Was the Civil War a “civil war”?

[robert68]

It indicates what I said. No Republican abandoned his party on this vote. One Democrat abandoned his party to join the Republicans. And, of course, the vote was from Pennsylvania, the pivotal state that strongly help secure Lincoln's election.

No it doesn't. You said "as evidenced by the number of Democrats who voted for the same bill in the house." When in fact only one Senate Democrat supported it, a northern Democrat. The rest IMO is your believing what you want to believe.

Some of the abstaining Democrats (many more than the Republicans) probably knew they did not have the votes anyway. I would bet that the other abstaining Democrats were probably for it, but shrewdly withdrew. Perhaps they abstained for political expedience, as many do that today.

Either way, the general sentiment had shifted back to high protections. It was only a matter of time.

 

[robert68]

I am, so what, what's the relevance? We're having a conversation about US history. This thread was started from an article on LRC. <shrug>

Libertarian principle recognizes individual rights, not state rights. <shrug>

 

[Ronin Truth]

Libertarian principle recognizes individual rights, not state rights. <shrug>

Looking around, we don't really seem to be living in "libertarian world", quite yet.

 

[robert68]

Looking around, we don't really seem to be living in "libertarian world", quite yet.

Irrelevant. Go tell some other libertarians that the right of a state trumps the right of individuals.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Irrelevant. Go tell some other libertarians that the right of a state trumps the right of individuals.

Totally relevant. I said no such thing. (and I'm pretty sure you know and completely understand that.)

I'll bet I was libertarian before you were even born. You're just singing to the preacher, badly.

 

[robert68]

Totally relevant. I said no such thing. (and I'm pretty sure you know and completely understand that.)

You didn't have to use those exact words and you should know and completely understand that.

You wrote "The South was right on states rights and secession " and after I responded that "states don't have rights", you posted the following:

states rights

About 61,400,000 results

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...74.cdm998_S4kQ

Since blacks had no rights in the Confederacy and Confederate Constitution, you put the right to enslave them over their right to liberty.
1+1+2. Principle libertarians don't do that.

I'll bet I was libertarian before you were even born.

Then you'd lose your money and are slow learner. I'm done with this.

 

[Ronin Truth]

You didn't have to use those exact words and you should know and completely understand that.

You wrote "The South was right on states rights and secession " and after I responded that "states don't have rights", you posted the following:



Since blacks had no rights in the Confederacy and Confederate Constitution, you put the right to enslave them over their right to liberty.
1+1+2. Principle libertarians don't do that.



Then you'd lose your money and are slow learner. I done with this.

Very wise decision, you're batting way out of your league.

 

[robert68]

Very wise decision, you're batting way out of your league.

LOL. Says a neo-Confederate “anarchist libertarian”.

 

[Ronin Truth]

LOL. Says a neo-Confederate “anarchist libertarian”.

Q: What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

A: Twenty years.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No it doesn't. You said "as evidenced by the number of Democrats who voted for the same bill in the house." When in fact only one Senate Democrat supported it, a northern Democrat. The rest IMO is your believing what you want to believe.

I am speaking of proportion, not raw numbers. The tariff was a more a sectional issue for Democrats than Republicans.

Hunter first tabled the bill because he wanted to propose his own version of the house bill for his senate colleagues. He wanted more deliberate consideration. This was not really possible because the first senate session was ending shortly after the house bill passed. The second senate session would not resume until after the fall elections. Since there was a long gap between sessions at this time (almost six months), you can't necessarily consider Hunter's first suspension of the bill as "filibuster." In fact, there were many Democrats who urged a vote on the bill.

The bill was later resurrected by Pennsylvania's Cameron immediately after Lincoln's election victory. The atmosphere was now much different because the Republican senate election wins and shift of power. That made if more dire for Hunter, along with Pennsylvania's conditional support of the tariff tied with their now connection to the Republican Party. The momentum had greatly shifted in six months, with the north and south division becoming even more apparent. It's no accident that South Carolina issued their secession document only two weeks after Cameron's hasty motion to reintroduce the bill.

 

[robert68]

I am speaking of proportion, not raw numbers. The tariff was a more a sectional issue for Democrats than Republicans.

Hunter first tabled the bill because he wanted to propose his own version of the house bill for his senate colleagues. He wanted more deliberate consideration. This was not really possible because the first senate session was ending shortly after the house bill passed. The second senate session would not resume until after the fall elections. Since there was a long gap between sessions at this time (almost six months), you can't necessarily consider Hunter's first suspension of the bill as "filibuster." In fact, there were many Democrats who urged a vote on the bill.

The bill was later resurrected by Pennsylvania's Cameron immediately after Lincoln's election victory. The atmosphere was now much different because the Republican senate election wins and shift of power. That made if more dire for Hunter, along with Pennsylvania's conditional support of the tariff tied with their now connection to the Republican Party. The momentum had greatly shifted in six months, with the north and south division becoming even more apparent. It's no accident that South Carolina issued their secession document only two weeks after Cameron's hasty motion to reintroduce the bill.

South Carolina issued its declaration to secede on December 24, 1860, before Lincoln's election, and there's not a single word in it about tariffs. It's "Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" are about slavery or slavery related.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

South Carolina issued its declaration to secede on December 24, 1860, before Lincoln's election,

No, Lincoln was elected November 1860.

...and there's not a single word in it about tariffs. It's "Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" are about slavery or slavery related.

Related? By that logic I could say the constitutional issues to which the document alludes are related to tariffs.




***************************************************



There are numerous references to the tariff and northern taxation before, during, and after the South Carolina Secession Convention. Here are excerpts from just one of those references, the South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate:

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,...

***

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.

***

Yet this British policy has been fully realized towards the Southern States by the Northern States. 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. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade is almost annihilated. In 1740, there were five ship-yards in South Carolina, to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779, there were built in these yards, twenty-five square rigged vessels, besides a great number of sloops and schooners, to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold.

***

It cannot be believed, that our ancestors would have assented to any union whatever with the people of the North, if the feelings and opinions now existing amongst them, had existed when the Constitution was framed. There was then no Tariff...

***

To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must first be abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North, to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.

This is one single source. There are numerous sources. I acknowledged slavery as a reason. Are you telling me that the tariff or no other issues were relevant?

Source: South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate
http://history.furman.edu/benson/docs/scdebate3.htm

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

There was also considerable debate on how the causes should be cited. One issue was the presentation to other southern states (for support) versus presentation to the world.

Judge Wardlaw, for just one example, stated: "My objections to the other Address is that it deals too much with the Fugitive Slave Law and upon Personal Liberty Bills. It is too much like special pleading."


The documents and debates vary among the other seceding states. Note that Georgia, for example, actually includes the tariff issue in its final document.

Denying that the secessionists and politicians of the day did not debate and argue about the tariff as cause is like saying oil had nothing to do with the Iraqi invasion.

 

[robert68]

I am speaking of proportion, not raw numbers. The tariff was a more a sectional issue for Democrats than Republicans.

Hunter first tabled the bill because he wanted to propose his own version of the house bill for his senate colleagues. He wanted more deliberate consideration. This was not really possible because the first senate session was ending shortly after the house bill passed. The second senate session would not resume until after the fall elections. Since there was a long gap between sessions at this time (almost six months), you can't necessarily consider Hunter's first suspension of the bill as "filibuster." In fact, there were many Democrats who urged a vote on the bill.

The bill was later resurrected by Pennsylvania's Cameron immediately after Lincoln's election victory. The atmosphere was now much different because the Republican senate election wins and shift of power. That made if more dire for Hunter, along with Pennsylvania's conditional support of the tariff tied with their now connection to the Republican Party. The momentum had greatly shifted in six months, with the north and south division becoming even more apparent. It's no accident that South Carolina issued their secession document only two weeks after Cameron's hasty motion to reintroduce the bill.

How about backing up your narrative with a source.

 

[robert68]

No, Lincoln was elected November 1860.

Related? By that logic I could say the constitutional issues to which the document alludes are related to tariffs.

References to the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution are "slavery related" references, of which there are many.

There are numerous references to the tariff and northern taxation before, during, and after the South Carolina Secession Convention.

But not a single word about tariffs in their Secession Declaration.

Here are excerpts from just one of those references, the South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate:

This is one single source. There are numerous sources. I acknowledged slavery as a reason. Are you telling me that the tariff or no other issues were relevant?

Based on the secession declarations of most of the seceding states, and the Cornerstone speech, it's importance is not comparable to the slavery issue, IMO. Have you read any of the Cornerstone speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens I earlier provided a link for? He couldn't have stated it more clear. The most memorable line is below:

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.[1]

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

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

Overview
--------
Source: South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate
http://history.furman.edu/benson/docs/scdebate3.htm

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

But not a single word about tariffs in their Secession Declaration.

The secession documents were more practical documents to gain support from fellow southern states. One of the debates focused on which issues to emphasize. It was decided to focus on support and cohesion from other southern states rather than the world.

The total focus on slavery today ignores the fact that Lincoln did not care about slavery where it already existed. Lincoln said, "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."

Lincoln is basically agreeing with South Carolina and its document. He changes tactics when he realizes that he will not get world support on economic issues.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Have you read any of the Cornerstone speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens I earlier provided a link for? He couldn't have stated it more clear. The most memorable line is below:

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.[1]

Yes, I am well aware of what Stephens said. Not much different than Lincoln's view of blacks:

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

“I will say then that 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.”

"And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

"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.”

“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Again, the question remains. If Lincoln had no intent to "interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists," then why did he take action to stop secession?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

How about backing up your narrative with a source.

Source on what? A lot of this is basic facts you should know before discussing this. For example, you said that Lincoln was elected after the South Carolina secession document was issued. The opposite is true. That simple fundamental is central to a discussion on understanding the timing of secession. I am not going to cite facts like that.

 

[robert68]

Again, the question remains. If Lincoln had no intent to "interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists," then why did he take action to stop secession?

I don't defend Lincoln, both sides were wrong.

Source on what? A lot of this is basic facts you should know before discussing this. For example, you said that Lincoln was elected after the South Carolina secession document was issued. The opposite is true. That simple fundamental is central to a discussion on understanding the timing of secession. I am not going to cite facts like that.

Up until now you’ve been respectful, and it’s been kind of refreshing compared to some others in this forum, but you just changed that.

Source on what?

To all of your baseless assertions in this entire exchange, which I've let go up until today.

A lot of this is basic facts you should know before discussing this.

Yea, in fantasy land.

For example, you said that Lincoln was elected after the South Carolina secession document was issued. The opposite is true. That simple fundamental is central to a discussion on understanding the timing of secession. I am not going to cite facts like that.

LOL, it wasn't central to the discussion in the least. I was barely awake when I read it.

I am not going to cite facts like that.

LOL, because the facts aren’t on your side!!!!