Is the American civil war really over??

[zraver]

In your opinion and I'll bet that is far from accurate. Obviously there where many that supported anti-slavery. The underground didn't run itself and that wasn't the only way slaves escaped. I gaurantee the small farmer that couldn't afford slaves or didn't want slaves on a moral standing, wished those big plantations would lose the slaves to even the competition.

I'll agree with you here. The slave owners who were also planters as compared to those who owned just a a few also had all the political power, the most fertile land that was also close to a navigable river and where in bed with the gin owners, cotton brokers, bankers and merchants. The poor white was not much better off than a slave having only the ability to go west and seek a new life without the fear of slave hunters on his tail to really tell them apart aside from the color of their skin, well and firearms.

[Station 22]

I'm not trying to hang you, just trying to see where you stand. So based on what you've posted, you believe that the South wasn't justified?

Justified in what? Secession? Slavery? Forming a government? Raising an army?

As for the part I bolded, it is a great exaggeration and part of the mythology written by the South in the aftermath of the war (I can list countless other examples of how the losing side wrote the history following the war, much of which made it into the popular narrative of how people view the war). For South Carolina in the path of Sherman's march and the Shenandoah Valley in the path of Sheridan's operations, there's a large truth to what you say. However, as a general characterization, it's simply untrue as stated.

I'll be sure to pass this tidbit along to the towns over in West & Central Alabama that were burned by Wilson's raiders, to include the town I live near that wasn't burned because the war ended just days before they arrived. ;)

[zraver]

I'll be sure to pass this tidbit along to the towns over in West & Central Alabama that were burned by Wilson's raiders, to include the town I live near that wasn't burned because the war ended just days before they arrived. ;)

If you add up all the municipalities deep in the South during the Civil War, how many actually saw Union troops before Appomattox? Not very many in comparison to the total.

[Shek]

Possibly, but the advent of the cotton gin says otherwise. That is at least one clear instance of improved farm machinery leading to a massive expansion of the practice of slavery.

Wrong.

The cotton gin made cotton production more profitable, which is why it led to the increase in slavery. They were complements - an increase in one means an increase in another.

Mechanized cotton picking machinery made cotton production more profitable, but it's a substitute to labor. It would have led to the decline of slavery had it not been eliminated a century earlier.

[Shek]

Justified in what? Secession? Slavery? Forming a government? Raising an army?

Justified in firing on a federal fort located on federal property, which is the exact context of our previous exchanges.

I'll be sure to pass this tidbit along to the towns over in West & Central Alabama that were burned by Wilson's raiders, to include the town I live near that wasn't burned because the war ended just days before they arrived. ;)

If you could provide some sources about this burning, I'd appreciate it. From what I've read, Wilson was much more disciplined in putting to torch only military related targets (with exceptions) than Sherman in South Carolina. Nonetheless, the larger point still remains that your characterization is an exaggeration, one written and perpetuated by the losers.

[Station 22]

Justified in firing on a federal fort located on federal property, which is the exact context of our previous exchanges.

You asked if I thought they were justified. Yes. Yes, in the context I have stated above; that the armed forces were acting on the behalf of a government of a new nation. Whether you view it as seperate nation or not, they did, as they formed a government and elected executive and legislative houses of this government to rule the states that previously had been under the laws of the United States of America and had voted to dissassociate themselves from that union.

As to whether I am glad they did and think it was a good thing? No. The war was a terrible waste of lives & property. Slavery was something that should not have been tolerated on this continent to begin with. That is was is a crime in itself, with guilty parties north and south of Mason Dixon line. The shame comes in that there was not a peaceful way to settle the many issues that served to seperate the nation.

I am, however, a studious supporter of the right of a state to secede from the United States, if the vast majority of the people of that state decide that it is in their best interest not to remain a part of the nation. I would hope, however, that this action be taken only under the most dire of situations and only after much effort has been taken to alter the conditions that precipitated the push for dissolution of the union between the Federal government and state government(s). It would be detrimental to all concerned.

[Bigfella]

I don't think racism is an accurate term here though BF. Whites didn't think that much of the Native Americans but it wasn't anything to do with skin color. When a person shows up someplace wearing a shirt, pants, shoes and carrying a modern firearm(aka to the natives as a "boomstick") and having the ability to read and write, they may look at a not so advanced culture as barbaric or stupid. Being that they have the education and the gun, they decide they will do as they please with them.

Racism is not always about physical appearance. It is as often about culture. As for the rest, this might explain early contact, but not ongoing relationships. By the time of the America revolution anyone who cared to see it knew that blacks or indians could be 'civilized'. In fact, the oft repeated point about blacks owning slaves also proves that southerners knew that blacks could exercise the privileges of free men. Yet the attitude of inherent superiority survived & slavery remained an institution exclusively for non-whites.

One has to look at the culture even of what was considered civilized people 250 years ago. While not civilized or very educated by our standards, they ruled the day.

I'm not quite sure what your point is here.

Some civilizations enslaved thier own people, some enslaved ones of other nationalities or races. What did the Egytians think of the Jews, was that racism or just a labor force?

You are changing topic here. As I already pointed out, slavery is not always about racism, but in Nth America it was.

I know you probably already know the history better than me on that subject, but I simply don't think that American Racism is the accurate term or at least not in the same context as used today.

We certainly have a broader understanding of what constitues racism now, but that doesn't undo racism in the past. Americans of that time were affected by deep racial prejudices. Unlike now, it was acceptable. The issue here is that hey overlaid those prejudices on an institution that was also economic. Slavery in Nth America could not have survived without 'lesser races' to enslave.

Did that make sense?

As much as anything I write (that may not be a compliment :))).

[zraver]

I am, however, a studious supporter of the right of a state to secede from the United States, if the vast majority of the people of that state decide that it is in their best interest not to remain a part of the nation. I would hope, however, that this action be taken only under the most dire of situations and only after much effort has been taken to alter the conditions that precipitated the push for dissolution of the union between the Federal government and state government(s). It would be detrimental to all concerned.

I suggest you read Texas v White. The Opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon Chase. If Congress or the States choose not to pass an amendment or call a constitutional convention the Supreme Court is the final Arbiter of what is a right. When the Court hands down its verdict only the Court can change it lacking the aforementioned methods. Thus this is what the Court had to say on the issue of secession.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

[Bigfella]

In your opinion and I'll bet that is far from accurate. Obviously there where many that supported anti-slavery. The underground didn't run itself and that wasn't the only way slaves escaped. I gaurantee the small farmer that couldn't afford slaves or didn't want slaves on a moral standing, wished those big plantations would lose the slaves to even the competition.

The sad fact is that Southerners were not committed to ending slavery. Clearly some were, and they are to be admired for challenging the prevelant attitude among the governing classes & the racism of the rest. As we have discussed numerous times here, slavery helped to support a particular social & political system that benefitted a very few in the South.

Ultimately Southerners had it within their power to end slavery by the use of the ballot. I don't know enough about antebellum poiltics to know precisely why they did not, but I suspect that fear of 4 million free blacks played a part. It wouldn't be hard to convince a smallholder, artisan or factory worker that a flood of free blacks would threaten their economic interests. ANd that doesn't even begin to engage the issues of prejudice we touched on earlier.

Unfortunately the longer the institution survived & the larger it got the harder it was to end. Thus at precisely the time slavery should slowly have been dying manumission is becoming more difficult, there are ongoing attempts to expand the institution & the non-slave states are being compelled into complicity via the fugitive slave act. Southerners as a whole simply didn't show much committment to ending slavery.

[Shek]

You asked if I thought they were justified. Yes. Yes, in the context I have stated above

Based on your logic then, any attack on Guantanamo Bay would be justified and any attack on West Berlin would have been justified. Why didn't you answer this directly several posts ago?

[Station 22]

I suggest you read Texas v White. The Opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon Chase. If Congress or the States choose not to pass an amendment or call a constitutional convention the Supreme Court is the final Arbiter of what is a right. When the Court hands down its verdict only the Court can change it lacking the aforementioned methods. Thus this is what the Court had to say on the issue of secession.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

The beauty of this country is, that while we are enjoined to comply with the statutes of the nation, we are not required to agree with them and can voice our opposition to such court decisions and the laws that follow them. I am doing so here. There are many other Supreme Court decisions with which I do not agree and the Court is not infallible (Plessey v. Furgeson comes to mind).

Based on your logic then, any attack on Guantanamo Bay would be justified and any attack on West Berlin would have been justified. Why didn't you answer this directly several posts ago?

Why? Because it was a bogus question.

The governing arrangements you mentioned were covered by treaties. Best I understand, there were no treaties negotiated between the USA and the CSA, as to the status of military installations within the confines of the states that made up the Confederacy and that were occupied by the United States military forces as was and is the case where West Berlin and Gitmo was and is concerned.

[Albany Rifles]

The governing arrangements you mentioned were covered by treaties. Best I understand, there were no treaties negotiated between the USA and the CSA, as to the status of military installations within the confines of the states that made up the Confederacy and that were occupied by the United States military forces as was and is the case where West Berlin and Gitmo was and is concerned.

Not a treaty but a signed and ratified Constitution. And the United States Army did no occupy those forts they garrisoned since they resided within the sovereign territory of the United States of America. There was never legally a country called the Confederate States of America. That was established by the White v Texas decision whcih confirmed that secession was not allowable under that Constitution.

[zraver]

He just wants to secede to get Alabama put of the SEC and away from Florida.

On a more serous note, there is no language in the constitution allowing secession Texas v White merely affirmed that obvious fact. States had a choice to join but once they make that decision its over.

Article 1 section 10 clause 3

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The CSA had no legal basis for its formation. Not only did Texas v White uphold this, but so did Virginia v Tennessee 1893 (based on article 1)

Is the agreement, made without the consent of Congress, between Virginia and Tennessee, to appoint commissioners to run and mark the boundary line between them within the prohibition of this clause? The terms "agreement" or "compact," taken by themselves, are sufficiently comprehensive to

Page 148 U. S. 518

embrace all forms of stipulation, written or verbal, and relating to all kinds of subjects -- to those to which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with as well as to those which may tend to increase and build up the political influence of the contracting states so as to encroach upon or impair the supremacy of the United States or interfere with their rightful management of particular subjects placed under their entire control....

"may be more plausibly interpreted from the terms used, 'treaty, alliance, or confederation,' and upon the ground that the sense of each is best known by its association (noscitur a sociis) to apply to treaties of a political character, such as treaties of alliance for purposes of peace and war, and treaties of confederation, in which the parties are leagued for mutual government, political cooperation, and the exercise of political sovereignty, and treaties of cession of sovereignty, or conferring internal political jurisdiction, or external political dependence, or general commercial privileges,"

and that

"the latter clause, 'compacts and agreement,' might then very properly apply to such as regarded what might be deemed mere private rights of sovereignty, such as questions of boundary, interests in land situate in the territory of each other, and other internal regulations for the mutual comfort and convenience of states bordering on each other."

And he adds:

"In such cases, the consent of Congress may be properly required, in order to check any infringement of the rights of the national government,...

NO legal basis for the CSA.

[Shek]

Why? Because it was a bogus question.

The governing arrangements you mentioned were covered by treaties. Best I understand, there were no treaties negotiated between the USA and the CSA, as to the status of military installations within the confines of the states that made up the Confederacy and that were occupied by the United States military forces as was and is the case where West Berlin and Gitmo was and is concerned.

Fort Sumter was not part of South Carolina. It was ceded to the federal government in 1836. Thus, as you've constructed the argument, it was firing on a foreign country to better secure one's own country. This is exactly the situation with regard to Gitmo and Berlin.

[Station 22]

Both of those Court decisions were after the war, how could they have any effect on the choices made by the breakaway states in 1861? Those Court decisions reaffirmed what had already been settled on the battlefield.

As mentioned, there is nothing in the Constitution allowing or prohibitting secession. I was asked for justification and I gave it, based on what existed at the time and the mindset of those involved, that the CSA was a seperate country, seeking to expel the military forces of, what was to them, a foreign power. That the remaining states disagreed is obvious and the war was the result.

The Southern states were not the first to discuss secession. Representative from New England states discussed, then proposed, secession in 1815 on grounds similar to those the Southern states used to support their calls for secession in 1861.