Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    I know it is generally frowned upon just to post an article, but I think that this one will be very condusive to a great debate. It was written by Thomas DiLorenzo, an eminent American historian and entitled "A House Undivided Cannot Stand"

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo102.html

    The title of this article can be thought of as perhaps the hallmark of the thinking of the American founding fathers, namely, the idea of divided sovereignty. The founders established a confederacy of states that were essentially thought of as independent nations. Indeed, up until the 1860s it was common for Americans to refer to their home states as "my country." The Declaration of Independence declares that the free and independent states were even to have the ability, as individual states, to wage war, which they did during the Revolution.

    James Madison is given most of the credit for the idea of divided sovereignty, which is sometimes referred to as federalism or states’ rights. The fundamental idea was that governmental power was to be highly decentralized, with limited functions delegated to the central government, acting as the agent of the citizens of the states. In theory, the central government was to use that power to protect the lives, liberties, and property of the citizens of the states. More importantly, as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the citizens and the states were to be able to check or prohibit the tyrannical proclivities of the central government. Petty local tyrannies are bad enough, but everyone understood that the biggest danger to freedom was a centralized state, which was always considered to be the wolf at the door of liberty. The American Revolution was a war of secession against just such a state.

    Thus, Abraham Lincoln’s famous political buzz-line that "a house divided cannot stand" is sheer nonsense that flatly contradicts the thinking of the founding fathers. It was nevertheless helpful in his crusade to crush the system of divided sovereignty (i.e., states’ rights) that they had created in the hope that that system would preserve American liberty. In its place was put the centralized, bureaucratic empire that taxpaying Americans all slave under today.

    I was reminded of all of this once again while traveling in Europe recently and reading of the peaceful secession of the tiny country of Montenegro on May 22. Montenegrins were permitted to vote on secession, which they approved with a 55.4% majority and an 86% voter turnout. The Times of London reported on May 23 of the mass celebrations in the streets and the final demise of Yugoslavia, the forced (i.e., Lincolnite) union of six separate provinces that was created after World War I.

    The strife and violence between these ethnically diverse regions all during the twentieth century was caused primarily by the fact that they were all ruled by a centralized, Lincolnite state. The violence was always primarily over control of that state, or in protest of its policies. Dictionaries (including Wikipedia) typically misconstrue the term "balkanization" by explaining that "separatism" was the cause of all that strife. Not so. It was just the opposite – the centralization of governmental power – that was the problem. Divided sovereignty and decentralization are always more conducive to peace and prosperity than centralized, bureaucratic, totalitarianism.

    Prominent members of the Lincoln Cult did not support or celebrate the breakup of the socialist Yugoslavian regime beginning in the early 1990s – or of the Soviet Union, for that matter. In a February 11, 1991 article in The Nation magazine the "celebrated Lincoln scholar" Eric Foner of Columbia University urged Gorbachev to follow "Lincoln’s Lesson" (the title of the article) and use military force to stop the secession of the Soviet republics from the Soviet Union. Fortunately, Gorbachev was not as rabid a Marxist as Foner is. He ignored such advice, choosing not to have his armies kill hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens, Lincoln style, in order to prevent what Foner decried and mourned as "the dismemberment of the Soviet Union."

    Part of the old Yugoslavian government followed the Foner/Lincoln strategy and waged wars to try to prevent secession, killing hundreds of thousands in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia, which eventually gained their independence. But Macedonia and now Montenegro were permitted to secede peacefully. This greatly reduces, if not eliminates, the possibility of one ethnic group using the powers of a centralized state to abuse and discriminate against other ethnic minorities, as in the old Yugoslavia.

    As America becomes ever more centralized, bureaucratic, and imperialistic, with true federalism being a dead letter ever since 1865, it is heartening to see other parts of the world adopting the Jeffersonian recipe for peace, prosperity and liberty: limited, decentralized government and divided sovereignty (if there is to be government). Americans themselves will have no hope of moving in a similar direction until they abandon all the lies, fantasies, and tall tales about the legend of Abraham Lincoln, the ideological cornerstone of the centralized, bureaucratic, and imperialistic American state.
    I contend that calling the conflict that took place between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America the "Civil War" is a misnomer. If we allow that the colonies had a right to secede from Great Britain, then we must admit that the South had an absolute right to secede from North oppression. This war was not about slavery, and to quote the great American despot King Abraham Lincoln, "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery."

    Why was America the only place in the world where slavery was abolished with such violence? The whole British Empire was peacefully emancipated in 6 years (including the West Indies).

    Constitutionally slavery was legal...end of political story. Lincoln suspended habeaus corpus. Blockaded the South without Congress's approval. Militarily invaded another country without Congress's approval. And even went so far as to issue an arrest warrant for the Chief Jusice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney. This King Lincoln sure sounds like a decent fellow.

    Lincoln essentially positioned his troops so that the South would attack Fort Sumter. The Confederacy sent a delegation to Lincoln to negotiate for the Fort; Lincoln simply refused to recognize the sovereignty of the C.S.A., and spurned away all of their peace delegates. By all accounts the Union troops were invading sovereign territory.

    Why didn't the North just, in the words of the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, "let their erring sisters go in peace?"

    Let's hear what everyone thinks...and let's not make this about slavery because it is not the debate I want to have.
    "If you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place." -Murray Rothbard

    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    I contend that calling the conflict that took place between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America the "Civil War" is a misnomer.
    History is written by the victors. I would say it was a civil war, in much the same way the American Revolution was a civil war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Constitutionally slavery was legal...end of political story.
    In the rest of the world, slavery was being abolished. America inevitably had to follow suit. It is unfortunate that the set of circumstances around slavery's abolition in America was so violent, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Militarily invaded another country without Congress's approval.
    I don't think the North considered the C.S.A. a seperate country, in much the same way that England didn't consider the revolting American colonies a seperate country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    This King Lincoln sure sounds like a decent fellow.
    President Lincoln. Get your story straight And all's fair in love and war, after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Lincoln essentially positioned his troops so that the South would attack Fort Sumter. The Confederacy sent a delegation to Lincoln to negotiate for the Fort; Lincoln simply refused to recognize the sovereignty of the C.S.A., and spurned away all of their peace delegates.
    Refused to recognize the sovereignty of the seceding states? Gee...I wonder why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Why didn't the North just, in the words of the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, "let their erring sisters go in peace?"
    Because that would have created a divided, weakened America. The larger the country, the stronger. When all's said and done, Lincoln was a successful president; he kept the Union together.
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    I am omnipresent.
    Posts
    2,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo
    Let's hear what everyone thinks...and let's not make this about slavery because it is not the debate I want to have.
    While slavery is probably not central to this argument, it is rather important as it is one of the primary motivations for the South to succeed; they feared that Lincoln would eliminate it.

    Now as for states being almost separate nations, do you recall the period between the Articles of Confederation, which created a coalition of independent states, and the Constitution, which created a single sovereign nation? The whole reason the second work was written was because 13 independent nations tied together was not working to the satisfaction of all. Those states bound together voluntarily and became a nation, which cannot be broken apart so easily.
    -=]Iluvatar[=-
    Lurker, Former Staff

    "I'm not really here. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what's good for them."

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by Iluvatar
    Now as for states being almost separate nations, do you recall the period between the Articles of Confederation, which created a coalition of independent states, and the Constitution, which created a single sovereign nation? The whole reason the second work was written was because 13 independent nations tied together was not working to the satisfaction of all. Those states bound together voluntarily and became a nation, which cannot be broken apart so easily.
    Actually the reason why the Articles were disbanded was because the larger states wanted to dominate the smaller states...which is exactly what ended up happening.
    "If you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place." -Murray Rothbard

    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    I am omnipresent.
    Posts
    2,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzo
    Actually the reason why the Articles were disbanded was because the larger states wanted to dominate the smaller states...which is exactly what ended up happening.
    No doubt you have reputable sources confirming this?
    -=]Iluvatar[=-
    Lurker, Former Staff

    "I'm not really here. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what's good for them."

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    I would like to see those articles too. Which i say he wont have though. You know why he is doing this right? He is angery that i stood up to hima nd stood my ground on this topic. What i think Gonzo doesnt get is not everyone that thinks differently then him, isnt socialist.
    Knowledge is power, logic is the answer.
    Plain and not so simple.
    Dragon

    BLOOD SEED Atheist Coalition

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    lol, either way, the Civil War was one of the most disgraceful wars ever fought.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    613
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Actually the reason why the Articles were disbanded was because the larger states wanted to dominate the smaller states...which is exactly what ended up happening.
    I believe it's called, 'equal representation.' With the articles Rhode Islanders votes were worth more than the big states people. They were proposing that every persons' vote be worth the same amount.


  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    I am omnipresent.
    Posts
    2,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragon
    You know why he is doing this right? He is angery that i stood up to hima nd stood my ground on this topic. What i think Gonzo doesnt get is not everyone that thinks differently then him, isnt socialist.
    Are you aware that this is a debate site? Standing one's ground is common practice here; it's what we do. If you were really standing your ground, wouldn't you rebut this instead of discussing previous debates?
    -=]Iluvatar[=-
    Lurker, Former Staff

    "I'm not really here. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what's good for them."

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    613
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Are you aware that this is a debate site? Standing one's ground is common practice here; it's what we do. If you were really standing your ground, wouldn't you rebut this instead of discussing previous debates?
    burnzorz


  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Wars are always about economics. The slave labor in the South gave the Southerners an economic advantage over the Northerners who had to pay their laborers. The North had to find a way to reconcile the economics, either abolish slavery in the South or adopt it in the North. The latter was not going to happen.

    As for the larger States controlling the smaller ones, last I checked we in Maine, with about a million people statewide, had as many senate votes as California, with about 33,871,648. I fail to see how that allows them to dominate us. Please let me in on the secret.
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    I contend that calling the conflict that took place between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America the "Civil War" is a misnomer. If we allow that the colonies had a right to secede from Great Britain, then we must admit that the South had an absolute right to secede from North oppression. This war was not about slavery, and to quote the great American despot King Abraham Lincoln, "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery."
    First of all, i believe someone on the other thread brought this up already, on how the President can temporarly rule with martial law to enforce the laws if needed. So thus, he was NOT a king or despot. I will say however, you are partially correct in saying that the American Civil War was not nessecarly over slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Why was America the only place in the world where slavery was abolished with such violence? The whole British Empire was peacefully emancipated in 6 years (including the West Indies).
    Actually that is not true. In Spanish run Cuba and the Islands around there there was bloody fighting to end slavery and it was even fought by the slaves. I could mention many other examples throughout the world that had bloody conflicts over slavery. And many of these were successful, like Cuba(for at least for a short time anyways) and then there is the example of Haiti.
    So there was many revolts successful and not very successful then the USA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Constitutionally slavery was legal...end of political story. Lincoln suspended habeaus corpus. Blockaded the South without Congress's approval. Militarily invaded another country without Congress's approval. And even went so far as to issue an arrest warrant for the Chief Jusice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney. This King Lincoln sure sounds like a decent fellow.
    Actually you are wron onthe Consitutional thing. It was never fully passed as any law, reason? Well for one the laws changed so much, i wouldnt even call it one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Lincoln essentially positioned his troops so that the South would attack Fort Sumter. The Confederacy sent a delegation to Lincoln to negotiate for the Fort; Lincoln simply refused to recognize the sovereignty of the C.S.A., and spurned away all of their peace delegates. By all accounts the Union troops were invading sovereign territory.
    What bull. And your proof of the Confederates sending a force to the USA capital to make "peace"? By all acounts the South was declaring war by succeding from the North. You have yet to show us where in the COnstitution it says that states can break away. Oh even the british even refused to say that the Confederates were a separate nation, UNTIL the USA did or another nation. So it was not a separate nation at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Why didn't the North just, in the words of the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, "let their erring sisters go in peace?"

    Let's hear what everyone thinks...and let's not make this about slavery because it is not the debate I want to have.
    Now i know this wasnt about the slavery thing, but i made comments toward parts that you posted about the slavery, so i responded.

    The below text has been automerged with this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iluvatar
    Are you aware that this is a debate site? Standing one's ground is common practice here; it's what we do. If you were really standing your ground, wouldn't you rebut this instead of discussing previous debates?

    Oh by the way, why didnt he keep this there then, huh? Is it kind of rude to make a thread on soemthing he is already talking about on another thread? And well duh this is a debate forum, kinda got that from the name of it. By the way i did rebut his arguement on the other thread.
    Last edited by Dragon; June 3rd, 2006 at 06:10 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    Knowledge is power, logic is the answer.
    Plain and not so simple.
    Dragon

    BLOOD SEED Atheist Coalition

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by Iluvatar
    No doubt you have reputable sources confirming this?
    The Annapolis Convention was organized to revise the Constitution by the biggest states (NY, NJ, PA, VA, DE)...because they didn't get the unanimous vote required, the revision failed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapol...ion_%281786%29

    The Articles of Confederation were actually called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Article XIII clearly states that the Union could not be dissolved without a vote by all state legislatures. Hamilton, Jay, and even Madison simply threw this to the wind...they were the first secessionists in American history. Because they were all from BIG states, they wanted to impose their will on the smaller states (for reasons I will get into if you are interested). They simply scraped the Articles of Confederation...WHY. If they could do that, without using the system, then who is to say that the South couldn't secede? They both didn't follow the rules.

    Article XIII:

    Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.



    The below text has been automerged with this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragon
    You have yet to show us where in the COnstitution it says that states can break away.

    Okay where in the Articles of Confederation does it say that the states can break away and form a new government without unanimous consent?...ermmm...nowhere. So technically the United States of America (under the Constitution of 1787) doesn't have a legal right to exist. Wahoo!
    Last edited by Dr. Gonzo; June 3rd, 2006 at 06:50 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    "If you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place." -Murray Rothbard

    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    I contend that calling the conflict that took place between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America the "Civil War" is a misnomer. If we allow that the colonies had a right to secede from Great Britain, then we must admit that the South had an absolute right to secede from North oppression.
    The Declaration of Independence held that all men are created equal. Read any of the southern states' acts of secession and you'll see no reference to natural rights that the Founding Fathers fought for against the British. The southerners patently rejected a fundamental principle of American independence. To equate the Founding Fathers to pissants like John Calhoun--a man who believed black people were scientifically inferior to whites--is a distortion of US history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    This war was not about slavery, and to quote the great American despot King Abraham Lincoln, "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery."
    Let's put some historical context around this cherry-picked Lincoln quote. Lincoln despised slavery from his earliest years in politics. His support for the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which outlawed slavery in those new American territories, propelled Lincoln into national politics. He never wavered in his opposition to slavery in the new western territories right up to the start of the Civil War. What that quote indicates is a president recognizing political reality: slavery already existed in the South. Like our struggle against communism, Lincoln hoped to contain the slave institution in its place of origin, and prevent its spread. It wasn't until later in the war, after the Battle of Gettysburg to be exact, that Lincoln threw his full weight behind emancipation, the first US president in history to do so. Politics? Yes. Lincoln was a politician like all US presidents; a great one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Why was America the only place in the world where slavery was abolished with such violence? The whole British Empire was peacefully emancipated in 6 years (including the West Indies).
    This is another false comparison that ignores historical context. The English Empire depended on African slavery for two reasons: profits from the transportation of African slaves to the West Indies sugar plantations and the West Indies sugar plantations themselves. A century of sugar farming depleted the soil, making the plantations less profitable. At the same time, the French were showing greater interest in setting up their own plantations on other West Indies islands and the British were loathe to ship slaves to help their enemy gain a foothold in the West Indies. And let's face it, the industrialized English economy that once depended on the profits of slave trading to capitalize new ventures didn't need slavery anymore. The British Empire made fortunes in transporting cloth and other products that didn't require feeding and shackling.

    The American South, on the other hand, refused to industrialize. Why did they have to? They had adequate supplies of slave labor, a booming English market for its cotton, and the prospect of more slave plantation land as the American West opened up. Only one problem: the American north had an economy more like Britain's: industrialized and diversified. They didn't need slaves and couldn't get them in the numbers they required even if they wanted to. The end of the English slave transport business saw to that. Foreign migrants from Europe took the new industrial jobs at near slave wages.

    The South was stuck in the past but far from abandoning it. The future of the slavers in the south was in Kansas, Missouri, Texas, and California.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Constitutionally slavery was legal...end of political story.
    Legal only if the term "property" included human beings. The American Declaration of Independence clearly disagreed ("all men are created equal.") The political story was by no means settled on the question as demonstrated by the pre-war fights over the Dred Scott decision and the legality of slavery in the western territories. If slavery could be outlawed in the west, it didn't take a rocket scientist to see how slavery could remain legal in the US proper. In fact, without the annexation of new territories after the Mexican American War, it's doubtful the Civil War would have ever been fought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Lincoln suspended habeaus corpus.
    The constitution allows the president to suspend habaeus corpus in times of rebellion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Blockaded the South without Congress's approval.
    In times of rebellion, the president can declare martial law and mobilize the military. What part of the constitution says that he can't?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Militarily invaded another country without Congress's approval.
    The US military put down a rebellion on US soil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    And even went so far as to issue an arrest warrant for the Chief Jusice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney. This King Lincoln sure sounds like a decent fellow.
    I don't know about the arrest warrant, or what it stipulated, but under martial law the government has wide powers of arrest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Lincoln essentially positioned his troops so that the South would attack Fort Sumter. The Confederacy sent a delegation to Lincoln to negotiate for the Fort; Lincoln simply refused to recognize the sovereignty of the C.S.A., and spurned away all of their peace delegates. By all accounts the Union troops were invading sovereign territory.
    Let's see, if I gather a group of rebels holding secession documents and surround the US Marine Corp base at Camp Pendleton and deliver my terms of surrender to George Bush, I really doubt that a court would understand the "they made me do it" defense. Fort Sumter was US property. The state of South Carolina was US territory. Case closed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Let's hear what everyone thinks...and let's not make this about slavery because it is not the debate I want to have.
    Every single declaration of secession from the southern states mentions slavery IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH! The southerners didn't seperate the question of slave ownership from secession, why should you?

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Okay where in the Articles of Confederation does it say that the states can break away and form a new government without unanimous consent?...ermmm...nowhere. So technically the United States of America (under the Constitution of 1787) doesn't have a legal right to exist. Wahoo!
    The Articles of Confederation were a miserable excuse for a governing document. Thankfully, we realized that after a few years and drafted the Constitution, which, interestingly enough, provided for a much stronger centralized government.
    States were virtually independent under the Articles; the central government was virtually powerless. They couldn't raise taxes, they couldn't force states to raise an army, and states could embargo each other. States independently negotiated with foreign governments! The national government under the Articles held no power; the 13 states were virtually independent countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    The Declaration of Independence held that all men are created equal. Read any of the southern states' acts of secession and you'll see no reference to natural rights that the Founding Fathers fought for against the British. The southerners patently rejected a fundamental principle of American independence. To equate the Founding Fathers to pissants like John Calhoun--a man who believed black people were scientifically inferior to whites--is a distortion of US history.
    The truth hurts, doesn't it? The founding fathers owned slaves. They clearly didn't think that slaves were endowed with those same 'natural rights' by the creator. You see, what the Declaration of Independence really meant was 'all free men are endowed with rights by their Creator'; no women, and certainly no slaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    Let's put some historical context around this cherry-picked Lincoln quote. Lincoln despised slavery from his earliest years in politics. His support for the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which outlawed slavery in those new American territories, propelled Lincoln into national politics. He never wavered in his opposition to slavery in the new western territories right up to the start of the Civil War. What that quote indicates is a president recognizing political reality: slavery already existed in the South. Like our struggle against communism, Lincoln hoped to contain the slave institution in its place of origin, and prevent its spread. It wasn't until later in the war, after the Battle of Gettysburg to be exact, that Lincoln threw his full weight behind emancipation, the first US president in history to do so. Politics? Yes. Lincoln was a politician like all US presidents; a great one.
    Sorry; Lincoln's real goal was to keep the Union together. Slavery was secondary. And that great Emancipation Proclamation? The one that freed the slaves? Read it over again; it freed the slaves in the revolting southern states (not, interestingly, slavery-supporting Northern states). Given that they were revolting, you know what that amounted to? Absolutely nothing. The Emancipation Proclamation was a (highly successful) political move, but nothing more. And that was after the battle of Anteitem, not Gettysburg.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    Legal only if the term "property" included human beings.
    Which it did. See, for example, the Supreme court ruling of Dred Scott vs. Stanford.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    The American Declaration of Independence clearly disagreed ("all men are created equal.")
    Wouldn't that be nice? Too bad it's totally false. See above.

    Attacking both sides is fun
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Let's hear what everyone thinks...and let's not make this about slavery because it is not the debate I want to have.
    Uuuum...then what was the Civil War about? States' rights? Pray tell, what right did the Southern states want? Oh yeah, slavery.

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Listen you have written a lot...and I commend you for it, but I am not able to respond to it all tonight, so let me take this little section and see what I can do.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    Let's put some historical context around this cherry-picked Lincoln quote. Lincoln despised slavery from his earliest years in politics. His support for the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which outlawed slavery in those new American territories, propelled Lincoln into national politics. He never wavered in his opposition to slavery in the new western territories right up to the start of the Civil War. What that quote indicates is a president recognizing political reality: slavery already existed in the South. Like our struggle against communism, Lincoln hoped to contain the slave institution in its place of origin, and prevent its spread. It wasn't until later in the war, after the Battle of Gettysburg to be exact, that Lincoln threw his full weight behind emancipation, the first US president in history to do so. Politics? Yes. Lincoln was a politician like all US presidents; a great one.
    I will respond fully tomorrow, but let me just preface my argument by a quote of...dumdadadum...King Lincoln himself. From his debates with Stephen Douglas earily in his career:

    http://www.bartleby.com/251/41.html


    "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 - that 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; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much 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. "


    Secondly Lincoln was never a great politician, in fact he was a darkhorse candidate that no one knew about. If we want to go into the infamous (to me anyway) Republican Convention of 1860 we will find that Lincoln only got the nomination because the other two candidates, Salmon Chase and William Seward, had their various problems (I'll get into later), so he really wasn't supposed to be president.

    The below text has been automerged with this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle
    The Articles of Confederation were a miserable excuse for a governing document. Thankfully, we realized that after a few years and drafted the Constitution, which, interestingly enough, provided for a much stronger centralized government.
    States were virtually independent under the Articles; the central government was virtually powerless. They couldn't raise taxes, they couldn't force states to raise an army, and states could embargo each other. States independently negotiated with foreign governments! The national government under the Articles held no power; the 13 states were virtually independent countries.
    You just told me what the Articles of Confederation were...I know what they were. I am arguing that the Constitution has no legal right to exist, as per the Articles of Confederation...Article XIII in particular.

    Do you disagree?

    The below text has been automerged with this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    Uuuum...then what was the Civil War about? States' rights? Pray tell, what right did the Southern states want? Oh yeah, slavery.
    Well not just that...high tariffs (Tariff of Abominations 1828), high taxes, internal improvement...basically it was about limiting the role of government, which it unfortunately didn't do...the North won and the rate of goernment increased exponentially after that.
    Last edited by Dr. Gonzo; June 3rd, 2006 at 08:00 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    "If you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place." -Murray Rothbard

    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    You just told me what the Articles of Confederation were...I know what they were. I am arguing that the Constitution has no legal right to exist, as per the Articles of Confederation...Article XIII in particular.
    The Articles of Confederation were insufficient as a governing code for the fledgling U.S. A new one was clearly needed. Within three years, every single state had ratified the Constitution. The Constitution didn't violate article XIII of the Articles of Confederation:
    Quote Originally Posted by Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation
    Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
    The Constitution was agreed to at a meeting of the Confederation Congress, and subsequently ratified by all thirteen states.
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle
    The truth hurts, doesn't it? The founding fathers owned slaves. They clearly didn't think that slaves were endowed with those same 'natural rights' by the creator. You see, what the Declaration of Independence really meant was 'all free men are endowed with rights by their Creator'; no women, and certainly no slaves.
    Yes, too bad they didn't get specific. Unfortunately for your argument, they didn't. The words are plain as day, and were invoked many times in the debates over slavery in the western territories. Why do you think the confederacy documents OMITTED any mention of natural rights? Coincidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle
    Sorry; Lincoln's real goal was to keep the Union together. Slavery was secondary.
    Slavery was intimately connected with the secessionist argument; two sides of the same coin. The southern states declared their intent to secede based on defense of slavery. The tax and tariff arguments were secondary. Read the articles of secession--the slave issue is the first one mentioned.

    As for Lincoln's "true intent" I'll reiterate my point about the western territory debates. Lincoln opposed the pro-slaving forces there. He condemned the slave institution in his eulogy for Henry Clay. Did he modulate his views for political reasons? Of course! How could you negotiate with a racist like Calhoun or Jefferson Davis and tell them that slaves are humans too? Lincoln absolutely wanted to keep the Union together EVEN IF that meant allowing the South to continue owning slaves. The South, however, seeing Lincoln's attitude toward slave ownership in places like Nebraska and Kansas, knew that eventually their luck would run out. The political numbers were not on their side as new anti-slave states prepared to join the Union.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle
    [b]And that great Emancipation Proclamation? The one that freed the slaves? Read it over again; it freed the slaves in the revolting southern states (not, interestingly, slavery-supporting Northern states). Given that they were revolting, you know what that amounted to? Absolutely nothing. The Emancipation Proclamation was a (highly successful) political move, but nothing more. And that was after the battle of Anteitem, not Gettysburg.
    It was more than a political stunt to the slaves that walked off their plantations following the defeat of the South. Did that mean they were economically free? Far from it.

    As for the Union supporting southern states, they were forced to give up slavery after the passage of the 13th and 14th amendments. Are you suggesting that Lincoln would have opposed those amendments because of his total disinterest in slavery? Poppycock. Politics are politics. Lincoln understood that, being the master politician he was. Why embarrass your southern allies when you know, eventually, they'll have to comply with federal law also?

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle
    Which it did. See, for example, the Supreme court ruling of Dred Scott vs. Stanford.
    But did Dred Scott apply to the new US territories as claimed by the Southerners? The Kansas-Nebraska Act said no--popular sovereignty allowed the states to choose to own slaves or not. The demographics did not favor the southerners as more immigrants, northern immigrants, poured into the West. The Supreme Court never overturned that act as the South wanted. So what kind of future was there for slavery in the Union itself? None. With more northern leaning states entering the Union, laws and amendments against the slaving institution would surely follow. That's why the South was so exercised about the new territories.

    And just before the war, during the 1860 Democratic election, seven states walked out rather than support northern leniency in the West. They couldn't get their way so they picked up their marbles and left the sandbox--then "seceded."

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secession/The War for Southern Independence (read: War of Northern Aggression)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    You just told me what the Articles of Confederation were...I know what they were. I am arguing that the Constitution has no legal right to exist, as per the Articles of Confederation...Article XIII in particular.
    Technically that's right, as little as it matters at this point. Would you agree, though, that the Constitutional Convention had a mandate of the people to recreate the government, given the utter failing of the Articles, and the peoples' trust in those running the Convention, notably His Excellency George Washington?

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bush Lied about War? Nope, No News There!
    By Pibs in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: December 21st, 2005, 10:45 AM
  2. "War on.......................
    By CC in forum Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: October 12th, 2005, 12:26 AM
  3. Suck it DOWN..!
    By Pibs in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: June 21st, 2005, 11:41 AM
  4. What would you do if a draft came along?
    By Iluvatar in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: January 6th, 2005, 01:47 PM
  5. Was Jesus a Pacifist?
    By 3rdPersonPlural in forum Religion
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: August 15th, 2004, 04:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •