Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It was all about slavery, and always had been

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by walle View Post


    Far less than half of the population lived in the Southern states yet they paid more than 60% of the taxes
    Which means that not only did they pay for these facilities to begin with (facilities you say equally belonged to the Northern States), but also that any claim made on these facilities by the Federal government of the United States was null and void after the state had seceded.

    .
    http://m.jacksonfreepress.com/weblog...-over-tariffs/

    This article disputes the claim about taxation percentages advance above.
    What source supports the claim made on taxation?

    As this is a history forum, having an historical source to support an argument lends more credibilty to disputed points that just asserting it is so.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by walle View Post


      No it does not, and for reasons clearly explained.

      They ceased to be federal facilities the moment the state had seceded, at that point the state was no longer part of the United States of America.

      Hence secession.

      The federal government of the United States could therefore not make claims on any property and or resources that was no longer part of the country.

      Furthermore, as established already.

      Far less than half of the population lived in the Southern states yet they paid more than 60% of the taxes
      Which means that not only did they pay for these facilities to begin with (facilities you say equally belonged to the Northern States), but also that any claim made on these facilities by the Federal government of the United States was null and void after the state had seceded.

      If anything the United States should have paid the Confederate States of America compensation for having bore the brunt of taxation.
      As has been repeatedly explained to you, the rebels never, repeat NEVER, existed as a nation according to international law. Secession was never, repeat NEVER explicitly stated as legitimate in the Constitution. The reality is that the rebels chose that course and risked determining its legitimacy by force of arms, and lost completely and decisively.

      You are arguing opinion and not fact along these lines. Plainly, your arguments come right from the tenets of the fallacy known as the "Lost Cause." Good luck with that here.

      If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

      Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post

        http://m.jacksonfreepress.com/weblog...-over-tariffs/

        This article disputes the claim about taxation percentages advance above.
        What source supports the claim made on taxation?

        As this is a history forum, having an historical source to support an argument lends more credibilty to disputed points that just asserting it is so.
        Great link! Thanks for sharing
        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

        Comment


        • #34
          [QUOTE=D1J1;n5140183]
          Originally posted by walle View Post

          First off, Lincoln committed treason when he waged war on the Southern states, the states had the constitutional right to secede.

          Secondly, it wasn't a rebellion, the South seceded.

          Thirdly, the pedestrian opinion here is to deny it was ever a country, it becomes even more pedestrian when the argument put forward is the reason for it not being one, was because it wasn't recognized as such.

          It was not for England, France etc to deny the Southerners that recognition in the first place, in fact, it wasn't for the Union to deny the recognition either.

          It had all the things in place making it a country.
          It's own people, it's own culture (even it's own language) it's on laws, it's own military, it's own navy, it's own national anthem, it's own currency, etc.

          They should have been allowed to go their separate way.[/QUOTESe

          First, the rebels fired the first shot, not Union forces. Seen in reality, Lincoln's acts were self-defense against an aggressor. What right to secede? No where is that stated in the Constitution. You merely voice an opinion, period. Had the slavers truly thought their action was constitutional, why not do it then test it in the courts? The South chose to settle the issue by combat by initiating same. The verdict as to the constitutionality of their acts was rendered on the battlefields of America.

          Second, it was a rebellion because it was contested at the south's instigation by force of arms.

          Thirdly, to deny the conventions of international law in terms of recognition of a country's existence toward the rebel states places them outside international law. So, by your very statement they remain a bastard or illegitimate entity. Thanks for finally seeing the light.

          No nation denied them recognition, but yes it definitely is each nation's place to extend or deny recognition. To state otherwise, as you have clearly done throughout your last point is absurd.

          Regards,
          Dennis
          Excellent point.
          In the spring of 1861, Governor Houston's program to negotiate a solution was gaining ground, and the 'fire eaters' feared that war might be avoided.
          The pragmatic members of the confederate government, such as Judah Benjamin, realised that the '
          South ' was completely unprepared for an extended war, and wanted a year, at least of negotiation so the cotton could be shipped overseas to bonded warehouses.
          Pickney, and Jefferson davis,
          derailed the process.
          "how did that work out' probably started as a catch phrase...
          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by walle View Post

            No it does not, and for reasons clearly explained.

            They ceased to be federal facilities the moment the state had seceded, at that point the state was no longer part of the United States of America.

            Hence secession.
            Can you divorce your wife simply by saying "I divorce you"? Of course not. Divorce requires a legal process, and through that legal process the joint couple's assets are equitably divided. By the same token, a state simply declaring "we secede" does not a legal process make. That's what the Southern states did in 1861, though: they declared secession, without given thought to applying for secession to the same body to which they applied for statehood when they first sought to join the Union. Had they gone that route, then their legal claim for secession might have some merit, but since they chose to pursue secession through force of arms instead, they invalidated any legal claims they may have had.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • #36
              Perhaps those arguing secession was constitutional or a reality, might accept the words of Robert E. Lee on the matter? Thanks to Urban Hermit for posting this in another thread:


              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
              Robert E Lee was a man of letters, let’s see what he had to say about The Rebellion.
              • Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South, I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native State?
              Robert E. Lee
              • There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.
              Robert E. Lee
              • Remember, we are all one country now. Dismiss from your mind all sectional feeling, and bring them up to be Americans.
              Robert E. Lee
              But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.
              The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled.

              Regards,
              Dennis

              If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

              Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by D1J1 View Post
                Perhaps those arguing secession was constitutional . . . .
                We might debate the constitutionality of secession 'til the cows come home (I'm of the belief that secession is constitutional -- but I digress) but one thing that is beyond debate is that once armed force enters the equation, all bets are off. A man might be morally justified and legally within his rights to seek divorce from his wife -- but the moment he lays hands upon her, he's a violent criminal. By the same kind of logic, whatever secession's constitutional merits, the moment that the Southern states took up arms against the United States, any moral or legal validity of secession evaporated instantly. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution makes clear the Federal Government's prerogative:

                To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

                The President's authority to call out the militia was reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in Martin v Mott in 1827. Justice Story, on behalf of the unanimous court, wrote:

                We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the president, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. We think that this construction necessarily results from the nature of the power itself, and from the manifest object contemplated by the act of congress. The power itself is to be exercised upon sudden emergencies, upon great occasions of state, and under circumstances which may be vital to the existence of the Union. . . . .

                He [the President of the United States] is necessarily constituted the judge of the existence of the exigency, in the first instance, and is bound to act according to his belief of the facts. If he does so act, and decides to call forth the militia, his orders for this purpose are in strict conformity with the provisions of the law; and it would seem to follow as a necessary consequence, that every act done by a subordinate officer, in obedience to such orders, is equally justifiable. The law contemplates that, under such circumstances, orders shall be given to carry the power into effect; and it cannot, therefore, be a correct inference, that any other person has a just right to disobey them. The law does not provide for any appeal from the judgment of the president, or for any right in subordinate officers to review his decision, and in effect defeat it.
                Armed insurrection against the United States is never constitutional, and the President of the United States has fully the power to determine when an armed insurrection is taking place, and to order the Armed Forces of the United States -- including the states' militias -- to put down said insurrection.
                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by walle View Post

                  First off, Lincoln committed treason when he waged war on the Southern states, the states had the constitutional right to secede.

                  Secondly, it wasn't a rebellion, the South seceded.

                  Thirdly, the pedestrian opinion here is to deny it was ever a country, it becomes even more pedestrian when the argument put forward is the reason for it not being one, was because it wasn't recognized as such.

                  It was not for England, France etc to deny the Southerners that recognition in the first place, in fact, it wasn't for the Union to deny the recognition either.

                  It had all the things in place making it a country.
                  It's own people, it's own culture (even it's own language) it's on laws, it's own military, it's own navy, it's own national anthem, it's own currency, etc.

                  They should have been allowed to go their separate way.
                  Lincoln was elected on November 6, 1860, but his term began only on March 4, 1861, with the investiture ceremony. Until that date, Lincoln cannot do anything, and 7 states are taking the opportunity to secede and form the Confederate States of America. Who committed the treason?

                  A little reminder about Fort Sumter ...

                  Extracts from the communication between Beauregard and Anderson:
                  ... Charleston, April 11, 2:00 pm
                  Sir: I am ordered by the Government of the Confederate States to demand the evacuation of Fort Sumter. My aides, Colonel Chesnut and Captain Lee, are authorized to make such demand of you...

                  ... Fort Sumter, April 11
                  General: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication demanding the evacuation of this fort, and to say in reply thereto that it is a demand with which I regret that my sense of honor and of my obligation to my Government prevent my compliance ...

                  ... Charleston, April 11, 11:00 pm
                  ... In consequence of the verbal observations made by you to my aides, in relation to the condition of your supplies, and that you would in a few days be starved out if our guns did not batter you to pieces, __ and desiring no useless effusion of blood, I communicated both the verbal observations and your written answer to my government. If you will state the time at which you will evacuate Fort Sumter, and agree that in the mean time you will not use your guns against us, unless ours shall be employed against Fort Sumter, we will abstain from opening fire upon you …

                  … Fort Sumter, April 12, 2:30 am
                  … to state in reply, that cordially uniting with you in the desire to avoid the useless effusion of blood, I will, if provided with the proper and necessary means of transportation, evacuate Fort Sumter, by noon on the 15th instant, should I not receive, prior to that time, controlling instruction from my government, or additional supplies, and that I will not open my fire upon you forces, unless compelled to do so by some hostile act against this fort …

                  … Charleston, April 12, 3:20 am (Colonel Chesnut)
                  By authority of Brigadier General Beauregard, commanding the provisional forces of the Confederate States, we have the honor to notify you that he will open the fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter, in one hour from this time …

                  Who are the aggressors? Who are the "go-to-war"?

                  It was the South that rebelled against the national government, and instead of following a legal (political and legal) path, chose the weapons to secede.

                  When Lincoln finally takes office, he still must get congressional approval to act legally. He must therefore convene the Congress in extraordinary session.
                  Excerpt from Lincoln's Proclamation (April 15, 1861):
                  Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, I do hereby convene both Houses of Congress,-- Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12. o’clock, noon, on Thursday the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider, and determine, such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest, may seem to demand ...


                  The first thing he can do, is appeal to the Militia of the different States
                  Extract from the call to the Governors (April 15, 1861):
                  … Sir: Under the act of Congress for calling for the “Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, repel invasions”, etc., approved February 28, 1795, I have the honor to request your Excellency to cause to be immediately detached from the militia of your State the quota designated in the table below, to serve as infantry or riflemen, for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged …

                  The second thing he can do, is the establishment of the blockade of the southern ports
                  Excerpt from Lincoln's Proclamation (April 15, 1861):
                  … Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein comformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States …
                  … Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the law of Nations, in such case provided ...

                  And to finish:

                  It's own people, it's own culture (even it's own language)
                  In the North as in the South, they are the same people, coming from immigration (British, Irish, Germans, French, etc.)

                  it's own laws,
                  The Confederate Constitution is largely a copy word for word of the United States (only differences: legalization of slavery, limitation of central government powers)
                  Otherwise it is the same bi-cameral political system, and in Justice, with also a Supreme Court

                  it's own military, it's own navy,
                  they are the same officers, out of the mold of West Point, using the same instruction manuals, the same tactics, the same weapons

                  it's own national anthem,
                  "Dixie" or "Bonnie Blue Flag" have never been officially recognized as a national anthem or any other song by the way.

                  it's own currency, etc.
                  it is the same: the dollar as in the North, it is normal because long ago there was no central bank, each State emitted its own Bank notes. But the Southern dollar quickly lost all value ...

                  The Confederation was born of a concept "the States Rights" and it died because of the same concept. To succeed, the Confederation would have needed at the beginning, a strong central government. Impossible, because one of the causes of secession.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Slick_mieaster
                    Can you divorce your wife simply by saying "I divorce you"? Of course not. Divorce requires a legal process, and through that legal process the joint couple's assets are equitably divided.
                    A woman doesn’t bring any resources to the table and in a divorce she can help herself to half of the wealth you have created.

                    So the analogy doesn't work very well, unless the analogy made is that the Union was an abusive wife.

                    Originally posted by Slick_mieaster
                    but since they chose to pursue secession through force of arms instead, they invalidated any legal claims they may have had.
                    In terms of this being a “choice” or not could be argued, just as who created the conditions that lead up to the incident in the first place.

                    If you wanna use it(as not only an invalidation of the Souths secession) but as a just cause for Lincolns treason and consequent total war on the Southern states, you are entitled to do so. He used the incident as a pretext, nothing more.

                    Admittedly, it was a huge blunder to give Lincoln the pretext he needed in the first place, but he needed a war, the only way he could hope to ever preserve the Union, was by force.


                    The United States attacked first at the Battle of Fort Sumter.

                    Originally posted by Slick_mieaster
                    We might debate the constitutionality of secession 'til the cows come home (I'm of the belief that secession is constitutional -- but I digress)
                    You have not done, what so many others mistakenly do, namely apply the constitution of today. Therefore you recognize the Souths constitutional right to secede, not something many people would ever do.

                    Originally posted by daddut roger View Post
                    In the North as in the South, they are the same people, coming from immigration (British, Irish, Germans, French, etc.)
                    They were not the same people and a far cry from being the same culture.

                    The Southerners maintained most of their English ethnic and cultural heritage throughout their history, whereas the Northerners, with the mass immigration of Europeans, did not.

                    Being far fewer in numbers helped with maintaining this cultural homogeneity of course.

                    These differences can still be seen and felt today, the language being one of them.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas were previously Spanish territories, with many Spanish citizens many and many Cubans still living there, Louisiana was much a mix of international influences than New York City or Philadelphia with French, Spanish, Italian, free blacks and Acadians ,. Texas was a mix of Spanish, Mexican, Indian, German immigrants. Very few remember that the entire continent had been settled by so many nations, Even when Lewis and Clark made their expedition the Spanish still claimed Saint Louis and most of the west and actually sent Spanish troops to hunt for them.
                      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        New Orleans had two Militia Regiments called the Slavonian Rifles. That suggests some Austrian-Hungarian influence. If you break down the Spanish there were Islenos from the Canary Islands and the converts that were trying to stay ahead of the Inquisition. My daughter had her dna checked and she has Islenos, Sephardic and Ashkenazi gene markers. The Germans were a large factor as well. The most misspelled Cajun name is Schexnider! A number of Mexicans came in from Texas. I went to school with a bunch of Corbellos and I thought they were Italian. In South Texas they spell it Corbuello. In the 19th Century, Louisiana imported a number of Filipinos to work the Dried Shrimp industry. They settled in Barataria Bay. A number of Spanish names are now considered Cajun.

                        Being a Spanish Territory could mean differences depending on when America acquired the area. Mexico freed all its Slaves, but Louisiana divided racial profiles depending on your parents using a Spanish system. In the Spanish areas, Slaves could buy their freedom.

                        Pruitt
                        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          It is certainly too simplistic to say that it was slavery that caused the Civil War. The Constitution of the United States is a document forged by the compromise __ sometimes on slavery, sometimes on the right to carry a weapon, sometimes on the establishment of a religion ... However, the compromise does not seem to be totally effective, each interest group gaining something but losing something else. For more than 40 years, Southerners have threatened of "disunion" on various issues.

                          “Tariff Acts”:
                          The first law of 1789 allows the United States to generate income. But the 1816 Act changed the system into protectionism, to promote the industrialization of the North. The northern industry manufactures products that it wants to sell abroad, but especially in the interior of the country, and the South is a good market, overflowing with the money that comes from the sale of cotton. The northern manufacturers want to impose customs taxes on imported goods, so that the South buys their products. In 1820 and 1824, the Government is still trying to increase these taxes. The "Tariff" of 1828 brought the first secession crisis in South Carolina in 1832. The battle between Vice President Calhoun and President Jackson ended with the "Nullification Crisis". Fortunately, a Compromise is found thanks to Henry Clay and the crisis is avoided.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Increase of the powers of the Government:
                            The South thinks that the President and the Congress have only the powers which are specifically guaranteed to them by the Constitution. For their interests, the North and the West want a government that does more for them, and they support an increase in these powers. Moreover, the Federal Justice will participate by extending its authority on the provincial courts, further reducing the power of the States (See Martin vs Hunter Lessee in 1816 and Cohens vs Virginia in 1821).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              "States Rights":
                              They concern the diminution of the powers of the States and the rights not guaranteed to the Federal Government and usurped by the latter. But this is by no means a southern concept. In the 1830s, States in the West called for the establishment of a central bank to control speculation and used the "States Rights" to support their claim. In 1832, Georgia simply ignored the federal government when it spoiled the Cherokee Nation (see Worcestor vs. Georgia). In the early 1830s, South Carolina used this concept to justify "Nullification". When, in the late 1840s, this argument was further advanced to support disunion, Congress responded with the "Compromise of 1850". Then the concept of "States Rights" loses its strength, but at the end of the decade, the Southerners who speak of "disunion" take up this argument. Even Wisconsin defended state sovereignty in 1859.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                "Sectionalist differences":
                                As the United States grows, a third region is developing, the West, with its own needs in relation to the Federal Government. It will take ten years of fear and hatred (1850-1860) for southern sectionalism to become Southern nationalism.
                                ………. The West wants to grow, and for its economic growth, a central bank would be important in controlling inflation, curbing speculation and raising funds for lending. President Jackson is firmly against. His refusal and his subsequent actions will create the Panic of 1837 and the depression that followed. At the end of the depression, the sale of cotton begins an incredible growth, that the Panic of 1857 does not even slow down. The disparity of wealth North + West / South brings other criticisms and causes the rise of abolitionists.
                                ………. The concept of US expansion, "from sea to sea", divides the South during the 1840s. Henry Foote of Mississippi and Solomon Downs of Louisiana are strong supporters of this idea while the Whigs led by Alexander Stephens oppose any addition of territory. With the admission of California into the "Compromise of 1850", the question of territorial expansion becomes controversial. It is replaced by the violent quarrel over whether the added states will be either slavery or free.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X