Posted on 07/22/2020 3:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
Loser whining?
Good post and points mostly well taken, but a couple of corrections. Lincoln was certainly personally against slavery, but also believed he had no power as President to end it. The Emancipation Proclamation certainly was a first step toward ending it, but as a practical matter, it actually did not free a single slave. It was intended solely as a military measure that would stir unrest among slaves in the Confederacy and work to undermine the Southern economy. Slaves in the border states and in areas under Federal control at the time were not freed.
Also Lincoln had nothing at all to do with passage of the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) for two reasons. Presidents don’t actually have any Constitutional role in the amendment process and even if they did, Lincoln was dead when these amendments were proposed and ratified.
Lincoln, has he lived, may not even have supported these amendments. Lincoln’s view was that the war should be ended, the union restored, and the seceding states welcomed back and essentially forgiven. The Reconstruction amendments were passed primarily as a punitive measure toward the Confederacy. Radical Republicans opposed Lincoln’s proposed restoration plans and favored a punitive peace. With Lincoln’s assassination, the Radical Republicans were able to dominate the government, overriding Johnson’s vetos on many important measures, and implement their Reconstruction plans. They feared that the SCOTUS might overturn much of what they did, hence the amendments. Also, not insignificantly, the 15th Amendment had the added benefit of adding many new Republican voters to the roles, ensuring their continued political power.
To understand what that would be like all you have to do is look at South America after the Spanish American wars of independence to get an idea what would have followed.
Rather expect a Central Committee, two each from Senate and House and for PR legal cover Chief Justice Roberts, representing the will of the people uniting the legislature and judiciary to prevent a “cult of personality” wildcard individual from obtaining the Executive control of the government. All consistent with long term Deep State embedments already in place at all cabinet positions
Ping
bump
The Civil War involved two issues that are legally and logically separate, but are generally conflated by most in an effort to cloud the issue. One of these is the issue of slavery. Nobody would argue today about the legal or moral legitimacy of this issue; slavery was wrong, no doubt or qualifications needed. It was tolerated because the economy of one section of the country was totally dependent on it, and the economy of the other was at least partially and indirectly dependent on it (Northern textile manufacturers relied on the supply of Southern cotton, for instance).
The other issue is less clear cut, namely whether or not states had the right to secede. The legality and morality of this issue is really in doubt, unless you think SCOTUS decisions are the final word on all issues in perpetuity. If you do, then to be consistent you must believe that abortion is legally and morally okay since Roe v Wade said it is. History is written by the victors. The North won the war, so secession is illegal as a practical matter. That does not change the fact that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to force a state to remain in the Union. It does state that all powers not specifically granted to the FedGov are reserved to the states or to the people.
The Civil War fundamentally changed The US. The US was never really intended to be a true nation. The true nations were Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc. Today there’s a good analogy to help understand the original formulation that did not exist a half century ago, namely the European Union. The EU is a group of sovereign nations that willingly gave up some of their powers for mutual benefit. The analogy with the US is exact — that was precisely what our founders had in mind. Thirteen small, relatively powerless nations quibbling amongst each other would have been easy prey for British or French domination or conquest. A Union of all cooperating for the survival of all had a chance. Think of the recent Brexit vote. That was completely analogous to the SC secession vote. Would anyone today really argue that France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, et al., would be justified in a military response to prevent the UK from seceding? If you lived in Britain, how would you react if Germany or France sent troops to your country and started seizing and destroying your property?
That’s why we still question the legality and morality of secession. The South did it to preserve slavery. That gives secession a bad rap. Think Brexit rather than the Confederacy and the issue looks quite different.
You really need to study some history before you post nonsense. Lack of motivation for the cause had absolutely nothing to do with the Confederacy’s defeat. If anything the South was much more united in support of its cause than the North. The South’s only real hope of winning, in fact, was reliant upon this division. The idea of going to war to prevent secession was Lincoln’s goal, but neither that idea nor Lincoln himself were particularly popular at the beginning of the war. This became even more pronounced with the seemingly endless string of Southern military victories in the Eastern theater. The South’s best chance to win was to parley those victories into increased Nothern opposition to the war and force a negotiated peace recognizing an independent Confederacy. It was only Union successes at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that began to turn the tide. Sherman’s occupation of Savannah then ensured Lincoln’s re-election and the eventual Northern victory.
The a South lost primarily because of the larger population and industrial base of the North. It is true that lack of state cooperation with Davis’s government hampered the war effort, but that lack was due to the adherence of states to the cause, not opposition. The Confederacy was founded on the basis of preservation of slavery and maintenance of states rights. The insistence of states on maintaining control of their own troops often was harmful to the war effort, but was a consequence of the cause, not an abandonment of it. Some soldiers certainly began deserting late in the war, but that was a consequence of the defeat that they saw was inevitable, not a cause of that defeat.
BS. Down here we'd be so lucky to be rid of this damn union.
Palm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God.
You are missing the mark. It was "tolerated" in the 19th century because it was almost universally understood that the black race could not survive on their own. They were deemed incapable of succeeding in a capitalist society, they could not be educated. Sorry, that's the ugly truth. They were thought of as children. Who would want to emancipate a child with the abilities of a 10 Y.O.?
Well said sir, well said. I always enjoy your comments and often learn much from them.
A comparison between the 1776 rebellion and the 1860 rebellion. RW = the Revolutionary War, ACW = the American Civil War.
The rebelling party was a full member of the body politic:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had willfully and freely entered into the government from which it was rebelling:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had access to full representation on the national stage:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had attempted to have their grievances redressed, and hostilities began before they declared separation and independence:
RW: yes. ACW: No
The rebelling party began their rebellion after losing a free and fair election in which they were a full participant:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear in their documents of separation that their main concern was protecting chattel slavery of the African race:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear their right to separation through war and de facto independence:
RW: yes. ACW: no
How are these conflicts remotely similar?
I encourage you to at least consider Dr. Williams’ points, if not his credentials.
And in addition to your wreckage and ruin governance preferences, consider the importance of continued opposition to, say, the abortion on demand provision of the 14th amendment - seemingly another Lost Cause.
“Lincoln was dead when these amendments were proposed and ratified.”
Not true for the 13th Amendment.
That amendment passed the Senate April 8th 1864. It passed the House Jan 31, 1865. It was forwarded to the States for consideration Feb 1 1865. Lincoln lobbied both Houses of Congress quite heavily for the passage of the 13th Amendment.
Slavery was not 'tolerated' in the South. It was embraced whole-heartedly and was the pillar on which their society as well as their economy rested.
The other issue is less clear cut, namely whether or not states had the right to secede. The legality and morality of this issue is really in doubt, unless you think SCOTUS decisions are the final word on all issues in perpetuity. If you do, then to be consistent you must believe that abortion is legally and morally okay since Roe v Wade said it is.
Supreme Court decisions are judgements on legality; morality is best saved for one's church. Like it or not, because of the Supreme Court abortion is legal and secession as practiced by the Southern states was not.
History is written by the victors.
And myths are written by the losers. If nothing else these Civil War threads have firmly established that.
The North won the war, so secession is illegal as a practical matter.
That is not correct. Secession itself need not be illegal. Unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states is. Winning the war had nothing to do with that decision.
That does not change the fact that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to force a state to remain in the Union.
It does give the Federal Government to power to enforce the laws and suppress rebellion.
It does state that all powers not specifically granted to the FedGov are reserved to the states or to the people.
All the states. Decisions that impact all the states should be decided by a majority of them and not just one or two.
The Civil War fundamentally changed The US. The US was never really intended to be a true nation. The true nations were Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc. Today there’s a good analogy to help understand the original formulation that did not exist a half century ago, namely the European Union. The EU is a group of sovereign nations that willingly gave up some of their powers for mutual benefit. The analogy with the US is exact — that was precisely what our founders had in mind. Thirteen small, relatively powerless nations quibbling amongst each other would have been easy prey for British or French domination or conquest. A Union of all cooperating for the survival of all had a chance. Think of the recent Brexit vote. That was completely analogous to the SC secession vote. Would anyone today really argue that France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, et al., would be justified in a military response to prevent the UK from seceding? If you lived in Britain, how would you react if Germany or France sent troops to your country and started seizing and destroying your property?
I've heard that claim made in various forms for years and with all due respect to your opinions I still find it ridiculous.
Uninformed statements = Bad Schools Causes It
your actual citations don’t support your argument. Notice Virginia’s say; “declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.”
Notice they didn’t reserve the right to resume the powers to the people of Virginia, but to the people of the United States.
Now New York and Rhode Island also do not say the people of New York or Rhode Island, it only says to the people. As in “We the people”.
None of those ratification documents reserve any right to “secede” and are perfectly in line with this supreme court decision;
“The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.” Cohens v Virginia
A comparison between the 1776 rebellion and the 1860 rebellion. RW = the Revolutionary War, ACW = the American Civil War.
The rebelling party was a full member of the body politic:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had willfully and freely entered into the government from which it was rebelling:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had access to full representation on the national stage:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had attempted to have their grievances redressed, and hostilities began before they declared separation and independence:
RW: yes. ACW: No
The rebelling party began their rebellion after losing a free and fair election in which they were a full participant:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear in their documents of separation that their main concern was protecting chattel slavery of the African race:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear their right to separation through war and de facto independence:
RW: yes. ACW: no
How are these conflicts remotely similar?
If you hate America so much you should probably leave. I’d be very happy to help you pack.
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.