Southern Secession Was One Thing-The War To Prevent It Was Another

The secessionists certainly wanted a war.

You want to believe that because you see it as justifying what happened.

That is why they were the ones who started a war.

Lincoln attacked first, and against the recommendations of his advisors. He just did a very good job of covering up the fact that he attacked first.

Notice that war got them four states that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

If it had been left to Democracy, they would have likely gotten Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, but troops pretty much stopped those states from joining the Confederacy.

Without war, they would have eventually gotten all those states and others besides.

War also meant that there was no going back or dropping out.

Why would anyone drop out? Independence meant an instant 40% more money to spend on the goods their exports would bring in. What was the downside for them from remaining in a Confederacy that was at peace with the Northern Union?

What did the Union have to offer them that would induce them to remain in it? Sure, the North Eastern states were getting benefits from being in the Union, but what was it doing for Missouri, Kentucky or other states?

Please identify yourself as pro-Union or pro-Confederacy so I can cuss you out no matter which side you choose.

Dayum Yankee, if you please ;’}

Proud dayum Yankee, if you please.

They still had slavery.

By 1787 five states were already committed to the eventual abolition of slavery, as I said. They weren't about to ratify the Constitution if it meant their plans would be overturned by it.

It looks like you are one of those people who see things in absolute black and white and condemn anyone and anything that doesn't come up to some high moral standard that nobody could possibly have risen to at the time. At the same time, though, you excuse people who sink far below the highest standard of their times. That's your own mental problem.

Yet implicit in it is the recognition of slavery as a continuing institution in the US.

D-uh. There was slavery in the US at the time. That didn't mean a committment to maintaining slavery in ever state for all time.

I think you don't really appreciate the appeal of nationalism, either in 1787 or in 1861. People had strong feelings about belonging to a country or a nation that you don't share. But then, many people also had reservations about slavery that you also don't appear to feel either.

A state could pass laws that would prevent slaves from being created by that state's laws, but they could do nothing about slaves created by other state's laws. They also couldn't tell a man to keep his slaves out of their state.

Nonsense. It says that nowhere in the Constitution. It only says that slaves had to be returned if they crossed state lines (and that a state not deny citizens of another state the rights its own citizens have).

Why would anyone drop out? Independence meant an instant 40% more money to spend on the goods their exports would bring in. What was the downside for them from remaining in a Confederacy that was at peace with the Northern Union?

Do not mistake your own friggin' fantasy for reality. I was sure I'd win the lottery and be making many thousand times my current income, but it didn't happen. There were too many possibilities and contingencies between my own daydreams and their realization. The same is true with this massive windfall that was going to come to the confederation of slave states.

Lincoln started the war, and this is something that I have only realized in the last couple of years. A friend told me that he started it years ago, but only in the last two years have I figured out the "why?" and "how?"

If that's true it's only because you exclude or reject or are unaware of theories and facts which contradict with your own vision. Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory, eh?

By 1787 five states were already committed to the eventual abolition of slavery, as I said. They weren't about to ratify the Constitution if it meant their plans would be overturned by it.

And the other 8 were?

I think you don't really appreciate the appeal of nationalism, either in 1787 or in 1861. People had strong feelings about belonging to a country or a nation that you don't share.

People had a strong attachment to their state, not the FedGov in Washington. So far as my feelings about nationalism go, I'll paraphrase Ronald Reagan. I didn't leave the country to which I belonged, that country left me.

Parts of it remain loyal to the America I want, but other parts have been infected with vile foreign ideas (Socialism) that are currently destroying us.

But then, many people also had reservations about slavery that you also don't appear to feel either.

My point isn't that slavery is good, because it isn't. My point is that both sides practiced it, and the law of Union required the acceptance of it, and then the winning side heaped all the blame on the losing side.

It has become an excuse for accepting Tyranny.

Nonsense. It says that nowhere in the Constitution. It only says that slaves had to be returned if they crossed state lines (and that a state not deny citizens of another state the rights its own citizens have).

It says no one shall escape their servitude as a consequence of the laws of other states. Before such laws were passed, all states were slave states. Therefore it is only as a consequence of state laws that there were any states to which anyone could escape.

If the Constitution renders the laws null and void, then it effectively renders the boundaries null and void, because those boundaries would not exist except as a consequence of the laws which the Constitution renders null and void.

Do not mistake your own friggin' fantasy for reality. I was sure I'd win the lottery and be making many thousand times my current income, but it didn't happen.

The likely hood of getting an instant 40% more purchasing power from being part of the Confederacy was all too real, because they wouldn't have to pay so much money to the government when they redeemed their European payment for their exports.

You can put forth your false equivalency and say it was like winning the lottery, but that is just intellectually dishonest. The difference in earnings between the Union and the Confederacy for exporters was both substantial and real, not a long shot stroke of luck like the lottery.

If that's true it's only because you exclude or reject or are unaware of theories and facts which contradict with your own vision.

And so apparently, are you. Else you would put some forth. Surely you can make a better argument than "a 40% immediate tax relief is just as likely as winning the lottery."

Nonsense.

It robbed northern states of self-determinism - the very thing that DegenerateLamp whines endlessly about.

If they hadn't given up that particular right in Article IV, section 2, then they could have invoked "states rights" to ban slavery within their boundaries.

It isn't a violation of your rights when you give your consent.

Surely you can make a better argument than "a 40% immediate tax relief is just as likely as winning the lottery."

Quotation marks imply a direct quote.

And that's not what I said.

It was a comparison to indicate how contingencies and possibilities get in the way of any prediction.

What is it with the misplaced literalism, anyway?

I'm starting to worry about you.

Quotation marks imply a direct quote.

I use them for a hypothetical quote. It's just a condensation of your point. If you want to pick a bone about style, then tell me how you would prefer I sum up what I perceive to be your position? I suppose I could use italics. That might get the same point across.

And that's not what I said.

It is the condensed essence of what you said. I point out that they would get ~40% tax relief, and you compared this possibility to winning the lottery.

The two things are not even slightly comparable. The 40% (or so) financial windfall was quite real and would have affected thousands of people involved in the export of products.

From there it would have trickled down to the larger economy in general with other people also seeing a gain from the increased spending power.

I'm also surprised this was your response. I sort of expected you to strenuously object to my observations on the consequence of the Constitution rendering state laws null and void. :)

You know, the part about rendering the borders null and void? Or did you skim over that too quickly to notice it?

I sort of expected you to strenuously object to my observations on the consequence of the Constitution rendering state laws null and void. :)

You know, the part about rendering the borders null and void? Or did you skim over that too quickly to notice it?

Maybe I'm getting tired of arguing with so obvious a kook.

The Constitution authorized the abolition of the slave trade after 1807. Debates on the Constitution clearly indicated that some states weren't attached to the institution of slavery and were on the road to complete emancipation. They weren't going to sign a document that overrode the laws they were passing.

Moreover, if you were a South Carolina slaveowner who moved to Pennsylvania, you wouldn't be a South Carolinian for long. Soon enough, you'd become a Pennsylvania resident, subject to the laws of Pennsylvania, and your slaves would be free. The idea that you would live in Philadelphia for years and claim to be living in Charleston is patently absurd.

I believe they had the right to secede. I believe it ought to be a very last resort.