbooks talk of the reasons for secession, they almost unanimous point to the cotton states and sadly, the upper south is almost always unrepresented._

“The states of the deep south might have left the union because of slavery, but the upper south...did not...Lincoln waged war in order to create a consolidated, centralized state or empire. The south seceded for numerous reasons, but perhaps the most important one was that it wanted no part in such a system”
-Thomas j Dilorenzo The Real Lincoln 

_*Lincolns Call For Volunteers/ Self Government/ State Sovereignty* _

“The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.-the one for liberty in the union of the States, the other for liberty in the independence of the States.”
-John B Gordon Confederate General Reminiscences of the Civil War  

_The single most important event that caused the upper south to join the confederacy was Lincolns call for volunteers to “suppress” the seven cotton states of the confederacy. Lincoln spoke loud by his actions when he called for volunteers to invade the confederacy of the deep south. His opinion was not that America was a collection of sovereign self governing States joined in a voluntary union by a constitution, but a centralized nation or empire. He made it very clear the deep south could not self govern themselves but were subject to their master the federal government. Lincoln in his inaugural address stated the union created the states, not the states ratifying the union [a very blatant rewrite of history] thus the power and authority lay with the federal government. _

“Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States...The creature has been exalted above its creators; the principals have been made subordinate to the agent appointed by themselves.”
-Jefferson Davis Message to confederate Congress April 29, 1861 

_The upper south and many in the north for example saw Lincolns call for volunteers against the cotton states as a major violation of the constitution, a violation of those states sovereignty and a main cause for secession. For example_

“opposing secession changes the nature of government from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism were one part of the people are slaves”
-New York Journal of commerce 1/12/61

“The great principles embodied by Jefferson in the declaration is... that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” Therefore if the southern states wish to secede, “they have a clear right to do so”
-New York tribune 2/5/61 

Secession is “the very germ of liberty...the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state”
-Kenosha Wisconsin Democrat 1/11/61 

“the leading and most influncial papers of the union believe that any state of the union has a right to secede”
-Davenport Iowa Democrat and news 11/17/60 

_The southern states and most in the north saw themselves as a collection of sovereign states joined by a contract [The constitution] and if that contract was violated or not upheld, it could and should be discarded. When the southern states felt there contract was violated by the federal government, they felt they had every right to leave. Most both north and south felt no war would come from what was seen by many as a legal right to secession by sovereign states. To the upper south this was a war of self government of sovereign states vs a federal government that was willing to use military force to control its populous by forcing the states to stay in the union. We would no longer be a self governing populous and collection of states, but a nation controlled by a powerful centralized federal government. 
_
"What we call liberty our founders called bondage...we have not freed the slaves we have extended the plantation, know, we are all slaves" 
-Peter Marshall JR The Great War Debate

The war “Destroyed voluntary union of the founders and mad all Americans servants rather than masters of their own government”
-Thomas Dilorenzo author of The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked

_This also confirmed many southerners fear that Lincoln and the “radical” republicans would drastically transform the American republic. This is why many in the south saw the American civil war as their second war for independence._ 

“Southerners would have told you they were fighting for self government. They believed the gathering of power in Washington was against them… When they entered into that Federation they certainly would never have entered into it if they hadn’t believed it would be possible to get out. And when the time came that they wanted to get out, they thought they had every right”
-Historian Shelby Foote 

_Some in the north recognized that this war was one of self governing states vs a controlling central federal government. Before being deported by Lincoln, A northern politician saw Lincolns war and purpose of the war as to_

“Overthrow the present form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead...national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation . . . No more state lines, no more state governments,but a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism.” later saying “instead of crushing out the rebellion,” the “effort has been to crush out the spirit of liberty” in the Northern states. 
-Northern Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham D-Ohio spoke of the Reason for Lincolns war 1863 

_Each of the upper south states made it clear by their actions and words that Lincolns call for volunteers, state sovereignty, and self government, were the major cause of secession. Slavery was at this time equally protected weather these states joined the union, or the confederacy, in fact as we will see later, more so had they joined the north.
_
“The Majority sentiment in the upper south had been unionist until Lincolns call for troops”
-E. merton Coulter The confederate States of America Louisiana State University Press

_*Arkansas Declaration*_ 

“[upper south]Forced to chose between Lincolns demand and what they believed to be morally correct and Honorable..seceded as well”
-Brevin Alexander Historian Professor of History at Longwood University

_“This convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas”_

“The people of this commonwealth are free men not slaves, and will defend to the last extremity, their honor, lives, and property, against northern mendacity and usurpation”
-Arkansas Governor Henry Rector Response to Lincolns call for Volunteers 

_Before Lincolns call for volunteers the people of Arkansas voted to stay in the union by a vote of 23,600 to 17,900. Than on March 4 1861 the Arkansas convention voted 40-35 to stay in the union with the president of the convention a unionist. On May 6th 1861 After Fort Sumtner and Lincolns call for men, Arkansas regathered this time only 5 votes went against secession, 4 of them would relent and join in succession in a short time. The before and after votes, as well as the Arkansas declaration for secession give the clear reasons for joining the confederacy.

*Tennessee* _

“Tennessee will not Furnish a man for purposes of coercion, but 50,000 if necessary for the defense of our rights, and those of our southern brothers” 
-Tennessee Governor Isham Harris Response to Lincoln Calling on Tennessee for aid to Suppress the Rebellion in the Cotton States 

_On February the 9th the same day that Mississippi left the union, Tennessee voters turned down secession by a 4-1 margin. However after Lincolns call to volunteers Governor Isham Harris wrote President Lincoln saying if the federal government was going to “coerce” the seceded states into returning, Tennessee had no choice but to join its Southern neighbors. Harris recalled the Tennessee legislature on May 6 for another vote this time to join the confederacy. Than on June 8 voters approved the measure by a 2-1 margin.

*Virginia* _

“The principle now in contest between north and south is simply that of state sovereignty”
Richmond Examiner Sep 11 1862 

“A union that can be only maintained by swords and bayonets... has no charm for me”
-Robert E Lee 

_Before Lincolns call for volunteers with slavery equally safe in the north or south, the slave state of Virginia on April 4th 1861 voted by a 2-1 margin to stay in the union. After Lincolns call for volunteers Virginia gathered again and by a vote of 126,000 to 20,400 Virginia left the union. In the minds of Virginians, that reason was Lincolns call to volunteers and the violation of state sovereignty. Virginia did not give a lengthy declaration of why it left the union [The voting showed already] just a short ordinance of secession._

“the Constitution of the United States has invested Congress with the sole power "to declare war," and until such declaration is made, the President has no authority to call for an extraordinary force to wage offensive war against any foreign Power: and whereas, on the 15th inst., the President of the United States, in plain violation of the Constitution, issued a proclamation calling for a force of seventy-five thousand men, to cause the laws of the United states to be duly executed over a people who are no longer a part of the Union, and in said proclamation threatens to exert this unusual force to compel obedience to his mandates; and whereas, the General Assembly of Virginia, by a majority approaching to entire unanimity, declared at its last session that the State of Virginia would consider such an exertion of force as a virtual declaration of war, to be resisted by all the power at the command of Virginia; and subsequently the Convention now in session, representing the sovereignty of this State, has reaffirmed in substance the same policy, with almost equal unanimity; and whereas, the State of Virginia deeply sympathizes with the Southern States in the wrongs they have suffered, and in the position they have assumed; and having made earnest efforts peaceably to compose the differences which have severed the Union, and having failed in that attempt, through this unwarranted act on the part of the President; and it is believed that the influences which operate to produce this proclamation against the seceded States will be brought to bear upon this commonwealth, if she should exercise her undoubted right to resume the powers granted by her people, and it is due to the honor of Virginia that an improper exercise of force against her people should be repelled. Therefore I, JOHN LETCHER, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, have thought proper to order all armed volunteer regiments or companies within this State forthwith to hold themselves in readiness for immediate orders, and upon the reception of this proclamation to report to the Adjutant-General of the State their organization and numbers, and prepare themselves for efficient service. Such companies as are not armed and equipped will report that fact, that they may be properly supplied.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Commonwealth to be affixed, this 17th day of April, 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the Commonwealth.
Governor of Virginia JOHN LETCHER”. 
http://www.nytimes.com/1861/04/22/n....s-norfolk.html

_Virginia ordinance of secession “Declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States” [Cotton States the original succession states] _

“It was not for slavery that she [Virginia] deliberately resolved to draw the sword...but for this cornerstone [States Sovereignty] of all constitutional liberty north and south”
-R.L Dabney 1867 A Defense of Virginia and the South


_*Kentucky 

*Kentucky originally acted on its sovereignty and remained neutral, however events forced it to join the war. The official Kentucky government was pro north by about about a 3-1 margin but chose to keep its neutrality. However there was gaining support for the south When Lincoln called for volunteers. The Kentucky Governor wrote "President Lincoln, I will send not a man nor a dollar for the wicked purpose of subduing my sister southern states.” Later neutrality would be violated by southern troops and the state would join the union, however a pro south Kentucky government was set up and was accepted by Jeff Davis into the confederacy on December the 10th as the 13th confederate state. States rights was the main cause for the pro south Kentucky government reason for secession.

*Kentucky Declaration For Leaving The Union

*“Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and  Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government: Therefore, .... because we may choose to take part in a cause for civil liberty and constitutional government against a sectional majority waging war against the people and institutions of fifteen independent States of the old Federal Union, and have done all these things deliberately against the warnings and vetoes of the Governor and the solemn remonstrances of the minority in the Senate and House of Representatives: Therefore, .....have a right to establish any government which to them may seem best adapted to the preservation of their rights and liberties.”

*North Carolina*_

North Carolina will “Be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people”
-North Carolina Governor John Ellis 

_Having previously turned down even voting on secession, North Carolina responded to Lincolns call for volunteers by than unanimously adopted a secession ordinance, showing the impact it had on the state._

“Lincoln has made a call for 75,000 men to be employed for the invasion of the peaceful homes of the South, and for the violent subversion of the liberties of a free people.. whereas, this high-handed act of tyrannical outrage is not only in violation of all constitutional law, in utter disregard of every sentiment of humanity and Christian civilization, and conceived in a spirit of aggression unparalleled by any act of recorded history, but is a direct step towards the subjugation of the whole South, and the conversion of a free Republic, inherited from our fathers, into a military despotism, to be established by worse than foreign enemies on the ruins of our once glorious Constitution of Equal Rights.Now, therefore, I, John W. Ellis, Governor of the State of North-Carolina, for these extraordinary causes, do hereby issue this, my Proclamation, notifying and requesting the Senators and Members of the House of Commons of the General Assembly of North-Carolina, to meet in Special Session at the Capitol, in the City of Raleigh, on Wednesday, the first day of May next. And I furthermore exhort all good citizens throughout the State to be mindful that their first allegiance is due to the Sovereignty which protects their homes and dearest interests, as their first sevice is due for the sacred defence of their hearths, and of the soil which holds the graves of our glorious dead.United action in defence of the sovereignty of North-Carolina and of the rights of the South, becomes now the duty of all.the 17th Day of April, A. D., 1861, and in the eight-fifth year of our independence.
JOHN W. ELLIS
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/multimedia/6542


_*Missouri* _

“Your requisition is illegal, unconstitutional, revolutionary, inhuman, diabolical, and cannot be complied with”
-Missouri Governor Jackson Response to Lincolns call for Volunteers 

_The slave state of Missouri was almost universally pro union. When the south sent delegates to try and convince the state to join the south, they were booed and jeered so that the CSA delegate could not even be heard. On March 21 1861 the Missouri convention voted 98-1 against secession, but in its sovereignty, kept its neutrality. Later many in the state became angry and felt their state sovereignty was violated during the “Camp Jackson Affair” with General Lyon capturing the arsenal in St Louis and when union soldiers opened fire on civilians and pro confederates killing dozens. Many felt the federal government was violating the states neutral position and support for secession grew rapid in the state. Lyon would than push the official Governor and state legislature out of Jefferson city._

“The events in St Louis pushed many conditional unionist into the ranks of secessionist” 
-James McPherson Battle Cry of Freedom 

_This led to a end to neutrality and both a pro confederate and pro union government in the state. Missouri was accepted on November 28th as the 12th confederate state. Pro south Missouri reasons for secession, centered around constitutional violations of the Lincoln administration. 

*Missouri Declaration For leaving The Union 

*“Has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore, Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth.” 

*Preserving America Constitutional Republic* _

“The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. With complete sincerity the South fought to preserve its version of the republic of the Founding Fathers--a government of limited powers"
-James M. McPherson Ante-bellum Southern Exceptionalism

“The war was over the nature of the union”
-Clyde Wilson professor of History University of South Carolina 

“State sovereignty died at Appomattox”
-Supreme Court Justice Salmon P Chase 1864-73

"All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
 -Gen. Robert E. Lee Quoted in The enduring Relevance of Robert E Lee 

_Lincoln and the republican party had set out to transform the union from a confederation of sovereign states, to a centralized nation controlled by the federal government. Lincoln also sought to expand the central government far beyond the scope of what was intended by the founders. He was dedicated to higher tariffs, centralization, national bank, internal improvements, vast expansion of the central government, and an overall disregard for the 9th/10th amendments and state sovereignty._

“When the South raised its sword against the Union’s Flag, it was in defense of the Union’s Constitution.”
-Confederate General John B. Gordon

“Southerners persistently claim that their rebellion is for the purpose of preserving this form of government”
-Private John Harper 17 Maine regiment 

_It was commonly believed in the south, that it was the north that should secede. As Henry Wise of Virginia said “Logically the union belongs to those who have kept, not those who have broken, its covenants...the north should do the seceding for the south represented more truly the nation which the federal government had set up in 1789.” They saw the growing majority of the north interfering with their culture within their states and violating the constitution. They feared democracy would rule and mod rule would take over America. So they wished to restore America to its original Constitution republic of confederated states as originally created to safeguard individuals liberty from mob rule and democracy. As president pierce said in 1855 “the power is in states alone.”_

“I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”
-Confederate President Jefferson Davis 

“If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity.”
-The Vice-President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens 

“If they (the North) prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God...They are now fighting the battle of despotism. They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions; The future fortunes of our children, and of this continent, would then be determined by a tyranny which has no parallel in history.”
-Dr. James Henly Thornwell of South Carolina 

“States are sovereign, there was a time when none denied it”
-Jefferson Davis Farewell speech to senate 

“It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all.  Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for.  It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”  
-Confederate General Patrick Claiborne 1864 


_*Slavery's Impact on the Upper South*_

“Secessionists were well aware that slavery was under no immediate threat within the Union. Indeed, some anti-secessionists, especially those with the largest investment in slave property, argued that slavery was safer under the Union than in a new experiment in government.” 
-Clyde Wilson distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina  

“The condition of slavery in the several states would remain just the same weather it [the rebellion] succeeds or fails”
-Secretary Seward to US Ambassador to France 

_With slavery equally protected north or south and even more so in the north, the upper south states of VA, NC, TENN, ARK, KY, MO makes it hard to conclude slavery had much or anything to do with their reasons for leaving. When the original deep south states left the union, there were more slaves and more slave states remaining in the union, than within the newly formed confederacy. Most upper south state declarations did not even mention slavery or only in passing, and that usually associated with violations of states rights or the constitution. But they heavily spoke on states rights, states sovereignty and Lincolns call for volunteers as the reason for secession. Those states chose to stay with the union before Lincolns call for volunteers, that they saw as a massive violation of state sovereignty. _

“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.”
-Robert E Lee 1870 

_*Slavery was Safer in the Union Than the Confederacy* _

“It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their Independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”
-Woodrow Wilson, “A History of The American People”

“Howard county [MO] is true to the union” “our slaveholders think it is the sure bulwark of our slave property”
-Abeil Lenord Whig party leader at the onset of the war

_Slavery in fact was safer in the union than had the confederacy been allowed to form. Slavery was in both the northern and southerner states for the entire civil war. It was constitutionally protected, Lincoln and the north supported the Corwin amendment that would have protected slavery forever in the the U.S constitution. _

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof[ slavery], including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
-Corwin Amendment 

_The united states supreme court had ruled in favor of the fugitive slave laws and the use of federal agents to return runaway slaves to their masters. A confederacy would have no protection for runaways north. Slavery was as secure as it had ever been for those southern slave states. Lincoln and the north did not invade the south to end slavery. Lincoln had no problem with the upper south slave states in the union such as Virginia as he called for volunteers to attack the deep south to repress the rebellion [not slavery]. The 1860 republican platform plank 4 said slavery was a state issue and they would not interfere with slavery. Lincoln also said the states had the right to chose on slavery and he would not interfere with slavery._

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere Untitled with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so” 
-Abraham Lincoln Inaugural address 

_After the deep south left the union the federal government decided it would not end slavery in the house on Feb 1861 and senate march 2 1861. On July 22 1861 congress declared “This war is not waged , nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions [slavery] of those states.” October 8th 1861 the newspaper Washington D.C National Intelligence said “The existing war had no direct relation to slavery.”_

“Seven-tenths of our people owned no slaves at all, and to say the least of it, felt no great and enduring enthusiasm for its [slavery’s] preservation, especially when it seemed to them that it was in no danger.’ ” 
-John G. Barrett, The Civil War in North Carolina, p. 3 

_*Fight to Maintain Slavery? Or put Down Arms to Maintain Slavery?*_

“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
-Confederate Major General John B. Gordon Causes of the Civil War

_If the south fought only for slavery,it only had to not fight the war. Slavery was protected and not under attack by Lincoln in the states it already existed. At any time as Lincoln promised, the south just had to lay down arms and come back into the union with slavery intact, yet they chose to fight for another cause._

“The emancipation proclamation was actually an offer permitting the south to stop fighting and return to the union by January 1st and still keep its slaves”
-John Canaan The Peninsula campaign 

“We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded.” 
-Moses Jacob Ezekiel 

_Virginia alone freed more slaves prior to civil war than NY, NJ, Pennsylvania,and New England put together. South Carolinian Mary Chestnut said slavery was a curse, yet she supported secession. She and others hoped the war would end with a “Great independent country with no slavery.” On June 1861 Mary Chestnut said “Slavery has got to go of course.”

*Jefferson Davis CSA President/ Abraham Lincoln USA President* _

“The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.”
-President Jefferson Davis, CSA

_It is interesting that both the CSA and USA presidents would agree that the war was not over slavery. Yet today we are told slavery was the sole cause of the war. In Jefferson Davis's farewell address to the US congress, his inaugural address in Montgomery as confederate president and second inaugural in Richmond, he explained liberty, states rights, tariffs and the founders were the main reason for states leaving the union. Jefferson barley mention slavery and only in passing in just one of the three important speeches. The south was leaving because Davis said the north fell to simple majority [Democracy not constitutional republic] what Davis called the “Tyranny of unbridled majority.” Near the end of the war Jefferson Davis sent a diplomat to both France and England to try and convince them to recognize the confederacy offering the confederacy would abolish slavery, yet keep their country. Instead what we are told to focus on is not the CSA presidents important speeches, but a speech by vice president Stevens as the sole cause for southern secession. Few things Jeff Davis and Abraham Lincoln would agree upon, but one is the war was not over slavery._

“So long as I am president . It shall be carried on for the sole purpose of restoring the union”
-Abraham Lincoln Aug 15 1864 

_*Europe's Opinion*_

“[T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”
-London Times, November 7, 1861 

“I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy.” 
-British Lord Action Correspondence with Robert E Lee 

_The vast majority in Europe at the time of the civil war believed the war was not over slavery but either tariffs or states rights. In the book The glittering illusion: English sympathy for the Southern Confederacy _
[http://www.amazon.com/Glittering-Ill...dp/0895265524] 

_its shows how the majority of lay people in England supported the confederacy and believed the war was not over slavery. Englishman Sir John Dalberacton convinced many in England to feel sympathy for the CSA because he said they were fighting a tyrannical government and defending states rights. English statesman Richard Cobden pointed out in December 1861, the British “are unani-mous and fanatical”; that subject was free trade.

*Confederate Soldiers


*The confederate solder “Fought because he was provoked, intimidated, and ultimately invaded” 
-James Webb Born Fighting a History of the Scoth-Irish in America 
_
“To tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age”.
-James Webb-Secretary of Navy And Assistant Secretary of Defense 

_To think the southern armies were full of non slave owning soldiers leaving their families and risking there lives so a few rich slave owners could keep there slaves is ridiculous. 80% of southern soldiers did not own slaves. In every major battle there were slave owning union soldiers fighting for the north, and non slave owning southern soldiers fighting for the south. In the book What They Fought For, 1861–1865 by James McPherson reported on his reading of hundreds of letters and diaries written by soldiers on both sides of the war on the question of what they believed they were fighting for. McPherson concluded that nearly all Confederate soldiers believed they “fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government.”As one Illinois officer explained, “We are fighting for the Union . . . a high and noble sentiment, but after all a sentiment. They are fighting for independence, and are animated by passion and hatred against invaders” “The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self-government and with expressions of a willingness to die for the cause.” An Alabamian solider wrote “When a Southerner homes is threatened the spirit of resistance is irresistible.” _

“Southerners also fought for abstracts- state sovereignty, the right of secession, the constitution as they interpreted it, the concept of a southern nation different from the American nation whose values had been corrupted by Yankees”
-James McPherson Battle Cry of freedom 

“The south was fighting for independence, the north to restore the union...young southerners rushed to arms to defend home and family while like their revolutionary grandfathers- seeking a new Independence ”
-James Robertson The Untold civil War Exploring The Human Side Of War National geographic

_In The Confederate war by Gary W Gallagher he quotes multiple soldiers letters home as saying the reason they were fighting was because of what they saw as northern tyranny, oppression and northern invasion. In the book the common solider of the civil war, The average southern soldiers diaries and letters to home barley even mentioned slavery, much less as a reason for fighting. It was because they were defending their homes and families and country, a few said because of power of government. Thousands of Californians [non slave owning state] volunteered for the confederacy. New jersey supplied at least two confederate generals. The confederate soldiers flags mottos talked of liberty, justice, freedom, and god, not of slavery as reason to fight. _

“Believe me no solider on either side gave a damn about slaves, they were fighting for other reasons entirely in their minds. Southerns thought they were fighting the second American revolution norther's thought they were fighting to hold the union together [With a few abolitionist and fire eaters on both sides].”
-Historian Shelby Foote 

“I was fighting for my home, and he had no business being there”
-Virginia confederate Solider Frank Potts

_

----------


## oyarde

Kentucky was really never in play as people would like to believe . There were actually less anti war on the south politicians in Ky that there was in Indiana , Illinois and NY.

----------


## oyarde

Kentucky had nearly as many dead and mortally wounded in battle Northern serving troops ( 2478) as New Jersey ( 2578) .

----------


## Pericles

> I'm not your friend and I'm not misunderstanding states rights.  I agree with Judge Andrew Napolitano and Jack Hunter that the nullification of fugitive slave laws was a proper execution of states rights.


Ordinarily I'd agree with you because you have expressed the more accurate version of events in my view. In this case, the issue is the Constitution does impose a requirement for a state to return a person bound to labor, and that is the difference in the nullification arguments. In the 1830s, the only argument SC had was a poor one - the tariff is too high and we object. That is not good enough as long as tariffs are uniform throughout the US.

----------


## Pericles

What most of this thread really demonstrates is that two issues are conflated in the usual view of the events of 1860 to 1865, in that the belief that secession = civil war. The refusal to accept secession was the cause of the war. The relationship between federal and state power over several issues, slavery, tariffs, and federal administrative law regarding territory not yet a state led to secession.

----------


## otherone

> What most of this thread really demonstrates is that two issues are conflated in the usual view of the events of 1860 to 1865, in that the belief that secession = civil war. The refusal to accept secession was the cause of the war. The relationship between federal and state power over several issues, slavery, tariffs, and federal administrative law regarding territory not yet a state led to secession.


It's the toothier side of beloved democracy.
2/3's being the magic number. Or fraction.  It's what the south was bitching about.  It's what Lincoln claimed prohibited disbanding the Union. Tyranny of the majority, aka freedom.  Increasing the number of states antithetical to southern interests could only marginalize the south more.  The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about power...FEDERAL power.  As long as slavery benefited the federal government, there was no problem.  The four union slaver states are proof of that.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Ordinarily I'd agree with you because you have expressed the more accurate version of events in my view. In this case, the issue is the Constitution does impose a requirement for a state to return a person bound to labor, and that is the difference in the nullification arguments. In the 1830s, the only argument SC had was a poor one - the tariff is too high and we object. That is not good enough as long as tariffs are uniform throughout the US.


Any reason a state has to want to leave is good enough.

----------


## merkelstan

I have yet to finish reading this thread but already, this is the most informative discussion I have ever seen on this subject.

Respect to all ya's.

----------


## oyarde

> What most of this thread really demonstrates is that two issues are conflated in the usual view of the events of 1860 to 1865, in that the belief that secession = civil war. The refusal to accept secession was the cause of the war. The relationship between federal and state power over several issues, slavery, tariffs, and federal administrative law regarding territory not yet a state led to secession.


I think the list of supporters for expansion of slavery into new territories and states  was going to be pretty short and that was more significant than many people realize towards secession.

----------


## oyarde

> I have yet to finish reading this thread but already, this is the most informative discussion I have ever seen on this subject.
> 
> Respect to all ya's.


There was a pretty well established history prior to that time period of canadian , british and british colonies successfully ending slavery which usually revolved around compensation.

----------


## phill4paul

I am reprinting something I read today on FB that I believe sums things up very nicely.




> "I don't have a lot of time this morning to debate this question, but let me offer a proposition or two. First, let's get this question of what the war DID out of the way, so we can move on to a more pertinent concern. 
> 
> "And.They.Lost." True enough, the southern states that had formally left the Union did, in fact, lose on the battlefield. Does that mean that the ideas - all of the ideas, not just one or two - that they fought for were all wrong? Their fight was, ultimately, for the right to secede, was it not? Regardless of how they felt about slavery or minorities or taxes and tariffs and northern infrastructure projects at southern expense or the ascendancy of the Republican Party with the election of Lincoln, had they never attempted to leave the Union Lincoln would not have commenced a war against them. He would never have called for North Carolina to provide troops to "put down the rebellion" if those states hadn't issued ordinances of secession. So the most immediate cause of the war was a dispute over the right of states to leave a federal union. This is a legal question, by its very nature. So allow me to ask, does the use of force settle legal questions? Or does reason and argument and sober judgment settle legal questions? In the Anglo-American legal system (no, that's not racist, it's just a fact) we have courts and counsel and juries for just this very reason, but that was not always the case. At one time, in early legal history, disputes were settled by the two parties fighting it out. Over time, we decided that wasn't conducive to a just outcome, however, so the King established courts of law and instituted juries, and the modern notion of a court proceeding was born. Strength of arms doesn't settle legal questions; reason does. So the assertion that the southern states "lost the war" may be true, but it's a moot point to the question of whether their issues (any of them) had merit - which is really the most pertinent question right now. 
> 
> I'm not going to detail an argument in favor of secession; history speaks for itself on that point. Every single state originally gained its independence from Britain by an act of secession; every single state, independently and of its own accord, broke from the Articles of Confederation by an act of secession, and the Constitution itself, in Article V, postulates this process as the only legitimate means of attaining the requisite consent of the states to make it a valid and legitimate federation. Secession was not only acceptable and proper from the very beginning of our American experiment, but it is an indispensable foundation of legitimate government by consent and self-determination. The legal question of whether states could secede was no question at all; Lincoln manufactured the debate through both fraud and force as a means to propagandize the war into existence. Why? Did he truly believe all people were equal and that the slaves should be freed?? Not at all. His own words belie the fact that he believed blacks were an inferior race and should not be allowed to participate in government, and he openly stated (leading up to and for at least the first two years of the war) that he had no intention of abolishing the institution of slavery where it presently existed. He was no abolitionist, even if the Republican Party had abolitionist members, and the war was not commenced as a crusade to free the slaves. So again, Why? The answer is, Money. Lincoln wanted to force the seceded states back into the Union for the same reason he had no intention of freeing their slaves: those states, precisely because of their agricultural productivity consequent upon the institution of slavery, were the richest states in the union, and were, precisely because of the inequitable federal tariffs and taxes, providing the largest part of the funding for those infrastructure projects that primarily benefitted the industrialized northern states. That's why Lincoln chose to wage an unconstitutional war to overthrow the very foundations of the American federal system of government and force 11 states to remain in a union which they desired to leave. 
> 
> So while there are many primary sources (countless, actually) to choose from in seeking an answer to this question - "Why was the war fought?" - and all of those sources provide important evidence, the story itself is the best explanation. Yes, slavery was AN issue, but it was one among many, and not the most fundamental disagreement which ultimately led to conflict. In a sense, you could say that the dispute over slavery was a symptom of the deeper dispute over federalism vs nationalism. Slavery is wrong; the logical culmination of Jefferson's eloquent prose in the Declaration of Independence clearly leads us to that conclusion and stands as a defense of ALL men (and women) to live in freedom and self-determination. Surely we can see the nuance and subtle details of the times then enough to realize that while the southern states were all slave states (though many northern states were too), and that factor was a part of the decision of many of them (but not of all of them) to leave the Union, they were, nonetheless, fighting ultimately for the right of self-determination of states - the right of individual bodies of people to pursue their own course according to their own will. This was absolutely in line with the Jeffersonian vision of the DoI, and it stood in stark contrast to the Lincolnian vision of an amalgamated nation of one, wherein the peoples of all the states were subordinated to the will of a singular central governmental power in Washington. What Lincoln sought, and what he won through battle, was the overthrow of the Constitution and the inversion of the American legal and political paradigm. The fact that slavery ended was merely incidental to this accomplishment, and only became a serious part of it when it became politically expedient for him to make it a goal of his war. He had no love for the slaves; he had a will to subordinate the south, and its wealth, to the interests of his party, which were entirely northern industrial and banking interests! So if you're looking for the root cause of the war, that's it. 
> 
> And in closing, let me add that if you want to tear down the statues of those who risked and gave their lives for the cause of the Constitution and federalism, then I offer that I am equally (perhaps more so) offended by the absurd monument to Mr. Lincoln that dominates Washington, D.C., and I might demand that we reduce that disgusting figure to a pile of indeterminate rubble, as well. Deal?
> ...

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> _When the Government of the United States disregarded and attempted to trample upon the rights of the States, Georgia set its power at defiance and seceded from the Union rather than submit to the consolidation of all power in the hands of the Central or Federal Government..her sovereignty the principles for the support of which Georgia entered into this revolution.
> -Georgia Governor Joseph E Brown 1862_



This governor was a major critic of Davis' big government policies during the war.


> The sinful slave owning south had to end. The north was also more influenced by the federalist party, with a more centralized view of government. The south who had first hand knowledge of American servitude saw the vast majority as being beneficial to the native African, elevating his position from slavery in Africa. They saw the slaves well treated and cared for. The majority did not see slavery as a great morale evil or a biblical sin. They viewed the northern abolitionist movement more from a political viewpoint.
> 
> _ When abolition overthrow slavery in the south, it also would equally overthrow the constitution
> -R.L Dabney 1867 A Defense of Virginia and the South_


So, secession was over states' rights to keep slaves?  And honestly, I can't figure out what the Republicans were doing that was an attack on states' rights.  Most of them, Lincoln included, weren't even planning on interfering with the institution in the states where it existed.

What scared people about the Republicans is that they wanted to ban slavery from expanding, which would prevent the creation of new slave states.  IIRC they also wanted to ban slavery in DC, which doesn't have the same rights as a state.




> Slavery would have lasted longer in the Union than it could have after Secession.
> The Tariff issue was coming to a head.
> The fundamental reason underlying all the symptoms like slavery and tariffs was that the North was abandoning the limits of the Constitution and actively targeting the South for economic destruction and subjugation by any means at hand, whether that means was violent abolition or tariffs or anything else they could think of, it all started when the southern states paid their own revolutionary war debts and the northern states used the Constitution to make the South help pay for theirs.


Slavery would have lasted for a long time after secession.  The Confederate Constitution explicitly prevented the abolition of slavery.  And even though most Southerners didn't own slaves, the political class did (especially those who popularized secession).  The Civil War was really a war of industrialists against planters.

Slavery's days were numbered in the union.  If Republicans continued to control the White House and Congress, the number of free states would increase and the number of slave states would remain stagnant.  Eventually the Free states would have the necessary votes to end slavery.

I see no evidence that the tariff issue was any more important in 1860 than it was before.  It's not like Lincoln was the first President to support high tariffs anyway.  The Whig Party supported higher tariffs and no one threatened to secede when Whigs were elected President.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> It's the toothier side of beloved democracy.
> 2/3's being the magic number. Or fraction.  It's what the south was bitching about.  It's what Lincoln claimed prohibited disbanding the Union. Tyranny of the majority, aka freedom.  Increasing the number of states antithetical to southern interests could only marginalize the south more.  The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about power...FEDERAL power.  As long as slavery benefited the federal government, there was no problem.  *The four union slaver states are proof of that.*


Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey.  These are the states that had slavery but remained in the union.

Kentucky had a sizable pro-Confederate minority, probably more than any other union state.  But, slavery wasn't nearly as important to Kentucky as it was to the other slave states.

Missouri had a strong pro-Confederate movement including IIRC the state government.  However, Missouri had many anti-slavery residents as well, and even elected a Republican US Representative.  In the end, popular sentiment was overwhelmingly pro-union.

Maryland had its fair share of Confederate sympathizers.  In fact, Lincoln was worried that Maryland, or at least parts of the state, might join the CSA.

Delaware had very few slaves and was one vote away in the state legislature from abolishing slavery in 1847.

New Jersey had somewhere around a dozen elderly slaves who were born before that state passed a free womb law in the first decade of the 19th century.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> This governor was a major critic of Davis' big government policies during the war.
> 
> So, secession was over states' rights to keep slaves?  And honestly, I can't figure out what the Republicans were doing that was an attack on states' rights.  Most of them, Lincoln included, weren't even planning on interfering with the institution in the states where it existed.
> 
> What scared people about the Republicans is that they wanted to ban slavery from expanding, which would prevent the creation of new slave states.  IIRC they also wanted to ban slavery in DC, which doesn't have the same rights as a state.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery would have lasted for a long time after secession.  The Confederate Constitution explicitly prevented the abolition of slavery.  And even though most Southerners didn't own slaves, the political class did (especially those who popularized secession).  The Civil War was really a war of industrialists against planters.
> ...


Republicans passed an amendment to protect slavery, they also passed a huge tariff.

 Secession guaranteed that the south could not require the return of runaway slaves, there would also be no new slave states.

The Confederate Constitution forbade the abolition of slavery only to the national government, it was to be a state issue.

Lincoln and the Republicans were an issue where the Whigs were not because they openly declared their contempt for the Constitution.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Republicans passed an amendment to protect slavery, they also passed a huge tariff.


They only passed that amendment to try to appease secessionists.  And they hadn't even passed the tariff yet when the Deep South seceded.




> Secession guaranteed that the south could not require the return of runaway slaves, there would also be no new slave states.


Remaining in the Union under Republican rule would lead to the same thing.




> The Confederate Constitution forbade the abolition of slavery only to the national government, it was to be a state issue.


Regardless, the American Constitution never prohibited banning slavery at the national level.




> Lincoln and the Republicans were an issue where the Whigs were not because they openly declared their contempt for the Constitution.


When?  I've read all the platforms of the four candidates running in 1860.  I can't find anything unconstitutional.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> They only passed that amendment to try to appease secessionists.  And they hadn't even passed the tariff yet when the Deep South seceded.


The appeasement didn't work because the other motives for secession were more important, and the tariff was working it's way through congress before secession.






> Remaining in the Union under Republican rule would lead to the same thing.


But not as quickly, in any case slavery was doomed one way or the other, so the other motives made the difference in whether or not to secede.






> Regardless, the American Constitution never prohibited banning slavery at the national level.


It never gave the federal government the power and it prohibited it any power it was not given.






> When?  I've read all the platforms of the four candidates running in 1860.  I can't find anything unconstitutional.


*Was Lincoln a Marxist?*


> *REPUBLICAN              PARTY, RED FROM THE START* 
>             by Alan Stang
>             February 1, 2008
>             NewsWithViews.com 
> 
> Many              patriots  these days lament that the Republican Party has "lost its               way" and "gone wrong." It has "diverged" from the fiscally responsible,               small government philosophy of Republican heroes like  Robert Taft              whom Eisenhower's handlers finagled out of the  nomination for President              in 1952. We are told that is why  today's Republican Establishment              hates Dr. Ron Paul with  such a passion; that they hate him because,              like Taft, he  is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that              are  mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates               Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream  Republican,              that his platform of freedom is an aberration.  The Republican Party              didn't "go wrong," didn't "go left."  
> 
> It              has been wrong from  the beginning, from the day it was founded. From              the  beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for               bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars,               for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the  Republican Party              has been Red.  
> 
> ...



I can't find any sources right now but the Republican party was full of politicians who supported all sorts of unconstitutional things, the kinds of things they set about enacting during and after the war.

----------


## 1stvermont

> This governor was a major critic of Davis' big government policies during the war.
> 
> So, secession was over states' rights to keep slaves?  And honestly, I can't figure out what the Republicans were doing that was an attack on states' rights.  Most of them, Lincoln included, weren't even planning on interfering with the institution in the states where it existed.
> 
> What scared people about the Republicans is that they wanted to ban slavery from expanding, which would prevent the creation of new slave states.  IIRC they also wanted to ban slavery in DC, which doesn't have the same rights as a state.
> .


Please reread, secession of the upper south was to keep state sovereignty and preserving the union, it had nothing to do with slavery. What sacred people about the republicans was their ideas to transform america into a big government centralized nation. 



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-Civil-war






> Slavery would have lasted for a long time after secession.  The Confederate Constitution explicitly prevented the abolition of slavery.  And even though most Southerners didn't own slaves, the political class did (especially those who popularized secession).  The Civil War was really a war of industrialists against planters.


the csa Constitution outlawed federal abolition,* not state*, just as the us Constitution had. States could abolish slavery. 

“_Itwas clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goalof the new converts to secessionist was not to establish aslaveholders reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was tocreate the union as it had been before the rise of the new Republicanparty”_
_-RobertDivine T.H Bren George Fredrickson and R Williams America Past andPresent_


Manysay the south was not fighting for states rights but slavery, becausethey falsely say the CSA constitution  did not allow states to endslavery.  Freeing slaves was a state issue in the CSAconstitution article 1 section 9 clause 4 *applies to congress* notto the sovereign states. This was in fact anticipating non slavestates to join the confederacy. Article4 section 2 clause 1 and article 4 section 3 clause 1 predictedfuture free states within the confederacy. As many in theconfederacy  including  VP Stevens thought, that the non slaveholding upper Midwest would join the confederacy because of the  taxand trade laws that would compel states connected to the Mississippiriver to join the confederacy as non slave states. TheCSA constitution  did protect slave owners property within the entireCSA regardless if the state was free or slave. During theconstitutional convention Cobb of Georgia proposed that all states berequired to be slave owning, yet this was rejected. The south wantedboarder states and the free midwest states to join. Senator AlbertBrown of Mississippi stated in the CSA constitution “Each state issovereign within its own limits, and that each for itself can abolishor establish slavery for itself.” Sowhile slavery was a state option, states rights was applied in theCSA slave or free.







> Slavery's days were numbered in the union.  If Republicans continued to control the White House and Congress, the number of free states would increase and the number of slave states would remain stagnant.  Eventually the Free states would have the necessary votes to end slavery.


something theyy said they would not do, nor had the constitutional  powers to do. 





> I see no evidence that the tariff issue was any more important in 1860 than it was before.  It's not like Lincoln was the first President to support high tariffs anyway.  The Whig Party supported higher tariffs and no one threatened to secede when Whigs were elected President.



The Morrill Tariff Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, on a sectional vote, with nearly all northern representatives in support and nearly all southern representatives in opposition. With the election of Abraham Lincoln whose central campaign objective was to triple the tariff. Tariff was the “keystone” of the republican party “protection for home industry” was the campaign poster of the 1860 republican party. South Carolina did what it had done decades before, and seceded from the Union over the higher tariff rates soon to be imposed on the south by the north. It was not just the south, NYC mayor Fernando Wood wanted to make NYC a “free city” [free trade] and secede from the Union. The debate over tariffs and internal improvements was not just a debate over those items, but a debate over the nature of the federal government. Free trade was a vital aspect of southern agrarian interests.

_“The south was being asked to pay to strengthen northern industry...the tariff would directly damage southern pocketbooks. This conflict played a important role in the division north vs south”
-Brevin Alexander Professor of History at Longwood University_

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> The appeasement didn't work because the other motives for secession were more important, and the tariff was working it's way through congress before secession.


 So why didn't they work to fight the tariff?  At least try to filibuster in the Senate?  Why is it that the Tariff of Abominations (which was higher IIRC) only led to talk of secession in a few states, while the mere threat of a tariff.  The tariff, by the way, was signed into law during the lame-duck term of James Buchanan only after Southern Congressmen left.  So to me it seems like a stretch to say that the tariff was the cause of secession.  I'm sure that for some people it was a factor in why they supported secession, but I have a hard time believing it was the impetus behind secession.  The Confederacy passed its own tariffs, too.




> But not as quickly, in any case slavery was doomed one way or the other, so the other motives made the difference in whether or not to secede.


I've never bought the whole argument that slavery couldn't survive into the 20th century.  It was still extremely profitable in 1860.  Over one million slaves were imported to Brazil during the 19th century, even after their involvement in the trade became illegal.

The CSA would get rid of slavery at some point, but there was hardly anyone in any position of power in the states that seceded who had the will to oppose the planters.




> It never gave the federal government the power and it prohibited it any power it was not given.


Do you consider the 13th Amendment to be a violation of states' rights?




> I can't find any sources right now but the Republican party was full of politicians who supported all sorts of unconstitutional things, the kinds of things they set about enacting during and after the war.


I won't deny that the Union did terrible things during the war, I have never denied this and I am not here to defend the union.  But people would have no way of knowing what Lincoln was going to do as President beyond what his party was known for.  Voters could probably expect two things from a Republican administration; protectionism and the containment of slavery.

That source, while I'm sure is probably well-researched, has some problems.  The author seems to have a hysterical hatred for northerners, maybe he's some reverse William Sherman?  The Confederates were responsible for their own war crimes as well, including the execution of black union soldiers and the wretched treatment of POWs at Andersonville.  Not every Rebel general was like Lee or Jackson.




> Please reread, secession of the upper south was to keep state sovereignty and preserving the union, it had nothing to do with slavery. What sacred people about the republicans was their ideas to transform america into a big government centralized nation.


I understand that states' rights was an issue, but the states' rights to do what?  Everything I read says "slavery."




> the csa Constitution outlawed federal abolition,* not state*, just as the us Constitution had. States could abolish slavery.


The US Constitution didn't outlaw federal abolition.  And thus in 1865, slavery became illegal nationwide.




> “_Itwas clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goalof the new converts to secessionist was not to establish aslaveholders reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was tocreate the union as it had been before the rise of the new Republicanparty”_
> _-RobertDivine T.H Bren George Fredrickson and R Williams America Past andPresent_
> 
> 
> Manysay the south was not fighting for states rights but slavery, becausethey falsely say the CSA constitution  did not allow states to endslavery.  Freeing slaves was a state issue in the CSAconstitution article 1 section 9 clause 4 *applies to congress* notto the sovereign states. This was in fact anticipating non slavestates to join the confederacy. Article4 section 2 clause 1 and article 4 section 3 clause 1 predictedfuture free states within the confederacy. As many in theconfederacy  including  VP Stevens thought, that the non slaveholding upper Midwest would join the confederacy because of the  taxand trade laws that would compel states connected to the Mississippiriver to join the confederacy as non slave states. TheCSA constitution  did protect slave owners property within the entireCSA regardless if the state was free or slave. During theconstitutional convention Cobb of Georgia proposed that all states berequired to be slave owning, yet this was rejected. The south wantedboarder states and the free midwest states to join. Senator AlbertBrown of Mississippi stated in the CSA constitution “Each state issovereign within its own limits, and that each for itself can abolishor establish slavery for itself.” Sowhile slavery was a state option, states rights was applied in theCSA slave or free.


Alexander Stephens was the guy who said the cornerstone of the CSA was slavery.  He was a fire-eater.

I've read the Confederate Constitution, but I don't remember the parts you are talking about, I'll look at it again, though.





> something theyy said they would not do, nor had the constitutional  powers to do.


The plan was to strangle slavery by preventing it from expanding.  The end goal was to end slavery gradually.






> The Morrill Tariff Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, on a sectional vote, with nearly all northern representatives in support and nearly all southern representatives in opposition. With the election of Abraham Lincoln whose central campaign objective was to triple the tariff. Tariff was the “keystone” of the republican party “protection for home industry” was the campaign poster of the 1860 republican party. South Carolina did what it had done decades before, and seceded from the Union over the higher tariff rates soon to be imposed on the south by the north. It was not just the south, NYC mayor Fernando Wood wanted to make NYC a “free city” [free trade] and secede from the Union. The debate over tariffs and internal improvements was not just a debate over those items, but a debate over the nature of the federal government. Free trade was a vital aspect of southern agrarian interests.





> _“The south was being asked to pay to strengthen northern industry...the tariff would directly damage southern pocketbooks. This conflict played a important role in the division north vs south”
> -Brevin Alexander Professor of History at Longwood University_


Tariffs have fluctuated throughout America's history.  Sometimes they are low, and sometimes they are high.  I find it very hard to believe that the 11 states that made up the Confederacy were content to stay in the union through high tariffs with only South Carolina really even coming somewhat close to secession, but suddenly in 1860, the mere election of a pro-tariff President was enough to cause these states to leave the country.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So why didn't they work to fight the tariff?  At least try to filibuster in the Senate?  Why is it that the Tariff of Abominations (which was higher IIRC) only led to talk of secession in a few states, while the mere threat of a tariff.  The tariff, by the way, was signed into law during the lame-duck term of James Buchanan only after Southern Congressmen left.  So to me it seems like a stretch to say that the tariff was the cause of secession.  I'm sure that for some people it was a factor in why they supported secession, but I have a hard time believing it was the impetus behind secession.  The Confederacy passed its own tariffs, too.


Why stick around to delay what was inevitable? The tariff was only one piece of the complex of motives for leaving everything else political and cultural had gotten worse since the Tariff of Abominations, and of course the Confederacy had tariffs they just were much lower.






> I've never bought the whole argument that slavery couldn't survive into the 20th century.  It was still extremely profitable in 1860.  Over one million slaves were imported to Brazil during the 19th century, even after their involvement in the trade became illegal.
> 
> The CSA would get rid of slavery at some point, but there was hardly anyone in any position of power in the states that seceded who had the will to oppose the planters.


It was doomed by Secession, It was doomed in the Union.
On the afternoon of February 28, 1861,  President Davis sent his first  veto message to the Confederate Congress.  Congress had passed  legislation enabling the constitutional ban and  detailing punishment  for those convicted. It spelled out the options for  return of the Free  Africans to Africa. Davis said he had carefully  considered this bill  “in relation to the slave trade and to punish  persons offending  therein”. He objected to the option that if the Free  Africans could not  be returned to Africa and all other options insuring  their freedom  could not be met, then these Free Africans could be sold  on the  internal Slave markets.

Davis wrote, “This latter provision seems to me in opposition to the   policy declared in the Constitution, the prohibition of African Negroes,   and in derogation of its mandate to legislate for the effectuation of   that object.” He, therefore, vetoed the legislation. There was no   attempt to override.

Establishing the Slave Trade would be a critical leg in upholding a   Slave Republic. Instead, here was the first American Constitutional   Mandate to end this noxious commerce that New England had begun and was   still engaged in at this very time.

    1.9.2  (Congress can bar slaves coming from States remaining in the   United States) “Congress shall also have power to prohibit the   introduction of slaves from any State not a member of or Territory not   belonging to this Confederacy.”

There was no need for this in 1787. All the original States were   involved with domestic slavery and New England was heavily into the   Transatlantic Slave Trade. In 1861 this was a safeguard against Union   slave states outlawing slavery and the owners “selling South”. At this   time there were 7 Slave States in the Confederacy and 8 Slave States in   the United States.

“Selling South” happened whenever a Northern State outlawed slavery and   did not require the masters to free their slaves within their State.  The  irrefutable truth about Northern abolition is that emancipation was  not  always required and slaves were often sold South. That brought  double  relief to the North: 1) their moral feelings felt cleansed, and  2) with  fewer Black people about, White people could not be  “corrupted”.

    1.9.4  (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of   attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of   property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”

This is the Article some claim establishes a Slave Republic. It’s hardly   true. Both the 1787 and CSA Constitutions have an Article 1.9 which   prohibits the General government to legislate bills of attainder and ex   post facto laws. Both have an Article 1.10 which denies the States the   power to pass such laws. In both Constitutions Article 1.9 applies only   to the General government and Article 1.10 applies only to the States.

While the CSA 1.9 prohibits the General government legislating against   slavery, CSA Article 1.10 does not mention slavery in any regard. It’s   entirely committed to ex post facto and other non-slavery related   issues, e.g., excessive bail, entering treaties, laying duties on   tonnage and so forth.

So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming   Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General   government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming   Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in  Article  1.10.

The Confederacy’s addition to 1.9 denying power to the General   government to disestablish the institution of slavery was done so the   prohibition would be explicit. Slavery was already implicitly outside   the General government’s power when the CSA Founders abolished ‘dual   sovereignty’. Slavery, as with any State creation, resided in the   sovereignty of their respective peoples.

Antebellum Americans in the South, with few exceptions, held slavery a   moral evil, an inherited struggle that was also a structural pillar of   its culture and wealth. A monumental societal program of practical and   civic education beyond the funds of individual States was needed so   freed slaves could live successfully as Free people. So personal   manumission remained the norm. Jefferson had planned the territories   would be a place where free Blacks could go and set up new lives for   themselves. But the North would tolerate no assimilation.

Northern political and commercial houses knew slavery and the Slave   Trade was a continuing basis of Northern wealth as well. But that truth   never stopped them from espousing their vanity of self-elation. Their   wealth and power class never proposed a program of emancipation and   assimilation into American society with or without national funds. The   cost and human endeavors of Black freedom would remain Southern issues.

One Northern abolitionist, who understood this peculiar dilemma over the   struggle for Black freedom, after visiting Georgia, Virginia and South   Carolina in 1854, wrote the following:

                “What had the South done to injure us, except through   our sensibilities on the subject of slavery? What have we done to her,   but admonish, threaten, and indict her before God, excommunicate her,   stir up insurrection among her slaves, endanger her homes, make her   Christians and ministers odious in other lands? And now that she has   availed herself of a northern measure (the Fugitive Slave laws) for her   defense, we are ready to move the country from its foundations. We  ought  to reflect, whether we have not been enforcing our moral  sentiments  upon the South in offensive ways, so as to constitute that  oppression  which makes even a wise man mad.

                “All this time we have overlooked the intrinsic   difficulties of the evil which the South has had to contend with; have   disagreed among ourselves about sin per se, and about the question of   immediate or gradual emancipation, and yet have expected the South to be   clear on these points, and to act promptly. …. What has she ever done,   except in self-defense, in our long quarrel, which, upon  reconciliation,  would rankle in our memory, and make it hard for us to  forgive and  forget? Positively, not one thing. We have been the  assailants, she the  mark; we the prosecutors, she the defendant; we the  accusers, she the  self-justifying respondent.

                “Unless we choose to live in perpetual war, we must   prevent and punish all attempts to decoy slaves from their masters.   Whatever our repugnance to slavery may be, there is a law of the land, a   Constitution, to which we must submit, or employ suitable means to   change. While it remains, all our appeals to a “higher law” are   fanaticism.” Nehemiah Adams, D.D. “A Southside View of Slavery”   pp.127-128.

Rhett and his associates were not aiming to keep slaves in slavery. No   one argued against State manumission laws. The hard truth is that the   Gulf States had suffered more than their share of abolitionist wrath.   The hounds of rabid abolitionism including clergy, urging slaves to   revolt and murder for freedom never left Southern ears. Rhett and Cobb   wanted to insure the hounds would not return with the admittance of Free   States.

Since the United States and the Confederacy were now separate   governments, no fugitive slave laws would apply to both unless a treaty   were signed between them. The chances that might happen were less than   minimal. North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas would have no   obligation to protect the CSA slave owner’s property rights or deliver   the slave back.

*For this simple reason (among others) astute observers of the   political scene such as Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary,   saw the Gulf States’ secession as the death-knell of slavery. He was   more than likely correct. Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens agreed.   Hardly assurance to those who insist the Gulf States seceded to create   and expand a Slave Empire.
*
Much more at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/r...-constitution/






> Do you consider the 13th Amendment to be a violation of states' rights?


No, no more than the Bill of Rights. The Debate about the 13th has more to do with how it was passed than it's content, it was not part of the Constitution before the war and therefore the Federal government did not have the power to prohibit slavery.






> I won't deny that the Union did terrible things during the war, I have never denied this and I am not here to defend the union.  But people would have no way of knowing what Lincoln was going to do as President beyond what his party was known for.  Voters could probably expect two things from a Republican administration; protectionism and the containment of slavery.
> 
> That source, while I'm sure is probably well-researched, has some problems.  The author seems to have a hysterical hatred for northerners, maybe he's some reverse William Sherman?  The Confederates were responsible for their own war crimes as well, including the execution of black union soldiers and the wretched treatment of POWs at Andersonville.  Not every Rebel general was like Lee or Jackson.


The Republicans if not Lincoln himself were vocal in their disdain for and willingness to violate the Constitution before the war:



> It              has been wrong from   the beginning, from the day it was founded. From              the   beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for                bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more  wars,               for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the   Republican Party              has been Red.  
> 
> Why?              In 1848, Communists rose in revolution across Europe,   united by a              document prepared for the purpose, entitled _Manifesto of the Communist              Party_.   Its author was a degenerate parasite named Karl Marx, whom                a small gang of wealthy Communists "the League of Just Men" hired                for the purpose. The Manifesto told its adherents and its   victims              what the Communists would do.  
> 
> But              the Revolution of 1848 failed. The perpetrators   escaped, just ahead              of the police. And they went, of   course, to the united States. In              1856, the Republican Party   ran its first candidate for President.              By that time,  these  Communists from Europe had thoroughly infiltrated               this  country, especially the North. Many became high ranking officers                in the Union Army and top government officials. 
> 
> What              was the South  fighting? Alexander Hamilton was the  nationï¿½s first              big  government politician. Hamilton wanted  a strong central government               and a national bank. Vice  President Aaron Burr killed Hamilton  in              a duel. The problem  was that Burr didnï¿½t kill him  soon enough. Henry              Clay  inherited and expanded Hamilton's  ideas in something called the  "American System," which advocated big  government subsidies for favored               industries and high,  ruinous tariffs, what we today call  "socialism              for the  rich." Clay inspired smooth talking  railroad lawyer Abraham               Lincoln, who inherited the Red  escapees from the Revolution of 1848               and became our first  Communist President.  
> 
> All              of this comes again to mind with the recent publication of _Red              Republicans: Marxism in the Civil War and Lincoln's Marxists_   (Universe,              Lincoln, Nebraska, 2007) by Southern  historians  Walter D. Kennedy              and Al Benson, Jr. You must  read this  book, because it irrefutably              nails down  everything I have  said above and then some. Let's browse               through Red  Republicans, and, as we do so, remember that the reason                most Americans have never heard of all this is that the  winner writes               the history.  
> ...

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Why stick around to delay what was inevitable? The tariff was only one piece of the complex of motives for leaving everything else political and cultural had gotten worse since the Tariff of Abominations, and of course the Confederacy had tariffs they just were much lower.


What exactly had gotten worse?




> It was doomed by Secession, It was doomed in the Union.
> On the afternoon of February 28, 1861,  President Davis sent his first  veto message to the Confederate Congress.  Congress had passed  legislation enabling the constitutional ban and  detailing punishment  for those convicted. It spelled out the options for  return of the Free  Africans to Africa. Davis said he had carefully  considered this bill  “in relation to the slave trade and to punish  persons offending  therein”. He objected to the option that if the Free  Africans could not  be returned to Africa and all other options insuring  their freedom  could not be met, then these Free Africans could be sold  on the  internal Slave markets.
> 
> Davis wrote, “This latter provision seems to me in opposition to the   policy declared in the Constitution, the prohibition of African Negroes,   and in derogation of its mandate to legislate for the effectuation of   that object.” He, therefore, vetoed the legislation. There was no   attempt to override.
> 
> Establishing the Slave Trade would be a critical leg in upholding a   Slave Republic. Instead, here was the first American Constitutional   Mandate to end this noxious commerce that New England had begun and was   still engaged in at this very time.


The fact that the only thing stopping the reopening of the slave trade was Davis' veto tells you something about the political leadership of the CSA.  The trade was prohibited in the US in 1808.




> 1.9.2  (Congress can bar slaves coming from States remaining in the   United States) “Congress shall also have power to prohibit the   introduction of slaves from any State not a member of or Territory not   belonging to this Confederacy.”


A lot of slaveholders opposed bringing new slaves in because too many slaves drives down the price of slaves and they were worried about a slave revolt if the slaves outnumbered the white population.




> There was no need for this in 1787. All the original States were   involved with domestic slavery and New England was heavily into the   Transatlantic Slave Trade. In 1861 this was a safeguard against Union   slave states outlawing slavery and the owners “selling South”. At this   time there were 7 Slave States in the Confederacy and 8 Slave States in   the United States.


Slavery used to be important in the North, but by 1861 this was no longer the case.




> “Selling South” happened whenever a Northern State outlawed slavery and   did not require the masters to free their slaves within their State.  The  irrefutable truth about Northern abolition is that emancipation was  not  always required and slaves were often sold South. That brought  double  relief to the North: 1) their moral feelings felt cleansed, and  2) with  fewer Black people about, White people could not be  “corrupted”.


The people who were behind Northern abolition were dead in 1861.  New Jersey was the last Northern state to pass gradual abolition, and the only state to do so after 1800.




> 1.9.4  (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of   attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of   property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”
> 
> This is the Article some claim establishes a Slave Republic. It’s hardly   true. Both the 1787 and CSA Constitutions have an Article 1.9 which   prohibits the General government to legislate bills of attainder and ex   post facto laws. Both have an Article 1.10 which denies the States the   power to pass such laws. In both Constitutions Article 1.9 applies only   to the General government and Article 1.10 applies only to the States.


But the US Constitution doesn't prohibit interference with slavery.




> While the CSA 1.9 prohibits the General government legislating against   slavery, CSA Article 1.10 does not mention slavery in any regard. It’s   entirely committed to ex post facto and other non-slavery related   issues, e.g., excessive bail, entering treaties, laying duties on   tonnage and so forth.
> 
> So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming   Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General   government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming   Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in  Article  1.10.
> 
> The Confederacy’s addition to 1.9 denying power to the General   government to disestablish the institution of slavery was done so the   prohibition would be explicit. Slavery was already implicitly outside   the General government’s power when the CSA Founders abolished ‘dual   sovereignty’. Slavery, as with any State creation, resided in the   sovereignty of their respective peoples.


So I was mistaken when I thought that the CSA prohibited states from banning slavery, I stand corrected.




> Antebellum Americans in the South, with few exceptions, held slavery a   moral evil, an inherited struggle that was also a structural pillar of   its culture and wealth. A monumental societal program of practical and   civic education beyond the funds of individual States was needed so   freed slaves could live successfully as Free people. So personal   manumission remained the norm. Jefferson had planned the territories   would be a place where free Blacks could go and set up new lives for   themselves. But the North would tolerate no assimilation.


In the decades leading up to the Civil War, pro-slavery advocates argued that slavery was not evil, but a positive good.  Slavery became even more deeply entrenched in Southern society.  The political leadership of the South refused to even accept a moderate pro-slavery candidate at the 1860 Democratic convention. 




> Northern political and commercial houses knew slavery and the Slave   Trade was a continuing basis of Northern wealth as well. But that truth   never stopped them from espousing their vanity of self-elation. Their   wealth and power class never proposed a program of emancipation and   assimilation into American society with or without national funds. The   cost and human endeavors of Black freedom would remain Southern issues.


Some Northerners made money off of slavery, particularly those involved in the New England textile industry.  That's why some Massachusetts Whigs were against the abolitionist movement.  But pro-slavery Northerners didn't vote Republican.

Attempts to end slavery had been made in the South in the past, especially in Virginia.  These attempts were all defeated.  And, IIRC, many Southern states banned advocacy of abolitionism.  The South was more pro-slavery in 1860 than it was in 1830.




> One Northern abolitionist, who understood this peculiar dilemma over the   struggle for Black freedom, after visiting Georgia, Virginia and South   Carolina in 1854, wrote the following:
> 
>                 “What had the South done to injure us, except through   our sensibilities on the subject of slavery? What have we done to her,   but admonish, threaten, and indict her before God, excommunicate her,   stir up insurrection among her slaves, endanger her homes, make her   Christians and ministers odious in other lands? And now that she has   availed herself of a northern measure (the Fugitive Slave laws) for her   defense, we are ready to move the country from its foundations. We  ought  to reflect, whether we have not been enforcing our moral  sentiments  upon the South in offensive ways, so as to constitute that  oppression  which makes even a wise man mad.
> 
>                 “All this time we have overlooked the intrinsic   difficulties of the evil which the South has had to contend with; have   disagreed among ourselves about sin per se, and about the question of   immediate or gradual emancipation, and yet have expected the South to be   clear on these points, and to act promptly. …. What has she ever done,   except in self-defense, in our long quarrel, which, upon  reconciliation,  would rankle in our memory, and make it hard for us to  forgive and  forget? Positively, not one thing. We have been the  assailants, she the  mark; we the prosecutors, she the defendant; we the  accusers, she the  self-justifying respondent.
> 
>                 “Unless we choose to live in perpetual war, we must   prevent and punish all attempts to decoy slaves from their masters.   Whatever our repugnance to slavery may be, there is a law of the land, a   Constitution, to which we must submit, or employ suitable means to   change. While it remains, all our appeals to a “higher law” are   fanaticism.” Nehemiah Adams, D.D. “A Southside View of Slavery”   pp.127-128.


Imagine that you lived in Ohio in 1859.  You find an escaped slave.  Would you send the slave back to his master?




> Rhett and his associates were not aiming to keep slaves in slavery. No   one argued against State manumission laws. The hard truth is that the   Gulf States had suffered more than their share of abolitionist wrath.   The hounds of rabid abolitionism including clergy, urging slaves to   revolt and murder for freedom never left Southern ears. Rhett and Cobb   wanted to insure the hounds would not return with the admittance of Free   States.


Rhett and his associates were radical pro-slavery extremists.  They would make Jefferson Davis look like an abolitionist.  They wanted to reopen the slave trade, annex Cuba, and force Kansas to accept slavery.




> Since the United States and the Confederacy were now separate   governments, no fugitive slave laws would apply to both unless a treaty   were signed between them. The chances that might happen were less than   minimal. North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas would have no   obligation to protect the CSA slave owner’s property rights or deliver   the slave back.


Do you really think those 4 slave states would allow for slaves to be free once they left the CSA?




> *For this simple reason (among others) astute observers of the   political scene such as Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary,   saw the Gulf States’ secession as the death-knell of slavery. He was   more than likely correct. Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens agreed.   Hardly assurance to those who insist the Gulf States seceded to create   and expand a Slave Empire.
> *
> Much more at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/r...-constitution/


It was the death knell of slavery because it led to war.




> No, no more than the Bill of Rights. The Debate about the 13th has more to do with how it was passed than it's content, it was not part of the Constitution before the war and therefore the Federal government did not have the power to prohibit slavery.


But it had the power to pass an amendment.




> The Republicans if not Lincoln himself were vocal in their disdain for and willingness to violate the Constitution before the war:


If the Communists were anything more than a small portion of Lincoln's support, why didn't the Confederates ever mention the influence of Marxists in American government?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What exactly had gotten worse?


The North was becoming ever more hostile and more and more politically dominant, they were embracing violent abolition and a disregard for the Constitution.






> The fact that the only thing stopping the reopening of the slave trade was Davis' veto tells you something about the political leadership of the CSA.  The trade was prohibited in the US in 1808.


The provision that Davis objected to did not "reopen the slave trade", it would have allowed slave holders to sell the slaves they had to foreigners like the Yankees had "sold south" when their states abolished slavery, it did not allow the importation of new slaves which was expressly prohibited in the new Constitution.






> A lot of slaveholders opposed bringing new slaves in because too many slaves drives down the price of slaves and they were worried about a slave revolt if the slaves outnumbered the white population.


Many wanted a gradual end to slavery through manumission and attrition and perhaps eventual compensated abolition by the states.






> The people who were behind Northern abolition were dead in 1861.  New Jersey was the last Northern state to pass gradual abolition, and the only state to do so after 1800.


After the original secession the remaining slave states would not have had the power to resist the North, mandatory abolition was coming sooner or later.






> But the US Constitution doesn't prohibit interference with slavery.


It did not grant the power, and it prohibits any power not granted.





> In the decades leading up to the Civil War, pro-slavery advocates argued that slavery was not evil, but a positive good.  Slavery became even more deeply entrenched in Southern society.  The political leadership of the South refused to even accept a moderate pro-slavery candidate at the 1860 Democratic convention.


There were multiple factions and shades of opinion and the John Brown incident had created a hysterical backlash against abolition but many in the south believed slavery to be wrong and wanted to end it in a gradual and controlled fashion.






> Some Northerners made money off of slavery, particularly those involved in the New England textile industry.  That's why some Massachusetts Whigs were against the abolitionist movement.  But pro-slavery Northerners didn't vote Republican.
> 
> Attempts to end slavery had been made in the South in the past, especially in Virginia.  These attempts were all defeated.  And, IIRC, many Southern states banned advocacy of abolitionism.  The South was more pro-slavery in 1860 than it was in 1830.


Opposition to abolition and support for slavery were two different things, southerners had been driven to oppose abolition because the North wanted to collapse their economy with a sudden uncompensated freeing of slaves or to provoke violent revolt and the mass murder of whites. Those who opposed slavery wanted a gradual end to slavery so that the freed blacks could be assimilated into free society or sent to Liberia and the economy could adapt to free laborers.






> Imagine that you lived in Ohio in 1859.  You find an escaped slave.  Would you send the slave back to his master?


No, but the South saw things differently, the Constitution and Federal law had promised the return of fugitive slaves and it had been upheld by the Supreme Court and there was biblical precedent in Paul sending Onesimus back to his master. (one of the many things I disagree with Paul about)
Secession was the only solution, the North would not cooperate with the fugitive slave laws for a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate reasons and the south was not yet able to end slavery and could not accept the North's refusal to abide by the Constitutional promise, the North and the South never should have been joined in the union, they should have been allied but separate after the Revolution.





> Do you really think those 4 slave states would allow for slaves to be free once they left the CSA?


They would have had no choice, the Union would never have allowed them to return them to the Confederacy.
It would not have been long before they would have had abolition forced on them.






> But it had the power to pass an amendment.


An amendment that could not pass as long as the seceding states were still part of the Union, thus the shenanigans used to pass it after the war.






> If the Communists were anything more than a small portion of Lincoln's support, why didn't the Confederates ever mention the influence of Marxists in American government?


They complained of "Radicals" in the North, that was the term used at the time.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> If the Communists were anything more than a small portion of Lincoln's support, why didn't the Confederates ever mention the influence of Marxists in American government?


Georgia’s Declaration, which reads:

    "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its  present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be  an anti-slavery party. While* it attracts to itself by its creed the  scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned  theories in political economy*, the advocates of commercial restrictions,  of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the  administration of Government..."

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> The North was becoming ever more hostile and more and more politically dominant, they were embracing violent abolition and a disregard for the Constitution.


So it all centers around slavery.  And what did the North do that went against the Constitution?




> The provision that Davis objected to did not "reopen the slave trade", it would have allowed slave holders to sell the slaves they had to foreigners like the Yankees had "sold south" when their states abolished slavery, it did not allow the importation of new slaves which was expressly prohibited in the new Constitution.


It had been pretty well established by 1860 that selling slaves across national borders and especially across water would not be allowed.  The British were very adamant about enforcing that.




> Many wanted a gradual end to slavery through manumission and attrition and perhaps eventual compensated abolition by the states.


Which leaders of the Confederacy wanted this?




> After the original secession the remaining slave states would not have had the power to resist the North, mandatory abolition was coming sooner or later.


We can't really know for sure, because those states eventually joined the CSA.




> It did not grant the power, and it prohibits any power not granted.


The Constitution is not a perfect document.  And thus the founders allowed for amending it.




> There were multiple factions and shades of opinion and the John Brown incident had created a hysterical backlash against abolition but many in the south believed slavery to be wrong and wanted to end it in a gradual and controlled fashion.


But none of the major Southern politicians in 1860 wanted that.  Stephen Douglass, who said that the people of each state should decide to be a slave or free state, was considered an unacceptable nominee for Southern Democrats because he wasn't pro-slavery enough.  He won zero electoral votes from the states that would become the CSA.




> Opposition to abolition and support for slavery were two different things, southerners had been driven to oppose abolition because the North wanted to collapse their economy with a sudden uncompensated freeing of slaves or to provoke violent revolt and the mass murder of whites. Those who opposed slavery wanted a gradual end to slavery so that the freed blacks could be assimilated into free society or sent to Liberia and the economy could adapt to free laborers.


I'm not here to argue that the North was pure-hearted or anything.  I'm just arguing that secession happened because the political and economic elite of 7 states couldn't handle the election of someone who was hostile to slavery.




> No, but the South saw things differently, the Constitution and Federal law had promised the return of fugitive slaves and it had been upheld by the Supreme Court and there was biblical precedent in Paul sending Onesimus back to his master. (one of the many things I disagree with Paul about)
> Secession was the only solution, the North would not cooperate with the fugitive slave laws for a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate reasons and the south was not yet able to end slavery and could not accept the North's refusal to abide by the Constitutional promise, the North and the South never should have been joined in the union, they should have been allied but separate after the Revolution.


Sometimes it is morally necessary to disobey an unjust law.  And slavery that happened during Paul's time was very different from 19th century slavery.




> They would have had no choice, the Union would never have allowed them to return them to the Confederacy.
> It would not have been long before they would have had abolition forced on them.


Slavery would still be safer than it would be under a Republican-controlled government.




> An amendment that could not pass as long as the seceding states were still part of the Union, thus the shenanigans used to pass it after the war.


And we should all be thankful they passed that amendment.




> Georgias Declaration, which reads:
> 
>     "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its  present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be  an anti-slavery party. While* it attracts to itself by its creed the  scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned  theories in political economy*, the advocates of commercial restrictions,  of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the  administration of Government..."


While they could be talking about Communists, it looks like they are talking about protectionists.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So it all centers around slavery.  And what  did the North do that went against the Constitution?


Besides the fugitive slave law issue (which was a reason to secede  whether the North was right to refuse or not), the Republican party had  many politicians who rejected the constitution and advocated many  unconstitutional policies, I don't have a list handy and it is hard to  find information on the history of the era but I have read about it  before, if I find specifics I will let you know.







> Which leaders of the Confederacy wanted this?


Lee did, I know he was not in the Confederate government but there were  others like him, I am at a little bit of a disadvantage because I am not  an expert and that kind of information is hard to find because the PC  story is that all southerners were Simon Legree. (who was a Yankee who  moved south to own slaves in the book)






> We can't really know for sure, because those states eventually joined the CSA.


Yes we can, without the original seceding states the remaining slave  states had no chance to preserve slavery, the abolitionists would have  passed the 13th amendment sooner or later with so few slave states to  oppose it.






> The Constitution is not a perfect document.  And thus the founders allowed for amending it.


That is not the point, I have said that I believed the 13th amendment  should have been a time delayed clause in the original constitution but  the point is that the North agreed to a deal then had second thoughts  and broke the deal, then when the other party to the deal wanted out  they attacked and murdered them.







> But none of the major Southern politicians  in 1860 wanted that.  Stephen Douglass, who said that the people of each  state should decide to be a slave or free state, was considered an  unacceptable nominee for Southern Democrats because he wasn't  pro-slavery enough.  He won zero electoral votes from the states that  would become the CSA.


The south had been driven slightly mad by repeated violent abolitionist  attacks, if they had been left alone they would have moderated and  returned to the path of slow controlled abolition. If they did not then  they would have eventually been forced to by international pressure from  their main trading partners.






> I'm not here to argue that the North was  pure-hearted or anything.  I'm just arguing that secession happened  because the political and economic elite of 7 states couldn't handle the  election of someone who was hostile to slavery.


And I'm here to tell you that it was only one of many motivations.





> Sometimes it is morally necessary to disobey an unjust law.


I don't disagree.




> And slavery that happened during Paul's  time was very different from 19th century slavery.


Roman slave masters had as much or more power over their slaves as any southern planter






> Slavery would still be safer than it would be under a Republican-controlled government.


Perhaps or perhaps not, by seceding they gave up any influence or  control over the Norths policy, in any case it was doomed one way or the  other, therefore the only reason to secede was because the other issues  were just as or more important.





> While they could be talking about  Communists, it looks like they are talking about protectionists.


They are talking about radicals and maniacs of all different kinds that  the Republican party accepted and recruited in it's unprincipled drive  for power.

----------


## 1stvermont

> I understand that states' rights was an issue, but the states' rights to do what?  Everything I read says "slavery."
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution didn't outlaw federal abolition.  And thus in 1865, slavery became illegal nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens was the guy who said the cornerstone of the CSA was slavery.  He was a fire-eater.
> ...



please reread. start here, nothing to do with slavery, everything to do with states sovereignty in the upper south.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South

as for the cotton states i made clear slavery was the issue states rights was fought over, states rights was the key issue. see under

Western States Free or Slave? Slavery was not the Cause but the Occasion/States Rightshttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512619-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Cotton-States


but to add to it.


_“Itis evident that the three ruling branches of [the federal government]are in combination to stop their colleagues, the states authorities,of the powers reserved by them”_ 
_-Thomas Jefferson letter to William Giles 1825
_
_“Sever ourselves from the union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness”_ 
_-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1799
_
The CSA federal government could not end slavery in the confederacy constitutionally. Yet the confederacy still made a very strong states rights Constitution. If it was just to protect slavery than there would have been no need for stronger states rights than the American Constitution. During the confederacy when the federal overreached against the states, states nullified and fought back on non slave related issues and states like Georgia, threatened to secede.
http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/govbrown/brown.html
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/civil-war/
_
_After Reconstruction and slavery, the south was still the strong states rights section of the country.The first states right advocates in the U.S were men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George mason, St George Tucker, John Randolph many of whom spoke out against slavery, yet were strong states rights proponents. States rights was used more by northern states before the civil war than southern. States rights were used against slavery and federal ruling like the fugitive slave laws. There were strong states rights men in the north [democrats] that were anti slavery. For example over national banking during the war,northern democrats objected because

“_It utterly to destroy all the rights of the states. It is asserting a power which if carried out to its logical result would enable the national congress to destroy every institution of the states and cause all power to be consolidated  and concentrated here” [D.C ]_
_-Kentucky democrat Lazarous Powell_


States had pushed back against federal overreach no matter what the issue,the issue in 1860 was over tariffs and slavery.  The first federal vs state issue arose over the alien and sedition acts later internal improvements, national banking,  conscription, protective tariffs,land disputes, freedom of speech, free trade, state control of militia, fugitive slave laws etc. No matter what the issue states held firm to the union and fought against federal expansions. 

In the upper south slavery was better protected within their state than in the new confederacy. However states rights were better protected in the confederacy under its constitution. Many inthe south such as Mary Chestnut wished slavery to be abolished in the confederacy as did others.

“Let not slavery prove a barrier to our independence...although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for... if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it”
-The Jackson Mississippian 1864 quoted in McPherson's Battle cry of Freedom p 833

General Patrick Claburne [and other generals] wanted to free all the slaves.Jeff Davis sent diplomats near the end of the war offering to end slavery if France/Britain would recognize them.  Northern generals like general George Thomas of the union, were rich slave owners who fought for the north and said during the war “I am wholly sick of states rights.”  

“_As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
-Confederate Major General John B. Gordon Causes of the Civil War_

If the south fought only for slavery,it only had to not fight the war. Slavery was protected and not under attack by Lincoln in the states it already existed. At any time as Lincoln promised, the south just had to lay down arms and come back into the union with slavery intact,yet they chose to fight for another cause.

_"The emancipation proclamation was actually an offer permitting the south to stop fighting and return to the union by January 1st and still keep its slaves”
-John Canaan The Peninsula campaign

“We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded.”
-Moses Jacob Ezekiel_ 

Virginia alone freed more slaves prior to civil war than NY, NJ,Pennsylvania,and New England put together. South Carolinian Mary Chestnut said slavery was a curse, yet she supported secession. She and others hoped the war would end with a “Great independent country with no slavery.” On June 1861 Mary Chestnut said “Slavery has got to go of course.”

“If their was not a slave from Aroostock to the sabine, the north and the south could never permanent agree”
-Richmond Daily Whig April 23, 1862 

“The hour is coming or is rabidly approaching, when the states from Virginia to Georgia, from Missouri to Louisianan, must confederate,and as one man say to the union we will no longer submit our retained rights to the sniveling insinuations of bad men on the floor of congress. Our constitutional rights to the dark and strained contraction of design men upon judicial benches. That we detest the doctrine, and disclaim the principle, of unlimited submission to the general [Federal] government....Letthe North, then, form national roads for themselves. Let them guardwith tariffs their own interests. Let them deepen their public debtuntil a high minded aristocracy shall rise out of it. We want none ofall those blessings. Butin the simplicity of the patriarchal government, we would stillre main master and servant under our own vine and our own fig-tree,and confide for safety upon Him who of old time looked down upon this state of things without wrath.” 
-*1824* A Congressional committee

For why states rights was more important than slavery see under Western States Free or Slave? Slavery was not the Cause but theOccasion/States Rights and South Carolina secession documen.

“_It is not slavery that [Thomas] Jefferson fears as “the death kneel of the union” it is antislavery, the notion that has been raised for the first time that congress could tamper with the institutions of new states as a condition for admission”__-Clyde Wilson from Union to Empire_ 



this is a false modern view of the Constitution. why did lincoln think he had no power to do so? the Constitution is delegated authority from the states, it has authority only where it has been delegated it. 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?511837-From-Union-to-Empire-The-Political-Effects-of-the-Civil-war


*CSA Vice president Alexander Stevens corner stone speech* *“**African Slavery: The Corner-Stone of the Southern Confederacy.”*
AlexanderH. Stephens Corner Stone Speech Savannah, Georgia March 21,1861
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

Whenever a discussion is brought up on the causes of southern secession Stevens cornerstone speech that has a small section that some take as him saying slavery was the cause of secession will be brought up. I find it interesting that Stevens seems to have been granted the authority to speak for all the people, of all the sovereign states, that made up the confederacy. I think no one person or opinion should decide the matter. If any one person is granted that authority it should have been Jefferson Davis. I think too much priority is given to Stevens speech in his home state, and the deep south state of Georgia. But I think there are also other reasons to be cautious on the importance and understanding of the speech.

*1]*It is not his actual words,not ranscript survived. The speech was done "Impromptu" and according to the newspaper reporter who transcribed it

"Is not a perfect report, but only a sketch of the address of MR.Stevens"

Therefore it is an interpreted and partial from his actual speech.

*2]*Stevens said the speech was misinterpreted and misunderstood. He said he was merely restating what Baldwin of the US supreme court had said.Richard m Johnson in 1884 summed up Stevens speech by saying

_"On the subject of slavery there was no essential change in the new [C.S.A] Constitution from the old as Judge Baldwin [of Connecticut]of the US supreme court had announced from the bench several years before, that slavery was the corner-stone of the old Constitution[1781-89] so it is of the new" [1790]
-Quotedin Lochlainn Seabrook Everything you Were taught About American Slavery is Wrong Sea raven Press 2014_
*3]* It is clear from the speech that Stevens is clarifying disputed subjects that are know clarified and beyond dispute in the CSA Constitution.Subjects like tariff, internal improvement and slavery etc. 

*4]* Later when Stevens could write what he thought secession was over he said

_“Not over slavery but centralization and local sovereign government going back 70 years to federalist and anti federalist...they[ The south]quit the union to save the principles of the constitution"
-Alexander Stevens A Constitutional View of the late war Between the States 1870_

All these reasons make me think the speech should be used with caution and low importance to determining the southern causes of secession. I would also add most of his speech  is on non slavery related disagreements between the cotton states and the north.

*Jefferson Davis President of the Confederate States of America* 

“_Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States...The creature has been exalted above its creators;the principals have been made subordinate to the agent appointed by themselves.”
-Jefferson Davis Message to confederate Congress April 29, 1861_

farewell address tocongress
https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=87
Firstinaugural inMontgomery
https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=88
Richmondinaugural
https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=107

As I said above if anyone person has the authority to speak for southern secession it should be Davis. His three most important speeches his farewell to congress, first inaugural in Montgomery, and his inaugural in Richmond all speak to causes of secession. He mentions liberty, states rights, tariffs, the constitution and the founders were the main reason for states leaving the union. Davis mentioned slavery in two and only in passing in his three most important speeches not the main cause. The south was leaving because Davis said the north fell to simple majority [Democracy not constitutional republic] what Davis called the “Tyranny of unbridled majority.

_"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it."
-Jefferson Davis_ 

So why is it that Stevens speech given in his home deep south state,given far more weight in determining the causes of southern secession than Davis three speeches?




Please support this was the republican goal. Because Lincoln said it was to keep the west white. and if you read my threads, his economical plan intact.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...iend-of-Blacks




the south always voted against high tariffs.  It was always a fight between north and south. But the south maintained power enough to have low tariffs when they started to lose power in 1860, the tariffs and Lincoln sought to raise them 3 fold.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ordinarily I'd agree with you because you have expressed the more accurate version of events in my view. In this case, the issue is the Constitution does impose a requirement for a state to return a person bound to labor, and that is the difference in the nullification arguments. In the 1830s, the only argument SC had was a poor one - the tariff is too high and we object. That is not good enough as long as tariffs are uniform throughout the US.


If states have a sovereign right to secede then states have a sovereign right not to enforce fugitive slave laws.  In the 1830s Southerner Andrew Jackson (who's almost worshiped by the liberty community because of his stand against the national banks), was totally against SC's "right" to secede or nullify or whatever.  

But here's the real elephant in the room.  Slice and and dice it however you want.  What is the "constitutional right" the southern states were trying to enforce?  Why the right to own *SLAVES* of course.  So it's still about what?  Slavery.  And if the southern states were angry at other states for not enforcing the fugitive slave laws, what exactly were they wanting the *federal* government to do about it?  Invade the North and arrest northern governments for not doing enough to return southern slaves?

And let's look at the clause of the constitution in question.  That's what "existentialists" are supposed to do.

_No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due_

Note that it does *not* say who is supposed to enforce this nor how.  Okay.  If you had a slave who has escaped to the North and was in a Northern jail (for stealing for example) and a slave owner went to the North to pick up his property and the Northern state refused that would be one thing.  *But that wasn't what was happening!*  Remember Dred Scott?  Even though his owner voluntarily took him to a free state the Supreme Court allowed his owner to recover his "property."  (A vile and disgusting way to refer to a human being.)  What the South was wanting was for the North to create goon squads to capture escaped slaves and shut down the underground railroad.  But nothing in the constitution requires this.  The only thing the constitution gave the federal government power to do is what it did, return a slave like Dread Scott.  But that wasn't good enough for those who demanded the "right" to steal another man's labor in the form of making him and/or keeping him as a slave.

And here is the crazy thing about all of this.  We aren't living in the 1800s.  We are in the 20th century.  None of us have any common cause with those who owned slaves and/or protected slavery.  From a libertarian point of view, slave holding states were illegitimate institutions.  These people polluted the constitution by insisting on a fugitive slave clause in the first place.  When they created their own constitution they went further by making it impossible for a confederate state to decide on its own it wanted to be a free state.  They had no intention of ever ending slavery.

----------


## jmdrake

> What most of this thread really demonstrates is that two issues are conflated in the usual view of the events of 1860 to 1865, in that the belief that secession = civil war. The refusal to accept secession was the cause of the war. The relationship between federal and state power over several issues, slavery, tariffs, and federal administrative law regarding territory not yet a state led to secession.


Well sure.  The federal government could have allowed secession and not gone to war.  But southerners didn't really believe in secession either, only in *their* right to secede.  Please watch "The Free State of Jones" when you have time.  Part of Mississippi seceded from Mississippi when Mississippi seceded from the Union.  That was a true *libertarian* state.  There was no slavery, no draft, and no taxation.  The Southern States cared so little about states rights that they in their constitution barred states from exercising their right to abolish slavery.  Really "states rights" is laughable on a forum that puts people down for being "statist."  States rights can be helpful as a proxy for individual rights, but when states rights are used to suppress individual rights they are an abomination.

----------


## jmdrake

> [SIZE=3][FONT=arial]
> please reread. start here, nothing to do with slavery, everything to do with states sovereignty in the upper south.
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South


Repeating the same nonsense over and over again does not make it true.  At the end of the day the states wanted "sovereignty" to keep slavery legal, but in the confederate constitution they abrogated states from having the "sovereignty" to end slavery.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Well sure.  The federal government could have allowed secession and not gone to war.  But southerners didn't really believe in secession either, only in *their* right to secede.  Please watch "The Free State of Jones" when you have time.  Part of Mississippi seceded from Mississippi when Mississippi seceded from the Union.  That was a true *libertarian* state.  There was no slavery, no draft, and no taxation.  The Southern States cared so little about states rights that they in their constitution barred states from exercising their right to abolish slavery.  Really "states rights" is laughable on a forum that puts people down for being "statist."  States rights can be helpful as a proxy for individual rights, but when states rights are used to suppress individual rights they are an abomination.





> 1) The Title – The Free State of Jones  is a name that still  resonates in the county with a great deal of  pride.  It can still be  seen on car tags and county government seals.   But the nickname is not  about the Newt Knight saga. In fact at the time  of this rebellion, it  was referred to in a Natchez newspaper as the  “Republic of Jones,” a  name extensively used throughout the last 150  years, especially by  historians writing on the subject.  Other names  for the Knight rebellion  have also been used:  the “Jones County  Confederacy,” a “Confederacy  within a Confederacy,” and even the  “Kingdom of Jones,” which I had  never heard until I watched the Ken  Burns “Civil War” documentary.
>  The name “Free State of Jones” can be traced back to the 1830s and   1840s. When new lands opened up in South Mississippi, thanks to the   Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek in 1830, Jones County, already sparsely   populated, lost a sizable portion of its population, as people sought   out more land and better opportunities. As that shift occurred, the   civil government, in place since the county’s inception in 1826,   essentially collapsed. With few slaves, not much government, and a small   population, it was a very free place to live.  In fact, the state   legislature had to pass a law in 1843 to reorganize the non-existent   county government.  Many years after the war, the name “Free State of   Jones” came to be associated with the Knight rebellion.
>  2) Jones County Unionism – The essence of the film was that   Jones County, as well as a few of the surrounding counties, was a hotbed   of unionist, as well as anti-slavery, support since it was sparsely   populated with slaves.  In fact, there were just over 300 blacks in the   whole county in 1860.  The film makes it seem as though the majority   unionist Jones Countians reacted against the plantation-slave-cotton   economy of the South, every bit as much as the hated “Twenty Negro Law”   and the Confederate “tax-in-kind” policy.
>  And to build up this dramatic, anti-wealth narrative, what we see is a   large-scale plantation right in the center of Ellisville, complete with   a big house with a cruel and unjust master, named James Eakins, who   raises a lot of cotton, enough to fill the cotton market in the small   town.  The set up seems to be taken right from Natchez and transplanted   in the heart of Jones County.  But it is complete fiction. Jones County   had no major plantations and was comprised mainly of small yeoman   farmers, who raised more cattle than cotton.
>  In fact, aside from Eakins, there are many fictional characters in   this film, nearly as many as authentic characters in the true story –   Moses Washington, the main freed slave in the Knight Company who   occupies much of the center stage throughout the film, and Daniel   Knight, Newt Knight’s nephew killed at the Battle of Corinth at the   start of the movie, are both completely fabricated.
>  As for Confederate tax policy, the “tax-in-kind” that required  farmers  to give ten percent to the government, it was a tough tax in  those  farm-based areas and there were reports of rough tactics used to   collect it.  But the film essentially portrayed the Confederate army and   tax collectors as barbarians. I was unsure if I was seeing the   Confederate army or the first coming of Hitler’s Wehrmacht.  One   particularly nasty tax-collecting officer, a Lt. Barbour, was also a   fictional character.
>  But the film left out the fact that the Confederate Congress changed   the tax several times, including a major change in February 1864 that   exempted poor and needy families but also heavily taxed the rich and   affluent.  One political scientist from Yale wrote that the Confederate   Congress, in this new change, “taxed all property including slaves at   5%; all gold, silver, and jewels were taxed at 10%; all shares or   interest in banks, companies or businesses were taxed at 5%; monies in   any form were taxed at 5%; and taxes on profits were increased to 10%,   with companies that made more than a 25% profit taxed at 25%.”[4]  And all because of the complaints of, and out of concern for, struggling farmers.
>  And of course the film completely omits the fact that the Knight   Company was burning homes and plundering farms of those who remained   loyal to the Confederacy in a fashion much worse than actions undertaken   by the Confederate army.
>  In one letter from Captain W. Wirt Thompson to the Confederate   Secretary of War, James Seddon, he recounts the carnage:  “Several of   the most prominent citizens have already been driven from their homes,   and some have been slaughtered in their own homes because they refused   to obey the mandates of the outlaws and abandon the country. Numbers   have been ordered away and are now living under threats and in fear of   their lives.”[5]
> ...


...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Repeating the same nonsense over and over again does not make it true.  At the end of the day the states wanted "sovereignty" to keep slavery legal, but in the confederate constitution they abrogated states from having the "sovereignty" to end slavery.


No it only prohibited their federal government.

----------


## Pericles

> Well sure.  The federal government could have allowed secession and not gone to war.  But southerners didn't really believe in secession either, only in *their* right to secede.  Please watch "The Free State of Jones" when you have time.  Part of Mississippi seceded from Mississippi when Mississippi seceded from the Union.  That was a true *libertarian* state.  There was no slavery, no draft, and no taxation.  The Southern States cared so little about states rights that they in their constitution barred states from exercising their right to abolish slavery.  Really "states rights" is laughable on a forum that puts people down for being "statist."  States rights can be helpful as a proxy for individual rights, but when states rights are used to suppress individual rights they are an abomination.



We have a case of Constitutional =/= moral or ethical. Having to make a  case on legal grounds when opposing natural law is a losing proposition,  and the South lost.

----------


## jmdrake

> No it only prohibited their federal government.


Your lack of historical knowledge is showing again.

_The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States lying without the limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States._

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Your lack of historical knowledge is showing again.
> 
> _The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States lying without the limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States._


That is referring to Territories under Confederation control NOT STATES.

----------


## jmdrake

> That is referring to Territories under Confederation control NOT STATES.


Nice attempt at a dodge.  But you missed this part too.

_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 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 such slaves shall not be impaired._

So if you owned slaves in a confederate state and moved to any confederate state you could take your slaves with you, making any state in the confederacy a de facto slave state whether the state wished to continue to be a slave state or not.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Nice attempt at a dodge.  But you missed this part too.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 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 such slaves shall not be impaired._
> 
> So if you owned slaves in a confederate state and moved to any confederate state you could take your slaves with you, making any state in the confederacy a de facto slave state whether the state wished to continue to be a slave state or not.


That is about temporary transits or visits, it is an enshrinement of the Dred Scott decision, I am not here to defend slavery but you are wrong.

World history is composed almost entirely of grossly imperfect nations, all we can do is make relative judgements, in the "civil war" era the Confederates were better than the Union, a case could be made that they were better than modern America considering the millions of people our imperial actions have brought death and suffering to around the globe.

----------


## jmdrake

> That is about temporary transits or visits, it is an enshrinement of the Dred Scott decision, I am not here to defend slavery but you are wrong.
> 
> World history is composed almost entirely of grossly imperfect nations, all we can do is make relative judgements, in the "civil war" era the Confederates were better than the Union, a case could be made that they were better than modern America considering the millions of people our imperial actions have brought death and suffering to around the globe.


Yes because instituting a draft and excepting people involved in the very institution the war was defending constitutes a high degree of morality.    I suppose next time we go to war in the Middle East there should be a draft but the children of oil executives should be exempted.  And Dred Scott itself was a violation of states rights.  Should this country ever do the right thing and end the drug war but allow individual states to ban drugs, someone shouldn't be able to say "I know drugs are illegal in Tennessee but I'm just bringing my stash on vacation" and then pretend that's "states rights."

----------


## 1stvermont

> Repeating the same nonsense over and over again does not make it true.  At the end of the day the states wanted "sovereignty" to keep slavery legal, but in the confederate constitution they abrogated states from having the "sovereignty" to end slavery.


Repeating the same nonsense over and over again does not make it true. At the end of the day the states wanted "sovereignty" to keep the american republic/union alive.  The csa Constitution upheld the sovereignty of the states  but some chose to keep repeating the same nonsense claiming otherwise, see here.

*
Claim-Confederate Constitution Does not Allow States to Abolish Slavery* 

“_It was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionist was not to establish a slaveholders reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to create the union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican party”_
_-Robert Divine T.H Bren George Fredrickson and R Williams America Past and Present_

Many say the south was not fighting for states rights but slavery because they falsely say the CSA constitution  did not allow states to end slavery.  However freeing slaves was a state issue in the CSA constitution. Article 1 section 9 clause 4 *applies to congress,* not to the sovereign states. This was in fact anticipating non slave states to join the confederacy. Article 4 section 2 clause 1 and article 4 section 3 clause 1 predicted future free states within the confederacy. As many in the confederacy  including  VP Stevens thought that the non slave holding upper Midwest would join the confederacy because of the  tax and trade laws that would compel states connected to the Mississippi river to join the confederacy as non slave states. 

“_We made ample provision in our constitution for the admission of other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and,perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way.” _ 
_-Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21 1861_

Confederate convention thought free states would join

_https://books.google.com/books?id=zQ4wzvvk5dIC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=The+Conf  ederate+Constitution+of+1861:+An+Inquiry+into+Amer  ican+Constitutionalism+georgia+slave+only+states&s  ource=bl&ots=88AqOaDyck&sig=mdQFt5U_usrc7So63Z8lsr  ZhqPA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1vve0mbXQAhUl7oMKHX_T  BssQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=The%20Confederate%20Const  itution%20of%201861%3A%20An%20Inquiry%20into%20Ame  rican%20Constitutionalism%20georgia%20slave%20only  %20states&f=false
_
During the constitutional convention Cobb of Georgia proposed that all states be required to be slave owning, yet this was rejected. The south wanted boarder states and the free midwest states to join.Senator Albert Brown of Mississippi stated in the CSA constitution“Each state is sovereign within its own limits, and that each for itself can abolish or establish slavery for itself.” So while slavery was a state option, states rights was applied in the CSA slave or free. The CSA constitution did protect slave owners individual property within the entire CSA regardless if the state was free or slave. 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States


*States Rights Were just to Protect Slavery

*States rights were vital to our union and our whole political system. 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-Civil-war


_“If their was not a slave from Aroostock to the sabine, the north and the south could never permanent agree”
-Richmond Daily Whig April 23, 1862 

“It is evident that the three ruling branches of [the federal government] are in combination to stop their colleagues, the states authorities, of the powers reserved by them” 
-Thomas Jefferson letter to William Giles 1825

“Sever ourselves from the union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness” 
-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1799

_The CSA federal government could not end slavery in the confederacy constitutionally. Yet the confederacy still made a very strong states rights Constitution. If it was just to protect slavery than there would have been no need for stronger states rights than the American Constitution. During the confederacy when the federal overreached against the states, states nullified and fought back on non slave related issues and states like Georgia, threatened to secede.
http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/govbrown/brown.html
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/civil-war/After Reconstruction and slavery, the south was still the strong states rights section of the country. The first states right advocates in the U.S were men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George mason, St George Tucker, John Randolph many of whom spoke out against slavery, yet were strong states rights proponents. States rights was used more by northern states before the civil war than southern. States rights were used against slavery and federal ruling like the fugitive slave laws. There were strong states rights men in the north [democrats] that were anti slavery. For example over national banking during the war, northern democrats objected because_

“It utterly to destroy all the rights of the states. It is asserting a power which if carried out to its logical result would enable the national congress to destroy every institution of the states and cause all power to be consolidated and concentrated here” [D.C ]
-Kentucky democrat Lazarous Powell

_States had pushed back against federal overreach no matter what the issue, the issue in 1860 was over tariffs and slavery. The first federal vs state issue arose over the alien and sedition acts later internal improvements, national banking, conscription, protective tariffs, land disputes, freedom of speech, free trade, state control of militia, fugitive slave laws etc. No matter what the issue states held firm to the union and fought against federal expansions. In the upper south slavery was better protected within their state than in the new confederacy. However states rights were better protected in the confederacy under its constitution. Many in the south such as Mary Chestnut wished slavery to be abolished in the confederacy as did others._

“Let not slavery prove a barrier to our independence...although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for... if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it”
-The Jackson Mississippian 1864 quoted in McPherson's Battle cry of Freedom

_General Patrick Claburne [and other generals] wanted to free all the slaves. Jeff Davis sent diplomats near the end of the war offering to end slavery if France/Britain would recognize them. Northern generals like general George Thomas of the union, were rich slave owners who fought for the north and said during the war “I am wholly sick of states rights.” _

“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
-Confederate Major General John B. Gordon Causes of the Civil War

_If the south fought only for slavery,it only had to not fight the war. Slavery was protected and not under attack by Lincoln in the states it already existed. At any time as Lincoln promised, the south just had to lay down arms and come back into the union with slavery intact, yet they chose to fight for another cause.
_
"The emancipation proclamation was actually an offer permitting the south to stop fighting and return to the union by January 1st and still keep its slaves”
-John Canaan The Peninsula campaign

“We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded.”
-Moses Jacob Ezekiel 

_Virginia alone freed more slaves prior to civil war than NY, NJ, Pennsylvania,and New England put together. South Carolinian Mary Chestnut said slavery was a curse, yet she supported secession. She and others hoped the war would end with a “Great independent country with no slavery.” On June 1861 Mary Chestnut said “Slavery has got to go of course.” _


“The hour is coming or is rabidly approaching, when the states from Virginia to Georgia, from Missouri to Louisianan, must confederate, and as one man say to the union we will no longer submit our retained rights to the sniveling insinuations of bad men on the floor of congress. Our constitutional rights to the dark and strained contraction of design men upon judicial benches. That we detest the doctrine, and disclaim the principle, of unlimited submission to the general [Federal] government....Let the North, then, form national roads for themselves. Let them guard with tariffs their own interests. Let them deepen their public debt until a high minded aristocracy shall rise out of it. We want none of all those blessings. But in the simplicity of the patriarchal government, we would still remain master and servant under our own vine and our own fig-tree, and confide for safety upon Him who of old time looked down upon this state of things without wrath.” 
-1824 A Congressional committee

_For why states rights was more important than slavery see under Western States Free or Slave? Slavery was not the Cause but the Occasion/States Rights and South Carolina secession document post._

“It is not slavery that [Thomas] Jefferson fears as “the death kneel of the union” it is antislavery, the notion that has been raised for the first time that congress could tamper with the institutions of new states as a condition for admission”
-Clyde Wilson from Union to Empire .

“Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.” 
-South Carolina Senator John Calhoun 1831_

----------


## Identity

What an awful thread, are you guys still really parading this "Civil War wasn't about slavery" nonsense? When I was younger I thought this was some smart little historical quip- "_actually it was over states' rights and economic differences!"_ Then as I researched it further, spoke personally with historians knowledgeable on the period, and looked into it myself I realized, "_oh yeah.... it was just about slavery." _ While there may have been other factors- those other factors were largely irrecoverably linked with slavery, hence the whole states rights/10th Amendment argument in the first place. 

Look up the phrase "Lost Cause" and get some scholarly material on it before repeating talking points coming out of fringe areas of the web. 




> Nice attempt at a dodge.  But you missed this part too.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 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 such slaves shall not be impaired._
> 
> So if you owned slaves in a confederate state and moved to any confederate state you could take your slaves with you, making any state in the confederacy a de facto slave state whether the state wished to continue to be a slave state or not.



Exactly- also I don't see how a single state in the CSA would be able to outlaw slavery. From my understanding of the southern economy it was basically a slave market. You were either a slave holder or someone that indirectly worked for someone owning a slave- wasn't exactly an industrial revolution going on with a plethora of factory jobs for people to get into. Outlawing slavery would be like New England voluntarily outlawing factories- just wouldn't happen. Ultimately, the Federal Government had to forcefully end slavery due to abolitionist pressure. 



"BadHistory" on Reddit goes into this issue a lot and it's worth reading if you guys are interested hearing from actual historians:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/...t_cause_is_so/

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/...hat_discusses/


https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/..._on_the_civil/


[Note: The *consensus* opinion among historians is that the Civil War was mainly over slavery. There are probably more weirdo Christ-mythicists in academia than Lost Cause types]

----------


## 1stvermont

> What an awful thread, are you guys still really parading this "Civil War wasn't about slavery" nonsense? When I was younger I thought this was some smart little historical quip- "_actually it was over states' rights and economic differences!"_ Then as I researched it further, spoke personally with historians knowledgeable on the period, and looked into it myself I realized, "_oh yeah.... it was just about slavery." _ While there may have been other factors- those other factors were largely irrecoverably linked with slavery, hence the whole states rights/10th Amendment argument in the first place. 
> 
> Look up the phrase "Lost Cause" and get some scholarly material on it before repeating talking points coming out of fringe areas of the web. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly- also I don't see how a single state in the CSA would be able to outlaw slavery. From my understanding of the southern economy it was basically a slave market. You were either a slave holder or someone that indirectly worked for someone owning a slave- wasn't exactly an industrial revolution going on with a plethora of factory jobs for people to get into. Outlawing slavery would be like New England voluntarily outlawing factories- just wouldn't happen. Ultimately, the Federal Government had to forcefully end slavery due to abolitionist pressure. 
> 
> ...


the above post is what happened when the federal government is in control of education. For refutation see below. 


http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...-Cotton-States

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...he-Upper-South

----------


## Identity

> *REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START*
> by Alan Stang
> February 1, 2008
> NewsWithViews.com 
> 
> Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has "lost its way" and "gone wrong." It has "diverged" from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower's handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952. We are told that is why today's Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn't "go wrong," didn't "go left." 
> 
> It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red. 
> 
> ...



Honest to God.. that was probably the most insane article I've ever read. Wow......
The GOP had a terrific start- from Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt it was an almost perfect Party. We started failing when the Conservatives took over and crashed the economy, then we went into a minority position for decades due to the forward-thinking New Deal coalition. Eisenhower (a Progressive mind you) helped bring the Party back to its respectable past. Reagan & his ideological successors have largely failed and seem to be on their way out due to the Trump hegemony. 

However, the premise of the article is correct- Paul & the more "small government, free market" types would historically belong to the Democratic Party. There was a switch in the 20th century where Progressives moved to the DNC & Conservatives slowly migrated out of the Democratic Party. Even today we have Blue Dogs and moderates who are a remnant of a different era.

----------


## jmdrake

> the above post is what happened when the federal government is in control of education. For refutation see below. 
> 
> 
> http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...-Cotton-States
> 
> http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...he-Upper-South


  Wrong.  Speaking for myself I was educated in private schools K-12 and my high school history teacher was a southern apologist and a blooming idiot.  I'm not calling him an idiot because he was a southern apologist.  When we would get our tests back I would have a C...until we went through the answers and I showed him from the book over and over again where he was wrong and I would have an A.  And no it wasn't a "liberal textbook."  He just didn't have a basic grasp of historical facts.

And here is the fact of what we're talking about.  You can couch it in "states rights" and "property rights" all you want to but at the end of the day the "property right" being argued about was human beings.  Ask yourself this question.  Why did the slave owning states demand a fugitive slave clause in the constitution in the first place?  Seriously?  I know the answer, but I wonder if you do.  I doubt it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Repeating the same nonsense over and over again does not make it true. At the end of the day the states wanted "sovereignty" to keep the american republic/union alive.  The csa Constitution upheld the sovereignty of the states  but some chose to keep repeating the same nonsense claiming otherwise, see here.
> 
> [SIZE=2]*
> Claim-Confederate Constitution Does not Allow States to Abolish Slavery* 
> 
> “_It was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionist was not to establish a slaveholders reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to create the union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican party”_
> _-Robert Divine T.H Bren George Fredrickson and R Williams America Past and Present_
> 
> Many say the south was not fighting for states rights but slavery because they falsely say the CSA constitution  did not allow states to end slavery.  However freeing slaves was a state issue in the CSA constitution. Article 1 section 9 clause 4 *applies to congress,* not to the sovereign states. This was in fact anticipating non slave states to join the confederacy. Article 4 section 2 clause 1 and article 4 section 3 clause 1 predicted future free states within the confederacy. As many in the confederacy  including  VP Stevens thought that the non slave holding upper Midwest would join the confederacy because of the  tax and trade laws that would compel states connected to the Mississippi river to join the confederacy as non slave states.


LOL.  You can't read except for copying and pasting articles that agree with you.  Every new territory the confederacy was to acquire had to, by the confederate constitution, allow slavery.  If a state "barred" slavery, it would have to allow slave owners to "sojourn" with their slaves.  Put your brain in gear.  I know you have one.  In the 21st century we can't keep up with who is or is not "sojourning" in our nation.  There was no way with 19th century technology to be able to keep track of who had permanently moved in with his slaves and who was just "sojourning."

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Honest to God.. that was probably the most insane article I've ever read. Wow......
> The GOP had a terrific start- from Axel Rose to Teddy Roosevelt it was an almost perfect Party. We started failing when the Conservatives took over and crashed the economy, then we went into a minority position for decades due to the forward-thinking New Deal coalition. Eisenhower (a Progressive mind you) helped bring the Party back to its respectable past. Reagan & his ideological successors have largely failed and seem to be on their way out due to the Trump hegemony. 
> 
> However, the premise of the article is correct- Paul & the more "small government, free market" types would historically belong to the Democratic Party. There was a switch in the 20th century where Progressives moved to the DNC & Conservatives slowly migrated out of the Democratic Party. Even today we have Blue Dogs and moderates who are a remnant of a different era.


Sure Teddy the Bull Moose Socialist Imperialist was just great

Get lost.

----------


## Identity

> Sure Teddy the Bull Moose Socialist Imperialist was just great
> 
> Get lost.



Roosevelt's environmental plans weren't bad- Conservatives probably could've gotten behind it as well. But I'm honestly curious- what do you guys think should happen to a State that is trying to leave the union but endorses something as bad as slavery? That's a huge moral crime we're dealing with..

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Roosevelt's environmental plans weren't bad- Conservatives probably could've gotten behind it as well. But I'm honestly curious- what do you guys think should happen to a State that is trying to leave the union but endorses something as bad as slavery? That's a huge moral crime we're dealing with..


Let them be. Native citizens, individuals, or GOD will deal with them, we should no more meddle with them than we should go around the globe slaying monsters.

At most we might refuse to trade with them.

----------


## Identity

> LOL.  You can't read except for copying and pasting articles that agree with you.  Every new territory the confederacy was to acquire had to, by the confederate constitution, allow slavery.  If a state "barred" slavery, it would have to allow slave owners to "sojourn" with their slaves.  Put your brain in gear.  I know you have one.  In the 21st century we can't keep up with who is or is not "sojourning" in our nation.  There was no way with 19th century technology to be able to keep track of who had permanently moved in with his slaves and who was just "sojourning."


Well I didn't go through the article enough to respond but it listed the "agrarian South vs. industrial north" as the number 1 cause of the split. Uhh, what do people the South meant by identifying as 'agrarian?' Yes, it was agrarian and it was economically efficient to *own & use slaves* in the agrarian south than anything else- hence the split. It's like the people that use "State's rights" as an argument.. yeah it was over states' rights- the right for a state to allow slavery. Come on people..


I can respect the CSA for certain things and recognize the time period, I'll always think Robert E Lee was a principled, respected man. But this is just silly. Also am I mistaken to say the CSA was rather anti-liberal and anti-states rights itself? Their Constitution allowed a huge amount of leeway for their Feds to intervene when necessary.

----------


## Identity

> Let them be. Native citizens, individuals, or GOD will deal with them, we should no more meddle with them than we should go around the globe slaying monsters.
> 
> At most we might refuse to trade with them.


My problem with that view is that we would've fragmented America into a million little pieces by now. The Founders always had a notion of a _perpetual union_ one could correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that exact phrase was used in the Articles of Confederation. One could imagine a scenario where every piece of America splits once an unpopular President or law gets passed- I recall there were major pre-Civil War secessionist movements, one being centered in New England as a response to the Union growing and "old school Americans" feeling underrepresented.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> My problem with that view is that we would've fragmented America into a million little pieces by now. The Founders always had a notion of a _perpetual union_ one could correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that exact phrase was used in the Articles of Confederation. One could imagine a scenario where every piece of America splits once an unpopular President or law gets passed- I recall there were major pre-Civil War secessionist movements, one being centered in New England as a response to the Union growing and "old school Americans" feeling underrepresented.


What nonsense!

----------


## Identity

> What nonsense!


How would America defend itself against the British Empire if literally every State pulled apart from the Federal gov almost instantly? That's one of my issues with Anarchists- you need a decent amount of centralization to keep things in order. Constitution was an improvement upon the Articles for that reason.

----------


## 1stvermont

> Wrong.  Speaking for myself I was educated in private schools K-12 and my high school history teacher was a southern apologist and a blooming idiot.  I'm not calling him an idiot because he was a southern apologist.  When we would get our tests back I would have a C...until we went through the answers and I showed him from the book over and over again where he was wrong and I would have an A.  And no it wasn't a "liberal textbook."  He just didn't have a basic grasp of historical facts.
> 
> And here is the fact of what we're talking about.  You can couch it in "states rights" and "property rights" all you want to but at the end of the day the "property right" being argued about was human beings.  Ask yourself this question.  Why did the slave owning states demand a fugitive slave clause in the constitution in the first place?  Seriously?  I know the answer, but I wonder if you do.  I doubt it.



that is a great way of ignoring the causes of secession and responses contained within my post.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> How would America defend itself against the British Empire if literally every State pulled apart from the Federal gov almost instantly? That's one of my issues with Anarchists- you need a decent amount of centralization to keep things in order. Constitution was an improvement upon the Articles for that reason.


An alliance does not require a union.

----------


## 1stvermont

> LOL.  You can't read except for copying and pasting articles that agree with you.  Every new territory the confederacy was to acquire had to, by the confederate constitution, allow slavery.  If a state "barred" slavery, it would have to allow slave owners to "sojourn" with their slaves.  Put your brain in gear.  I know you have one.  In the 21st century we can't keep up with who is or is not "sojourning" in our nation.  There was no way with 19th century technology to be able to keep track of who had permanently moved in with his slaves and who was just "sojourning."


These "articles" are mine. And you are incorrect about the csa Constitution as i pointed out, just put your brain i gear and read it. They could not outlaw individuals there right to their own property anywhere in the csa. But it is clear you care not for facts and i cant make you learn, that is up to you.

----------


## Identity

> that is a great way of ignoring the causes of secession.


I've heard the alternatives before and let's imagine a world where slavery didn't exist in America. Do you think tariffs, cultural issues, and some different economic structures would be enough for the South to randomly rise up and go, "_alright we're done here"_ I really just don't buy it- I'm not saying you're wrong concerning there being other variables but the opinion of most historians is that slavery was *the* issue, everything else wasn't secession-worthy.

----------


## Identity

> These "articles" are mine. And you are incorrect about the csa Constitution as i pointed out, *just put your brain i gear and read it. They could not outlaw individuals there right to their own property anywhere in the csa.* But it is clear you care not for facts and i cant make you learn, that is up to you.


Translation = unapologetic nation-wide slavery that can't be questioned. Great system..

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I've heard the alternatives before and let's imagine a world where slavery didn't exist in America. Do you think tariffs, cultural issues, and some different economic structures would be enough for the South to randomly rise up and go, "_alright we're done here"_ I really just don't buy it- I'm not saying you're wrong concerning there being other variables but the opinion of most historians is that slavery was *the* issue, everything else wasn't secession-worthy.


Everything else was enough, and if it wasn't it would have been very quickly.

----------


## Identity

> Everything else was enough, and if it wasn't it would have been very quickly.


Yeah but my point is that everything else was tied into slavery at some point, no? Like the whole "State's rights" issue might have some legit points- but it was only brought up because slavery was becoming an increasingly bigger issue.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yeah but my point is that everything else was tied into slavery at some point, no? Like the whole "State's rights" issue might have some legit points- but it was only brought up because slavery was becoming an increasingly bigger issue.


No, the North wanted big government and to destroy the south's economy and the south objected to both, slavery was the coincidence not the other way around.

----------


## 1stvermont

> I've heard the alternatives before and let's imagine a world where slavery didn't exist in America. Do you think tariffs, cultural issues, and some different economic structures would be enough for the South to randomly rise up and go, "_alright we're done here"_ I really just don't buy it- I'm not saying you're wrong concerning there being other variables but the opinion of most historians is that slavery was *the* issue, everything else wasn't secession-worthy.


No i think the issue was the issue they said it was, that of state sovereignty, have a look at me links. Or at least stop pretending to know what you are talking about.

----------


## 1stvermont

> Translation = unapologetic nation-wide slavery that can't be questioned. Great system..


once more a dodge of the issues at play.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I love Paul Craig Roberts but he is wrong as two left shoes on this.  To fully understand the history of the civil war it is important not to just look at the motivations of the North but to look at the motivations of the South.  The southern states stated in their declarations of secession that their main beef was protecting slavery.  They wanted slavery to be allowed to expand to the new territories and the wanted the fugitive slave law enforced.  In his first inaugural, Lincoln made it clear that he wasn't going to enforce the fugitive slave law, nor allow slavery to expand further.  The proposed constitutional amendment that Paul Craig Roberts was referencing did not address either of those issues.  The other issue people cite as a cause for secession was tariffs.  But tariffs were at an all time low when the South seceded.  Had the southern states gone along with South Carolina and seceded when southern slave owner Andrew Jackson was president, then could have legitimately claimed their main beef was tariffs.  Tariffs were high back then.  Incidentally Andrew Jackson threatened to hang all secessionists and yet for some odd reason Andrew Jackson is still revered in the south.  But after the nullification crisis, congress reduced tariffs to the lowest ever in the nation's history.  After the southern senators resigned post secession, tariffs were raised.  In other words *all the South had to do to prevent tariffs from being raised was to NOT secede!*  Either southerners were the biggest group of stupid bumpkins in history, or the U.S. Civil War was not chiefly about tariffs.
> 
> It's really silly for libertarians to try to defend the South.  You and everyone else should watch the movie "The Free State of Jones."  It tells the true story of poor southern whites and escaped black slaves who seceded from Mississippi during the Civil War and created their truly libertarian state.  People talk about wanting to create a libertarian state in New Hampshire?  Well a libertarian state existed in Mississippi.  There was no slavery and *there were no taxes*!  And why were these poor whites willing to throw in their lot with escaped slaves?  *Because the Confederacy in effect was enslaving white people along with blacks!*  The Confederacy was the first side in the civil war to institute a draft.  *But after the emancipation proclamation, the confederacy exempted slave owners from the draft!  For every 9 slaves you had, you got one exemption!*  Also Confederate "tax collectors" would conduct raids on the crops of poor white farmers to have food to feed an army fighting in a war that in no way benefited poor whites.  Lincoln did a lot of things wrong too.  But what rich whites were doing to poor whites during the Civil War was worthy of a counter civil war.  Other areas of the South seceded from their states as well.  That's how we have West Virginia.  An area in North Alabama also seceded.  Troops from this area were some of General Sherman's best fighters as he went "Marching through Georgia."  Learn your history, *all of it*.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again."

I think there's a good case that the North was fighting for things other than ending slavery.

But as for the South, maintaining slavery may not have been the only reason it had, but it was clearly a big one. Clearly they did not interpret the Corwin Amendment mentioned in the OP as the gift of eternal slavery on a silver platter that Roberts insinuates.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, the North wanted big government and to destroy the south's economy and the south objected to both, slavery was the coincidence not the other way around.


LOL.  The north wanted to destroy the south's economy by forcing it into economic growth (industrialization)?  That's really about the most retarded argument on the subject I've ever read.

----------


## jmdrake

> No i think the issue was the issue they said it was, that of state sovereignty, have a look at me links. Or at least stop pretending to know what you are talking about.


The whole point of the fugitive slave clause of the constitution was to *undermine* state sovereignty.  It was a reaction to the case Somerset v Stewart.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart  In that case a slave escaped from Virginia to England and the slave owner wanted the slave returned by the English judge refused.  A sovereign state should have the right to decide what to do with a fugitive.  Any law on repatriation of fugitives is, by definition, an abrogation of state sovereignty.  We wouldn't turn a missionary over to Iran to be tried for evangelism for example.

----------


## jmdrake

> These "articles" are mine. And you are incorrect about the csa Constitution as i pointed out, just put your brain i gear and read it. They could not outlaw individuals there right to their own property anywhere in the csa. But it is clear you care not for facts and i cant make you learn, that is up to you.


Ad hominems prove you have lost the argument.  Again "Every new territory the confederacy was to acquired had to, by the confederate constitution, allow slavery."

----------


## Swordsmyth

> LOL.  The north wanted to destroy the south's economy by forcing it into economic growth (industrialization)?  That's really about the most retarded argument on the subject I've ever read.


They only wanted to rebuild it after they stole it, they wanted to destroy it first so it would be easier to steal.

----------


## 1stvermont

> The whole point of the fugitive slave clause of the constitution was to *undermine* state sovereignty.  It was a reaction to the case Somerset v Stewart.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart  In that case a slave escaped from Virginia to England and the slave owner wanted the slave returned by the English judge refused.  A sovereign state should have the right to decide what to do with a fugitive.  Any law on repatriation of fugitives is, by definition, an abrogation of state sovereignty.  We wouldn't turn a missionary over to Iran to be tried for evangelism for example.



*Claim-The South was Against States Rights on the Issue of the Fugitive Slave Laws

*“_The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.” 
-Texas causes of Southern secession_

Some claim the south did not care for states rights, or only cared when slavery was involved, as they objected to northern states nullifying the federal fugitive slave laws. Therefore they say, the south cared for slavery more than states rights. This objection seems good on the surface, but stems from a misunderstanding of both the purpose of states rights, and the union that was, see

From Union to Empire- The Political Effects of the Civil war http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-Civil-war 

But even if we assume they are correct for the sake of the argument, at most it would prove the south did not care for the northern states, states rights, not their own. The south clearly spoke of states rights and violations by the north and federal as a cause of secession. It could hypothetically denounce northern states rights as well when the north violated their own states rights and still secede over southern states rights. Since these rights are in place to secure its own states citizens rights and not another, this would make sense. This is also the downside of having a union of self governing states if one side does not follow the compact or contract [constitution] and also why secession is vital to liberty. 

Having said that a proper understanding of states rights is not lawlessness and states not following federal law or the constitution. In fact it is the opposite. States rights are in place to prevent the federal from violating the constitution or overstepping its bounds. In this case the northern states were violating the constitution. The southern rights were already granted within the constitution that northern states were violating. Here is the USA and CSA “supremacy clause” 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States [confederate version read confederate states]which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
-Article 4 clause 3 us Constitution 

The south from the creation of the union had constitutional protection of its property that included recognized slave property. The north by violating that right [and Dread Scott supreme court ruling/ fugitive slave laws] would not allow them their property and would in essence, steal it [by not working with federal workers]by not returning slaves. The south were not second class citizens and their property was constitutionally to be treated as any other property. It would be the same as if a Vermonters horse wondered across the border to New York, only to have a resident of that state keep the horse and say we dont recognize your right to this property. That is not a protection of the individuals property as granted under the constitution and was a cause of secession.

For more please see my thread that responds to the common objections and shows the causes of secession.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South

----------


## 1stvermont

> Ad hominems prove you have lost the argument.  Again "Every new territory the confederacy was to acquired had to, by the confederate constitution, allow slavery."



well sir please support your *false* claim. you might have missed it but i was juts using your own language against yourself thus if we use your logic, you admit you "have lost the argument" i would say the same holds true if we read history. 


_C_*laim- Confederate Constitution Does not Allow States to Abolish Slavery* 

“_It was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionist was not to establish a slaveholders reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to create the union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican party”
-Robert Divine T.H Bren George Fredrickson and R Williams America Past and Present_

Many say the south was not fighting for states rights but slavery because they falsely say the CSA constitution did not allow states to end slavery. However freeing slaves was a state issue in the CSA constitution. Article 1 section 9 clause 4 applies to congress, not to the sovereign states. This was in fact anticipating non slave states to join the confederacy. Article 4 section 2 clause 1 and article 4 section 3 clause 1 predicted future free states within the confederacy. As many in the confederacy including VP Stevens thought that the non slave holding upper Midwest would join the confederacy because of the tax and trade laws that would compel states connected to the Mississippi river to join the confederacy as non slave states. 

_“We made ample provision in our constitution for the admission of other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way.” 
-Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21 1861
_
The Confederate convention thought free states would join 

https://books.google.com/books?id=zQ...states&f=false

During the constitutional convention Cobb of Georgia proposed that all states be required to be slave owning, yet this was rejected. The south wanted boarder states and the free midwest states to join. Senator Albert Brown of Mississippi stated in the CSA constitution “Each state is sovereign within its own limits, and that each for itself can abolish or establish slavery for itself.” So while slavery was a state option, states rights was applied in the CSA slave or free. The CSA constitution did protect slave owners individual property within the entire CSA regardless if the state was free or slave.



For more on common false claims see here

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Upper-South

----------


## jmdrake

> well sir please support your *false* claim. you might have missed it but i was juts using your own language against yourself thus if we use your logic, you admit you "have lost the argument" i would say the same holds true if we read history.



The claims are 100% true.  You just lack the intellect to understand them.  Once again:

_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._

Look up the definition of sojourn.

*
 Definition of sojourn
: a temporary stay a sojourn in the country* 

So no state had the right to prevent a slave owner from bringing his slave into that state as long as the owner claimed it was just a "temporary stay."  Even in 2018 with all of the technology we have, we can't prevent people from overstaying "temporary visas."  So that is an override of a states sovereign right to ban slavery.  By contrast states have the right to ban prostitution.  Imagine if the U.S. constitution had language that said "If a person hires a hooker in a state where it's legal he has the right to 'sojourn' with her to any other state and make use of her services there."  Anyone with a lick of common sense would know that meant that prostitution would be de facto legal in the entire country.  But as it stands currently "What you hire in Nevada stays in Nevada."  You can go to the Bunny Ranch and legally hire a prostitute and have fun with her in Nevada, but you can't pay for her in Nevada then drive her to Arizona for her services.  

You copying and pasting other people who simply agree with your flawed position does not make it correct.

Sorry for the long delay in response.  The collective stupidity I've run into on this forum just got to me and I had to take a break.

----------


## jmdrake

> They only wanted to rebuild it after they stole it, they wanted to destroy it first so it would be easier to steal.


There really wasn't anything worth stealing prior to the civil war.  The South was nothing but a slave powered agricultural colony.  Without slaves, the South wasn't worth spit because without slaves the south didn't have the manpower to produce its own export which was cotton.  After slavery was abolished the South was able to get involved in REAL economic expansion by joining the industrial age.  That's when Birmingham became a steel powerhouse.  I know because I'm from there.  You should visit sometime, and go to the civil right museum.  The opening exhibit talks about the economic expansion coming from the steel industry post slavery.  One look at pictures from those old steel mills and you'll see why they could NOT work on slave labor.  It would have been too easy for a disgruntled slave to loosen the wrong bolt and cause a catastrophe.  Loosen a bolt on a farm and the worst that happen is the plow is out of commission for a day.  Loosen a bolt in a steel mill and people die and the entire mill is shut down.

Really your logic is totally assbackwards.  The northern "carpetbaggers" brought in industry.  The southern traitors got their plantations back after swearing an oath to the union.  Nothing was stolen.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The claims are 100% true.  You just lack the intellect to understand them.  Once again:
> 
> _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._
> 
> Look up the definition of sojourn.
> 
> *
>  Definition of sojourn
> : a temporary stay a sojourn in the country* 
> ...


It is illegal to keep your out of state drivers license and license plates if you establish residence in a new state, the same could have been done about slaves.
Slavery should have been abolished and I am not here to defend it but you are wrong on this point.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> There really wasn't anything worth stealing prior to the civil war.  The South was nothing but a slave powered agricultural colony.  Without slaves, the South wasn't worth spit because without slaves the south didn't have the manpower to produce its own export which was cotton.  After slavery was abolished the South was able to get involved in REAL economic expansion by joining the industrial age.  That's when Birmingham became a steel powerhouse.  I know because I'm from there.  You should visit sometime, and go to the civil right museum.  The opening exhibit talks about the economic expansion coming from the steel industry post slavery.  One look at pictures from those old steel mills and you'll see why they could NOT work on slave labor.  It would have been too easy for a disgruntled slave to loosen the wrong bolt and cause a catastrophe.  Loosen a bolt on a farm and the worst that happen is the plow is out of commission for a day.  Loosen a bolt in a steel mill and people die and the entire mill is shut down.
> 
> Really your logic is totally assbackwards.  The northern "carpetbaggers" brought in industry.  The southern traitors got their plantations back after swearing an oath to the union.  Nothing was stolen.


Many holdings were stolen, one of the main ways used was to claim that taxes paid to the southern states during the war didn't count and present the owners with a tremendous bill for "back taxes", confederate money was made worthless and that is what most people had so they couldn't pay and lost their land.

Many people had everything they owned destroyed or stolen by Yankee troops and had to sell their land and share-crop, many moved west or to south-America.
There were many other ways that land was stolen and given to Yankees but it isn't worth going into here.

----------


## jmdrake

> Many holdings were stolen


1) A holding != an "economy."

2) The traitors got their land, which they stole from the indians worked from labor stolen from Africans, back.

3) At the end of the day their sh*thole agriculture economy was transformed into a modern industrial economy.

The civil war was the best thing that happened to the south and the southerners.





> one of the main ways used was to claim that taxes paid to the southern states during the war didn't count and present the owners with a tremendous bill for "back taxes", confederate money was made worthless and that is what most people had so they couldn't pay and lost their land.


LOL.  Confederate money was worthless from jump street.  Fiat currency is only as good as the army that backs it up.  Confederate currency was not backed by gold or any other real asset.  Stupid argument.





> Many people had everything they owned destroyed or stolen by Yankee troops and had to sell their land and share-crop, many moved west or to south-America.
> There were many other ways that land was stolen and given to Yankees but it isn't worth going into here.


The land that the traitors stole from the indians was given back to the traitors when they swore an oath to the union.  Stupid argument.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> 1) A holding != an "economy."
> 
> 2) The traitors got their land, which they stole from the indians worked from labor stolen from Africans, back.
> 
> 3) At the end of the day their sh*thole agriculture economy was transformed into a modern industrial economy.
> 
> The civil war was the best thing that happened to the south and the southerners.
> 
> 
> ...


You are beyond help.

----------


## jmdrake

> It is illegal to keep your out of state drivers license and license plates if you establish residence in a new state, the same could have been done about slaves.


SMDH.  That's only if:

1) You get caught.  (People go years without getting resident license plates.  That's hard as hell to prove).

2) You actually set up residence.

Have you never hear of migrant farm labor?  Let's say Mississippi abolished slavery under the confederacy but Alabama did not.  A slave owner could live in Alabama then rent his slaves to "sojourn" with him to work crops in Mississippi and then "sojourn" back.  




> Slavery should have been abolished and I am not here to defend it but you are wrong on this point.


I am 100% right on this point.  You simply are not even attempting to see simple logic.  Again imagine if prostitution worked this way.  If you could rent a prostitute in one state and use her in another then prostitution would be de facto legal in all 50 states.

----------


## jmdrake

> You are beyond help.


Coming from you that is a compliment as you are only trying to help people be illogical.

----------


## timosman

> It is illegal to keep your out of state drivers license and license plates if you establish residence in a new state, the same could have been done about slaves.


What's the penalty? Asking for a friend.

----------


## jmdrake

> What's the penalty? Asking for a friend.


Penalty for keeping an out of state license plate?  None really if you are not totally stupid.  I had an uncle (now deceased) who lived in California but always had out of state license plates to avoid high California license plate fees.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> SMDH.  That's only if:
> 
> 1) You get caught.  (People go years without getting resident license plates.  That's hard as hell to prove).
> 
> 2) You actually set up residence.
> 
> Have you never hear of migrant farm labor?  Let's say Mississippi abolished slavery under the confederacy but Alabama did not.  A slave owner could live in Alabama then rent his slaves to "sojourn" with him to work crops in Mississippi and then "sojourn" back.  
> 
> 
> ...


If someone moved to the state to run a farm with slaves it would be much easier to catch them than people with out of state DLs, likewise a state could prohibit the contracting of slave labor from an owner in another state.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What's the penalty? Asking for a friend.


It varies from state to state.

----------


## jmdrake

> If someone moved to the state to run a farm with slaves it would be much easier to catch them than people with out of state DLs, likewise a state could prohibit the contracting of slave labor from an owner in another state.


 Again *HAVE YOU NOT HEARD OF MIGRANT FARM WORKERS!*  It's not a matter of "catching" the person doing it.  *It would be TOTALLY LEGAL under the CSA constitution!*  Migrant farm workers, by definition, "sojourn" from state to state!  Come on dude.  You can't be that thick.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Again *HAVE YOU NOT HEARD OF MIGRANT FARM WORKERS!*  It's not a matter of "catching" the person doing it.  *It would be TOTALLY LEGAL under the CSA constitution!*  Migrant farm workers, by definition, "sojourn" from state to state!  Come on dude.  You can't be that thick.


And the theoretical Free state in the CSA could outlaw the use of slave labor from other states.

----------


## jmdrake

> And the theoretical Free state in the CSA could outlaw the use of slave labor from other states.


Nope.  Not the way the CSA is written.  That would diminish the property interest of the slave owner and be in direct violation of the clause I quoted to you.  Besides the slave owner could "pay" the slave and the confiscate the money as soon as he got back across the border.  Nice try though.

Edit: Again the quote.

_Sec. 2. (I) 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._

If you can't make full use of your property, your "right of property" has, by definition, been impaired.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Nope.  Not the way the CSA is written.  That would diminish the property interest of the slave owner and be in direct violation of the clause I quoted to you.  Besides the slave owner could "pay" the slave and the confiscate the money as soon as he got back across the border.  Nice try though.
> 
> Edit: Again the quote.
> 
> _Sec. 2. (I) 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._
> 
> If you can't make full use of your property, your "right of property" has, by definition, been impaired.


They could make full use of their property in their home state and wages don't turn a slave into a free man, if you are owned by someone else and can't end the relationship you are a slave, a state could forbid it's citizens from renting the services of slave labor from another state, it would be a restriction on their citizens not an impairment of the slave owners right to property.

----------


## jmdrake

> They could make full use of their property in their home state


How can you support a constitutionalist and not understand how to read a constitution?  The clause I quoted is clear.  When a slave owner sojourned to *any state*, not just the home state, his right to his "property" could be "impaired" by the state he of his sojourn.  So it would be against the CSA constitution for a state to pass a law that once a slave master "sojourned" to another state, he couldn't force his slave to do labor.  In fact, that's the reason slave owners wanted to take their slaves with them on their "sojourns" so they could continue working them.  They weren't taking their slaves with them for window dressing.





> and wages don't turn a slave into a free man


My point exactly.  So even if a state under the CSA abolished slavery and even if you are right, which you are not, that under the CSA a state could make it illegal for slave labor to take place in that state, the slave owner could pay the slave (no slave labor) and the confiscate the wages later.  Some slave owners did actually let their slaves earn and keep wages by the way.





> if you are owned by someone else and can't end the relationship you are a slave, a state could forbid it's citizens from renting the services of slave labor from another state, it would be a restriction on their citizens not an impairment of the slave owners right to property.


I see you simply don't understand basic property rights.  *sigh* If you own a house and the government prevents you from renting it, that is an impairment on your property rights.  If you own a car and the government prevents you from renting it that is an impairment on your property rights.  If you own a slave and the government prevents you from renting it that is an impairment on your property rights.  Your property rights is more than just your "right to own property."  It's also *the right you have to do what you want with your property!*  Under certain circumstances courts have determined that government restrictions on your use of property are so onerous that the restrictions constitute a "taking" and the government has to pay you the same as if they actually confiscated the property.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> How can you support a constitutionalist and not understand how to read a constitution?  The clause I quoted is clear.  When a slave owner sojourned to *any state*, not just the home state, his right to his "property" could be "impaired" by the state he of his sojourn.  So it would be against the CSA constitution for a state to pass a law that once a slave master "sojourned" to another state, he couldn't force his slave to do labor.  In fact, that's the reason slave owners wanted to take their slaves with them on their "sojourns" so they could continue working them.  They weren't taking their slaves with them for window dressing.


They could have their slaves do work for them during their temporary stay but the state could prohibit any of it's citizens from utilizing slave labor.







> My point exactly.  So even if a state under the CSA abolished slavery and even if you are right, which you are not, that under the CSA a state could make it illegal for slave labor to take place in that state, the slave owner could pay the slave (no slave labor) and the confiscate the wages later.  Some slave owners did actually let their slaves earn and keep wages by the way.


The laborers would still be slaves and the law would prohibit the states citizens from renting them.







> I see you simply don't understand basic property rights.  *sigh* If you own a house and the government prevents you from renting it, that is an impairment on your property rights.  If you own a car and the government prevents you from renting it that is an impairment on your property rights.  If you own a slave and the government prevents you from renting it that is an impairment on your property rights.  Your property rights is more than just your "right to own property."  It's also *the right you have to do what you want with your property!*  Under certain circumstances courts have determined that government restrictions on your use of property are so onerous that the restrictions constitute a "taking" and the government has to pay you the same as if they actually confiscated the property.


That is a gray area of property rights, a Free state prohibiting it's citizens from renting the labor of those held to involuntary servitude by citizens of Slave states would be an entirely reasonable prohibition that wouldn't impair the slavers' right of property, if the Confederacy ruled otherwise the Free state would have been allowed to secede.

----------


## jmdrake

> They could have their slaves do work for them during their temporary stay but the state could prohibit any of it's citizens from utilizing slave labor.a


Wrong!  Again you don't understand property rights.  Here is a free legal lesson on property law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights

Every piece of property that you own in legal terms comes with a set of rights that can be thought of as a "bundle of sticks."  You can sell or give away some of those rights (sticks) and still own the property.  Also the government can take away some of those rights and you still own the property.  *But your rights have been impaired!*  That *goes directly against the Confederate constitution!*

Here is an example.  You buy a house.  You lease the house.  One of the rights when you own the house is "quiet enjoyment" which means that someone else just can't come on your property without permission.  When you lease a house you transfer the quiet enjoyment right to the lessee.  If the government says "You can't lease your house anymore" *they have impaired your rights*!  That's a real issue because in San Francisco the city (stupidly) passed an ordinance to restrict AirBB style leasing.  (https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/19/...s-cut-in-half/)  Those property rights are impaired.  So your argument that being restricted from leasing property is not impairing property rights is without merit.




> The laborers would still be slaves and the law would prohibit the states citizens from renting them.


Wrong.  See above.




> That is a gray area of property rights


What part of "impaired" do you not understand?




> a Free state prohibiting it's citizens from renting the labor of those held to involuntary servitude by citizens of Slave states would be an entirely reasonable prohibition that wouldn't impair the slavers' right of property, if the Confederacy ruled otherwise the Free state would have been allowed to secede.


It would ABSOLUTELY impair the slave owners property rights.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Bump

----------

