Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lincoln the Tyrant: The Libertarians' Favorite Bogeyman
Big Government ^ | Dec 5th 2010 | Brad Schaeffer

Posted on 12/07/2010 11:31:03 AM PST by presidio9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-292 last
To: central_va
Wipe the spittle off your face and calm down. When I pose a hypothetical question feel free to not respond.

Identifying your posts for what they are requires no calming down afterwards. Nor does pointing out Southron hypocrisy.

251 posted on 12/09/2010 8:16:14 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: central_va
central_va: "Since the USC is TOTALLY silent on secession, the concept of legally seceding is moot."

So you claim legal secession is impossible?

Sort of explains why the Deep South expected and started a Second Revolution, doesn't it?

252 posted on 12/09/2010 8:23:08 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Sort of explains why the Deep South expected and started a Second Revolution, doesn't it?

And had the arrogance to think and expect that the North wouldn't fight and that the South had superior soldiers just because they were from the south.

Another nutcase in the 1930s had the same ideas about how 'superior' his people were and he was all about enslavement of people too....
253 posted on 12/09/2010 8:27:50 AM PST by MikefromOhio (There is no truth to the rumor that Ted Kennedy was buried at sea.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

And your point is? Those people you mentioned rebelled against their soverign State. What’s the problem with a State putting down insurgents? There’s a difference between insurgents who have no legal rights and the States who seceded, who had a legal right to do so. Especially Virginia, who was one of the original States and who derived it’s rights as a soverign State directly from the Victory over the English Crown.

Speaking of Virginia, let’s take it for an example. I’m originally from Western VA (not West VA) and know full well about those who sided with the Union. Problem is, they were out voted by the rest of the State in the desire to secede. Virginia left the Union after a vote of the State delegates to do so. Those who rebelled against their State’s decision had no legal right to do so.

If you want to say that the CW was a war to determine the fate of the Union, I have no problem with that, as if seven of the original thirteen signators had seceded, the Union would have been legally dead. But don’t try to say this was a War over just Slavery. There was more at stake than what we’ve been taught lately.


254 posted on 12/09/2010 8:52:02 AM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
And yet in 1860 there were no "usurpations" or "abuses" -- the Federal Government had not become "destructive of these ends".

This is a hand-wave based upon subjective criteria. The States that did the seceding obviously thought otherwise after considerable deliberation and argument. Hence, their grounds were every bit the same as those who signed the Declaration. Thus, empty hand-wave.

255 posted on 12/09/2010 8:56:01 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
But don’t try to say this was a War over just Slavery. There was more at stake than what we’ve been taught lately.

I don't see anyone here disputing that. It was more than just slavery - it was the leaders of the south thumbing their noses at the rest of the country and proclaiming, "We'll have our slavery if we have to destroy the whole country to keep it!"

Nice guys.

256 posted on 12/09/2010 8:58:05 AM PST by rockrr ("I said that I was scared of you!" - pokie the pretend cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Blah blah blah. Was World War II a war of Anglo-Saxon aggression against Germany? Why not, they invaded Normandy didn’t they?

The invasion of Kentucky was a counter to other events and designed to keep the fighting out of Tennessee. It wasn’t a campaign designed to capture territory so much as a campaign to keep the fighting out of CSA territory.


257 posted on 12/09/2010 8:58:19 AM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

How about Maryland for one and IIRC, wasn’t Delaware also a Pro-slavery State?

The more I read about this mess, the more I see that the Civil War was destined to occure from the very beginning due to the way the slave trade provision in the USC is worded.


258 posted on 12/09/2010 9:21:43 AM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

You keep saying that the South was trying to destroy the Union. Why can’t you just admit that they weren’t trying to destroy the Union so much as trying to leave it? Is it really so hard to admit that the Union could have continued on without the South?


259 posted on 12/09/2010 9:25:05 AM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
What’s the problem with a State putting down insurgents?

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to put down insurrections. Did the Virginia Constitution give that same power to her governor?

There’s a difference between insurgents who have no legal rights and the States who seceded, who had a legal right to do so. Especially Virginia, who was one of the original States and who derived it’s rights as a soverign State directly from the Victory over the English Crown.

There was no legal right to secede unilaterally.

Yes they did. They formed themselves into the reorganized legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia, were recognized by Congress as the legitimate government of Virginia, and voted to partition themselves. Nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.

But don’t try to say this was a War over just Slavery. There was more at stake than what we’ve been taught lately.

For the South, defense of slavery was the reason for their rebellion. You may find that inconvenient but the writings and speeches of the people of the time bear that out.

260 posted on 12/09/2010 9:27:58 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs

If southern (confederate) leaders had had even an ounce of decency they would have negotiated their way out of the union instead of cut~n~running the way that they did.

They showed that they didn’t give a hoot about anyone - even their own citizens that they put into peril.

How could the union ever have peace with such dispicable neighbors?


261 posted on 12/09/2010 9:45:55 AM PST by rockrr ("I said that I was scared of you!" - pokie the pretend cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
..and the States who seceded, who had a legal right to do so.

If they had a legal right to seceded, why didn't they go though a legal means instead of just a few leaders in the State saying as such and attacking federal property like forts? Why didn't they take the secession before Congress as outlined in the Articles of Confederation and upheld in Article VI of the Constitution?

262 posted on 12/09/2010 9:46:52 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Frankly, I’m not certain about the VA Constitution. I would assume that it gives the governor the power to put down insurrections, but I’m not positive on that point.

You keep saying that there’s no legal right to secede unilaterally. Why? It’s not a power given to the Federal Government by the USC, so why isn’t there a right to secede unilaterally?

I would suggest that Congress, by recognizing a group of individuals who were not elected, were usurping Virginia’s rights of self representation and self rule that all soverign States possess. In effect, it was illegal and unconstitutional because the State of Virginia was no longer a part of the Union and therefore not under the representation of Congress.

Frankly, I don’t find the slavery issue inconvenient so much as distracting. I have the feeling that many in this discussion would be siding with the South if the issue of chattel slavery were removed, yet because of this issue the true issue for me, State’s rights, is ignored or down played.

Bluntly put, I take the position that chattel slavery is evil but not the worst evil out there and blacks in America have whined about it for long enough. Every race, nation and people on this earth have held and been held as chattel slaves at one point in time or another and I’m sick of hearing about how bad America in general and Southerners in particular are so evil for ever being involved, especially considering the fact that even under chattel slavery here in America, where they were considered little more than property, their condition could have been much, much worse if they had been sold to a Muslim.

Want to impress me about your dedication to seeing the evils of slavery eradicated? Begin pointing out how Islam not only allows slavery, even today, but encourages it and WE finance it by our continued reliance on foreign oil. Begin pushing for the eradication of Islam from the face of this earth due to it’s truly evil nature and then I’ll be impressed. Until then, save your breath and don’t waste my time.

All that being said, don’t take this post as personal N-S, you’ve been cordial and well thought out in all of my dealings with you, even though I disagree with your assumptions and conclusions. More of less I’m just getting fed up with the whole Southerner=Racist meme that seems to prevade these threads just under the surface.


263 posted on 12/09/2010 10:00:25 AM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
paladin1_dcs: "I’m originally from Western VA (not West VA)"

I will be back in Western Va (not West VA) next week.
Beautiful country, even in winter.

paladin1_dcs: "Those who rebelled against their State’s decision had no legal right to do so."

So obviously, you will not project our Founding Fathers' Declaration of Independence language, about Creator provided rights to overthrow unjust governments, onto Southern Union sympathizers, right?

paladin1_dcs: "But don’t try to say this was a War over just Slavery.
There was more at stake than what we’ve been taught lately."

No there wasn't. It was only slavery -- nothing else was politically important enough to cause the Deep South to first secede, then start a war against the Union.

But don't believe me on this -- read what the Confederacy's founders wrote in their Causes of Secession documents.

Using James Madison's criteria for a legal dissolution of the Union there was:

And so the Deep South began seceding "at pleasure" in late 1860, immediately following the election of the anti-slavery Republican President and Congress.

But only seven states joined the Confederacy.
That's because slavery was only important enough to those seven states to cause secession.
The Upper South and Border States all refused to join, until Davis ordered the attack on Fort Sumter.

Even then, only the Upper South switched sides.
Slavery was just not important enough in the Border States (Missouri, Kentucky, West VA, Maryland & Delaware) to drive them into the Confederacy.

I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere: consider the proverbial camel whose back was broken by a straw.
I'm saying 95% of the weight on that camel's back was slavery, and the "straw" was the election of anti-slavery Republicans and Abraham Lincoln.

All of the other issues combined could not possibly have driven the Deep South to secede -- could not have broken the camel's back.

264 posted on 12/09/2010 10:21:33 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
How could the union ever have peace with such dispicable(sic) neighbors?

Idiotic comment.

265 posted on 12/09/2010 10:37:03 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Carry_Okie: "This is a hand-wave based upon subjective criteria.
The States that did the seceding obviously thought otherwise after considerable deliberation and argument.
Hence, their grounds were every bit the same as those who signed the Declaration.
Thus, empty hand-wave."

Their reasons, as explained in their Causes of Secession documents, were nearly all slavery related.
And none were in any way different in December 1860 from what they had been for many years before.

And yet those same conditions did not cause secession all those years -- until the election of more Republicans in November 1860 made the Deep South fear for slavery's future.

As for Declaration-of-Independence type complaints: if you read those Secession documents carefully, it all boils down to just one truly serious item:
the Federal Government had failed to vigorously enough enforce Fugitive Slave laws in Northern states.

So, for the secessionists, it was all about slavery.
It was really only about slavery.

266 posted on 12/09/2010 10:38:21 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
All that being said, don’t take this post as personal N-S, you’ve been cordial and well thought out in all of my dealings with you, even though I disagree with your assumptions and conclusions. More of less I’m just getting fed up with the whole Southerner=Racist meme that seems to prevade these threads just under the surface.

These neo-Yankees are have proven their fascist leanings over the years. Go back thru the archives, they have been at this Southern bashing for a long time. When somebody stands up to their BS they play the race card, right on que. Somebody needs to explain what Free Republic is to them, for the 1,000,000th / time. I wish they would go to the DU where they would fit right in.

267 posted on 12/09/2010 10:50:21 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Well I was thinking of you...


268 posted on 12/09/2010 10:52:05 AM PST by rockrr ("I said that I was scared of you!" - pokie the pretend cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
These neo-Yankees are = These neo-Yankees are
269 posted on 12/09/2010 10:52:05 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Your post is nonsense even with the corrected grammar.
270 posted on 12/09/2010 10:54:11 AM PST by rockrr ("I said that I was scared of you!" - pokie the pretend cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs; Ditto
paladin1_dcs: "The invasion of Kentucky was a counter to other events and designed to keep the fighting out of Tennessee.
It wasn’t a campaign designed to capture territory so much as a campaign to keep the fighting out of CSA territory."

So you say, others say different. For example, you might check out Ditto's post #224.
But here's the key point:

Until Davis ordered the attack on Fort Sumter, all of the Upper South and Border States (even North Carolina!) had decided to stay with the Union and not join the Slave-State Confederacy.

So Davis' attack on Fort Sumter was, literally, a War of Southern Aggression against the Union.
And it succeeded brilliantly -- in one stroke nearly doubling the Confederacy's size and population.

The South then sent Southern forces into all of the Union Border States (except Delaware), and territories -- territories on which the South had no conceivable claim.

So, for all of 1861 and beyond, it was almost entirely a War of Southern Aggression against the Union, a war in which Kentucky was just one front.

271 posted on 12/09/2010 10:57:25 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
I would suggest that Congress, by recognizing a group of individuals who were not elected, were usurping Virginia’s rights of self representation and self rule that all soverign States possess. In effect, it was illegal and unconstitutional because the State of Virginia was no longer a part of the Union and therefore not under the representation of Congress.

Ah, yes. The old "Have your cake and secede from it, too" argument. If Virginia rescinded it's ratification of the Constitution and was no longer subject to US law, it can hardly complain about something being unconstitutional and illegal.

I always find it interesting that the Lost Causer position about self-determination only seems to apply to the states as a whole, as if they are the fundamental particle of sovereignty, neither forming larger entities of sovereignty nor allowing smaller ones.

272 posted on 12/09/2010 11:05:44 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
You keep saying that there’s no legal right to secede unilaterally. Why? It’s not a power given to the Federal Government by the USC, so why isn’t there a right to secede unilaterally?

The power to admit a state and to approve changes in its status once it has been allowed to join is a power reserved to the United States by Article I and Article IV. Implied in that is the power to approve a state's leaving altogether. And I should hasten to add that this is not my viewpoint alone or a new view. James Madison said as much in letters written in the 1820's.

I would suggest that Congress, by recognizing a group of individuals who were not elected, were usurping Virginia’s rights of self representation and self rule that all soverign States possess. In effect, it was illegal and unconstitutional because the State of Virginia was no longer a part of the Union and therefore not under the representation of Congress.

In the first place, saying that Virginia was no longer a part of the Union implies their acts of secession were legal. They were not. As for the legality or illegality of the recognized Virginia legislature, you can argue about that. But the fact is that the people of the commonwealth were entitled to representation in Congress and in their own state legislature. Those people not interested in participating in the Southern insurrection chose their own representatives and set up a legislature loyal to the United States. The U.S. Congress recognized them as the legitimate government, and it was this body that voted to partition. All done according to the Constitution of the United States, and the legality of which was later admitted by Virginia once the rebellion had ended.

I would suggest that Congress, by recognizing a group of individuals who were not elected, were usurping Virginia’s rights of self representation and self rule that all soverign States possess. In effect, it was illegal and unconstitutional because the State of Virginia was no longer a part of the Union and therefore not under the representation of Congress.

Claiming an act is illegal and unconstitutional because it was contrary to another illegal and unconstitutional act is an interesting argument.

Frankly, I don’t find the slavery issue inconvenient so much as distracting. I have the feeling that many in this discussion would be siding with the South if the issue of chattel slavery were removed, yet because of this issue the true issue for me, State’s rights, is ignored or down played.

A state's right to do what? What state's right was being suppressed? The Southern states launched their illegal secession because they saw the election of Lincoln as a threat to the expansion of slavery. The Southern leaders of the period all agree on that. Read Robert Toombs farewell to the Senate or Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech or Jefferson Davis's first address to the rebel congress or the speeches and writings of the various secession commissioners and you will see the importance slavery played in their decision.

273 posted on 12/09/2010 11:09:01 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
How about Maryland for one and IIRC, wasn’t Delaware also a Pro-slavery State?

They were both states where slavery was still legal, but the vast majority of both states opposed the idea of secession from the Union.

Those states did not have the intense plantation based economy of the Deep South and slavery was not a significant component of their economies or even society as it was in the Cotton Belt.

274 posted on 12/09/2010 11:21:19 AM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: central_va
"When somebody stands up to their BS they play the race card, right on que."

I've seen nobody "playing the race card."

What we insist is that slavery, and only slavery, was the reason the Deep South began seceding in late 1860.

And for precisely that reason -- because it was only then all about slavery -- the Upper South and Border states did not at first secede.

It only became about something other than slavery after Davis ordered the firing on Fort Sumter, the results of which gave Virginia and other Upper South states the excuses they needed to claim secession on account of Federal "abuses."

Of course, if you could ask the average central Virginia farm-boy why he fought for the Confederacy, he would certainly tell you: because d*amn Yankee armies invaded our lands.

If you asked most any farm-boy from Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maryland or Missouri whether they cared a whit about slavery, they'd answer: not really.
What about fugitive slave laws? Naw.
What about that proposed new Morrill Tariff? Say wha?

Remember, Upper South and Border states all stayed with the Union, until Davis was successful at making it an issue of "Northern Aggression."

Then many switched sides.

275 posted on 12/09/2010 11:23:11 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
More of less I’m just getting fed up with the whole Southerner=Racist meme that seems to prevade these threads just under the surface.

I don't know what surface you are looking under, but there is none of that here. The point we have been trying to make is that slavery was indeed to cause of sectional tension in this country from its very beginning. Many of the Founders saw that and commented on it. Jefferson and others even predicted that slavery would be the rock upon which the Union would split. He was right.

Racism was not the issue. 99% of the people in the country back then, North and South, would be considered racists by even the mildest standards today. But many, perhaps even a majority, thought slavery to be wrong and in direct conflict with the nations founding ideals and principles. People like Washington, Jefferson, Franklyn, Adams and most of the Founding fathers saw it as wrong.

It is true that all societies throughout history engaged in slavery in one form or another, and that virtually all races and nationalities at one time or another were victims of slavery. But that is not the point and it does nothing to excuse American slavery.

We were founded to know better, and quite frankly we did know better. But we chose as a nation to ignore our principles and allow the practice to continue long past the time when it should have ceased. We allowed it to continue because it was financially profitable for a few very powerful people while at the same time denigrating the rest of population.

That is why comparing American slavery with barbarians like the Muslims is no excuse whatsoever. Slavery is a stain on our history and the cause of the most gruesome war in our history. To pretend otherwise or to somehow attempt to minimize it or excuse it does no service to either our history or the memory of our forefathers who struggled mightily with these questions.

History is important. Do your best to get it right and don't blink at the ugly parts.

276 posted on 12/09/2010 1:42:49 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
History is important.

For your information:

- According to Slavery In America, 500,000 slaves were brought to America. Many more were taken to the Caribbean and South and Central America.

- According to the Anti-Slavery Society, there are 2.7 million slaves in the world today, while others estimate up to 27 million (using a different definition).

277 posted on 12/09/2010 2:08:49 PM PST by jda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Great post.


278 posted on 12/09/2010 4:47:23 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Great post.


279 posted on 12/09/2010 5:52:47 PM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: jda
That is all very true, but what is the point?

It does not excuse what happened here in the least. Those other places never even pretended to have any respect for human rights.

We did commit to that concept of "endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Yet we failed miserably when it came to slavery. Be honest about it. We failed in that regard. You can't brush that aside by saying others were even worse.

280 posted on 12/09/2010 8:16:36 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
"...if you read those Secession documents carefully, it all boils down to just one truly serious item: the Federal Government had failed to vigorously enough enforce Fugitive Slave laws in Northern states."

But it was the Deep South states that cited that most often. Just thinking logically, how many slaves could possibly make it hundreds of miles to get across the Mason Dixon line or the Ohio river to a free state from say South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama or Mississippi?

I doubt one in ten thousand, if even that, could have passed through all of that slave territory to make it to freedom before being caught. But fugitive slaves was an the issues they cited in their declarations. It was total bull.

The only slave states that really had a run away slave issue (and they were minor on the scale of things) were Virginia and the other border states such as Maryland, Delaware, and especially Kentucky. Yet the border states other than Virginia stayed loyal to the Union, and Virginia ended up losing their only border with the Mason Dixon line because the people who actually lived in that area remained loyal to the Union.

The entire Fugitive Slave issues was total political theater. The only thing that mattered to the Slave Power was expansion of slavery to the territories and with Lincoln able to prevent that expansion, they chose war instead of the status quo.

281 posted on 12/09/2010 8:51:19 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Ironic isn’t it that now the southern states that seceded are the most patriotic while the northern states have the most left wingers

You're from Pennsylvania, so I'll cut your some slack, but usually when I see a comment like that it's coming from flyover country (and BTW I spent a few years in my 20s living in and working for hedge funds in the deep South and South West). What most people from places like that don't get about the North East is the population density. There are more conservatives and patriots living in NY or California than just about any state except Texas or Florida. Sure, we can't do much about that the perverts and criminals in Albany, but we send more than our share to the Republican candidates in National Elections. And we are the home of the Wall Street Journal, the NY Post, Fox News, the birthplace of the EIB Network, Teddy Roosevelt.

282 posted on 12/09/2010 9:05:06 PM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

I wasn’t at all trying to say that America wasn’t all that bad compared to others, I was merely trying to put a perspective on the issue.

However, there are a couple of points to be made:

- Most conversation about slavery seems to center on America’s slaves in our early years. Where is all the outrage regarding slavery going on throughout the world today?

- Many early Americans did have slaves, but many were opposed to slavery. A major problem, as I see it, is that their opposition to slavery was not very vocal or public. However, the plight of slaves in America eventually became untenable and we did abolish it.


283 posted on 12/10/2010 8:40:37 AM PST by jda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Ditto: "The entire Fugitive Slave issues was total political theater.
The only thing that mattered to the Slave Power was expansion of slavery to the territories and with Lincoln able to prevent that expansion, they chose war instead of the status quo."

Interesting point, and no doubt correct.

But at least Fugitive Slave Laws were mentioned by the secessionists themselves, in their Causes of Secession documents -- unlike all those other phantasms our Lost Causers invent to smokescreen the real reasons.

Further, for all those (excuse my language) idiots who claim the South seceded because of overreaching, over-powerful, usurping and abusive Federal Government (in other words: projecting today back 150 years ago), the South's complaint about Fugitive Slave Laws was that the Feds were not vigorous enough in enforcing those laws.

Finally, of course, Fugitive Slave Laws were all about slavery, which reinforces my main point: that slavery was the only real cause of secession.

Anyway, you've done some great posts, I'll keep an eye out for them in the future. ;-)

284 posted on 12/11/2010 7:12:33 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Further, for all those (excuse my language) idiots who claim the South seceded because of overreaching, over-powerful, usurping and abusive Federal Government (in other words: projecting today back 150 years ago), the South's complaint about Fugitive Slave Laws was that the Feds were not vigorous enough in enforcing those laws.

It is interesting is that the Fugitive Slave Act was the first time to my knowledge that the Federal government acted directly upon the citizens of the nation as individuals as opposed to acting upon the states or business enterprises. Under that law, Federal Marshals could, and in fact did, force citizens under threat of punishment to become deputies to track down run aways even if it were against their will or to punish individuals under Federal law for harboring or assisting run aways.

It did in some respects reflect the Constitution in it affirmed the requirement for states to return run aways in their custody, but it took a very big leap in forcing those laws upon individual citizens.

It went even beyond a states rights issue. It was about how close the Federal government could act directly on citizens.

285 posted on 12/11/2010 6:19:28 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: jda
Many early Americans did have slaves, but many were opposed to slavery. A major problem, as I see it, is that their opposition to slavery was not very vocal or public.

A majority of Americans then didn't own slaves and decades before the Civil War, eight of the original thirteen States ended slavery or put it on the road to extinction through gradual emancipation -- several of them even before the Revolutionary War was over.

Even before the Constitution was ratified, Congress banned slavery in the Northwest territory. Every State had emancipation societies and abolitionists preaching from the pulpits in those early years, even South Carolina. Thousands of slave owners, moved by their conscience freed their slaves.

There was plenty of sentiment against slavery in those early years and it was vocal.

The problem came from a humble fellow named Ely Whitney who invented a contraption called the Cotton Gin thinking it would make a slave's life easier. He had no idea.

Money changes things.

286 posted on 12/11/2010 6:43:54 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Don’t need any slack
Those states vote in the majority for liberals


287 posted on 12/13/2010 8:39:34 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Again, apparently you do. Elementary school mathematics is not your strong suit. Nor are the most basic political concepts. In a normal election (one where a political retard does not win the nomination) NY and California vote about 33% to 40% Republican. This means that there are more Republicans in these two states combined than in Florida or Texas. You disregard them the same way people like Davis disregarded black people, because they were a minority.
288 posted on 12/14/2010 9:32:15 AM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan; Michael Zak

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach ·
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
 Antiquity Journal
 & archive
 Archaeologica
 Archaeology
 Archaeology Channel
 BAR
 Bronze Age Forum
 Discover
 Dogpile
 Eurekalert
 Google
 LiveScience
 Mirabilis.ca
 Nat Geographic
 PhysOrg
 Science Daily
 Science News
 Texas AM
 Yahoo
 Excerpt, or Link only?
 


Thanks presidio9.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
 

· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword ·
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·


289 posted on 12/23/2010 5:36:27 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


Secession Timeline
various sources

[Although very late in the war Lee wanted freedom offered to any of the slaves who would agree to fight for the Confederacy, practically no one was stupid enough to fall for that. In any case, Lee was definitely not fighting to end slavery, instead writing that black folks are better off in bondage than they were free in Africa, and regardless, slavery will be around until Providence decides, and who are we to second guess that? And the only reason the masters beat their slaves is because of the abolitionists.]

Robert E. Lee letter -- "...There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master..."
December 27, 1856

Platform of the Alabama Democracy -- the first Dixiecrats wanted to be able to expand slavery into the territories. It was precisely the issue of slavery that drove secession -- and talk about "sovereignty" pertained to restrictions on slavery's expansion into the territories. January 1860

Abraham Lincoln nominated by Republican Party May 18, 1860

Abraham Lincoln elected November 6, 1860

Robert Toombs, Speech to the Georgia Legislature -- "...In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death." November 13, 1860

Alexander H. Stephens -- "...The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution." November 14, 1860

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 23, 1861

Abraham Lincoln sworn in as
President of the United States
March 4, 1861

Arizona territory March 16, 1861

CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Cornerstone speech -- "...last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact." March 21, 1861

Virginia adopted April 17,1861
ratified by voters May 23, 1861

Arkansas May 6, 1861

North Carolina May 20, 1861

Tennessee adopted May 6, 1861
ratified June 8, 1861

West Virginia declares for the Union June 19, 1861

Missouri October 31, 1861

"Convention of the People of Kentucky" November 20, 1861

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

[Alabama] "...Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and manacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security... And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States, Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, be and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama, by their Delegates, in Convention, on the 4th day of February, A.D., 1861, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security." [Jan 11, 1861]

[Texas] "...The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression..." [Feb 1, 1861]

[Virginia] "...the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States..." [Feb 23, 1861]

http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/AZ/index.html

[Arizona Territory] "...a sectional party of the North has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their people... That we will not recognize the present Black Republican Administration, and that we will resist any officers appointed to this Territory by said Administration with whatever means in our power." [16 March 1861 -- Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States on March 4, 1861. The pretext for Arizona's secession was interruption of U.S. postal service.]

290 posted on 12/23/2010 5:40:19 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Don’t need any slack Those states vote in the majority for liberals

What a profoundly stupid justification. I suppose the USA is worthless these days too because a majority voted for Barak Obama? Think before you post.

291 posted on 12/28/2010 12:08:41 PM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison rejected a proposal that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. He said, “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle (who was one of the leading constitutional scholars in early America and a personal friend of George Washington), states, “The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State.”....Lee, Davis, indeed many of the most influential leaders in the South were West Point grads...and if its not legal, why is the government teaching it at West Point?

“I am determined to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than to give up the rights of self government in which alone we see liberty, safety and happyness.” Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself, a government that can only exist by the sword?” Alexander Hamilton

“The future inhabitants of [both] the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better.” – Thomas Jefferson

“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation” over “union,” “I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’” Thomas Jefferson

“Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848

If secession clearly was not constitutional, then why pray tell was a constitutional amendment proposed on March 2, 1861 that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, “The Foundations and Meaning of Secession,” Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419—36)

“If [the Declaration of Independence] justifies the secession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” – New York Tribune, December 17, 1860

Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860, the Union “depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone.” A state coerced into the Union is “a subject province” and may never be “a co-equal member of the American Union.”

The New York Journal of Commerce editorialized on January 12, 1861, that opposing secession changes the nature of government “from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves” to the federal government.

This was the view of the majority of Northern newspapers at the time according to Howard Cecil Perkins, editor of the two-volume book, Northern Editorials on Secessiotn.

There was also a vigorous secession movement in the “middle states” — Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York — in the late 1850s, as described by William C. Wright in The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States

It does not seem clear to me AT ALL that secession was either unconstitutional or not perfectly in keeping with the original intent of the Founders.


292 posted on 01/28/2011 6:22:35 PM PST by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-292 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson