Kevin's Watch

Moved from the 'Tank to a more appropriate forum! Anyway, let's start with this never before seen post!

Farsailer wrote:Slavery would have died out anyway. Have to remember what the economics of slavery involved: slave owners had to house and feed their slaves all year long in exchange for getting only a few months of full-time work out of them (planting season and harvest season). This was becoming economically inefficient with the result that only the largest plantations and farms could afford them. Of course those that could afford them could also afford to control their respective state legislatures. But if there had been no war, the plantation owners would have had to give it up before long or go broke. This is the original outsourcing when you think about it...

That's what some of the founding fathers thought...and, well, that's not how it turned out. Slavery ended up becoming a very profitable industry, and it helped make the cotton industry more productive when combined with technilogical developments like the cotton gin.

The cap on the profitability of this industry was legislation designed to prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories. The southern states felt cheated by this and seceded.

In any way you look at it, there are several conclusions that follow:
1)Left on its own, slavery wasn't going anywhere anytime soon. Not in the natural course of events.
2)Whenever the government decided to try to address ending it, it always threatened the stability of the Union, even as early as 1792.
3)Slavery was the principle reason for seccesion, without the seccession, Lincoln wouldn't have tried to preserve the Union. Ergo, slavery is a principal cause of the Civil War.

Orlion,

I agree slavery made Lincoln's election fighting words for the South. However, I do not agree that Lincoln had the Constitutional power to bind the seceding States to the Union by force. That's a question for my thread in the Tank.

I thought as much Did right in seperating this point from your thread then, huh?

Orlion,

Orlion wrote:I thought as much Did right in seperating this point from your thread then, huh?

Indeed.

So there's no debate that slavery was the main cause? Good, there shouldn't be

In terms of whether Lincoln had power to bind states, like almost any constitutional issue, it just depends on how you interpret it. What's the point of signing an agreement that the federal govt has certain powers, if when those powers go against what you like, you just quit? Means that govt doesn't really have any power.

Andrew Jackson had to handle this issue 3 decades earlier, w/the nullifiers. He threatened to use force to enforce the tariff collection, and the south backed down, but he claimed he could use force b/c it was an explicit power in Constitution that gave Congress power to levy tariffs, so the states did not have the right to ignore or nullify that power. (Of course, as is common amongst all politicians, and people, Jackson was hypocritical, b/c he did not enforce the US Postal service when the southern states confisticated abolitionist material - though its explicitly granted in Constitution).

To me, his argument makes sense.

Now, the south in actuality didn't have an excuse to secede. They feared what Lincoln would do about slavery, but at the time of secession, he wasn't even in office yet, and certainly had no plans to abolish slavery in existing states, tho he did want to abolish in territories.

The actual reason they seceded was b/c they didn't like who was elected President.

Their arrogance in lording slavery over the rest of the nation (great example is Fugitive Slave Act, and the beating in the House of a northern Congressman) leaves me to say, its about time they got slapped around.

I read once that the votes that were made for secession only numbered in the low hundreds. (I forget exactly).
There was no statewide vote of any kind and even where votes were cast by State Reps it was only by a select few per state not everyone that could.

I just find that interesting.

Yea, in reading 'Rise of American Democracy', it seems the southern states were much slower in granting popular sovereignty (of course, that was only white men in north). South Carolina was particularly stubborn, and the general populace didn't have much say in what was going on.

And the majority of white men in south did not own slaves, but the Slave Power used master race politics to get them on their side. So, even though slaveholders oppressed white non-slaveholders, they oppressed blacks more, which apparently was good enough.

HLT,

High Lord Tolkien wrote:I read once that the votes that were made for secession only numbered in the low hundreds. (I forget exactly).
There was no statewide vote of any kind and even where votes were cast by State Reps it was only by a select few per state not everyone that could.

I just find that interesting.

If you go back and look you will see that each State that voted to secede did so by the same mechanism, State Assembly ratification or seperate convention for ratification, that State used to Join the Union. As such they were operating with the same intent and power that allowed that State to choose to Join the Union or go their own way.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires a general plebicite to choose to join the U.S. or to leave the U.S.

Cybrweez,

Now, the south in actuality didn't have an excuse to secede. They feared what Lincoln would do about slavery, but at the time of secession, he wasn't even in office yet, and certainly had no plans to abolish slavery in existing states, tho he did want to abolish in territories.

The actual reason they seceded was b/c they didn't like who was elected President.

You will get no argument from me about the why's of Secession or advocating that Secession was a good choice to make. My only point is that because Secession is not denied to the States it is a power retained by the States as Seperate Sovereigns. Those States, with the inception of the U.S. Constitution, had the power to join the Union or leave the Union to become independent nations. The power to choose to leave to become independent nations is not denied to the States under the Express terms of the U.S. Constitution and as such States retain the power to leave for any or no reason, by the same mechanism they used to join the Union.

causes of the civil war?

money

money

money

money

and

money.


the only way slavery had anything to do with the civil war is because it directly related to

money

money

money.

Hmm, well, I agree w/Jackson, if the feds have the power, expressed in Constitution, than a state could not legally secede (or in his case, nullify a law), b/c that would mean the Constitution is useless.

But, I do see that maybe there's an argument if the reason is b/c the feds do something that is not expressly given them in the Constitution. Now, that may be interesting to think about, however, in the case of the southern states in 1859/60, this was not the case, as the feds did not try to abolish slavery from any state, so again, they still had no legal basis.

SerScot wrote:HLT,

High Lord Tolkien wrote:I read once that the votes that were made for secession only numbered in the low hundreds. (I forget exactly).
There was no statewide vote of any kind and even where votes were cast by State Reps it was only by a select few per state not everyone that could.

I just find that interesting.

If you go back and look you will see that each State that voted to secede did so by the same mechanism, State Assembly ratification or seperate convention for ratification, that State used to Join the Union. As such they were operating with the same intent and power that allowed that State to choose to Join the Union or go their own way.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires a general plebicite to choose to join the U.S. or to leave the U.S.

Yes, I know but that wasn't the case if I remember correctly.
It was even less than that.
The "votes" cast to secede (out of those who were in position to vote) were stunningly low.
Like 80 or 90 people total for all the Southern States when it should have been at least a few hundred.....
I have to find that book tonight.

Cybr,

Cybrweez wrote:Hmm, well, I agree w/Jackson, if the feds have the power, expressed in Constitution, than a state could not legally secede (or in his case, nullify a law), b/c that would mean the Constitution is useless.

But, I do see that maybe there's an argument if the reason is b/c the feds do something that is not expressly given them in the Constitution. Now, that may be interesting to think about, however, in the case of the southern states in 1859/60, this was not the case, as the feds did not try to abolish slavery from any state, so again, they still had no legal basis.

If the power to leave is not defined by the Constitution they don't need a legal basis to leave because they don't need permission. With regard to Jackson essentially the counter to his position is that the only remedy a State has to an oppressive move by the Feds is to leave the Union thereby removing any authority the Feds have over that State and making it unlikely, given the benefits of remaining in the Union, that a State would choose to willy nilly leave the Union.

HLT,

Yes, I know but that wasn't the case if I remember correctly.
It was even less than that.
The "votes" cast to secede (out of those who were in position to vote) were stunningly low.
Like 80 or 90 people total for all the Southern States when it should have been at least a few hundred.....
I have to find that book tonight.

What wasn't the case? That the States left the Union via the same mechanisms they joined?

I don't see it that way, that you sign an agreement, that says this particular body has the authority to do these particular things. Then, that body exercises its authority, but in ways you disagree with, then you decide the agreement doesn't bind you anymore? Nah, I'm not buying it. Again, it would make the agreement worthless, and I don't think the original approvers believed it was a worthless experiment they were doing.

Cybr,

Cybrweez wrote:I don't see it that way, that you sign an agreement, that says this particular body has the authority to do these particular things. Then, that body exercises its authority, but in ways you disagree with, then you decide the agreement doesn't bind you anymore? Nah, I'm not buying it. Again, it would make the agreement worthless, and I don't think the original approvers believed it was a worthless experiment they were doing.

So, Contracts are eternal? You can never choose to leave once you've agreed to the terms even if the Contract itself says those things not addressed by the Contract may be done by the parties to the Contract?

Cybrweez wrote:So there's no debate that slavery was the main cause? Good, there shouldn't be

I'll debate it.

HLT wrote:The "votes" cast to secede (out of those who were in position to vote) were stunningly low.

I don't think that matters...the point was not how many people voted to seccede, but that the government wouldn't allow seccession.

LuciMay wrote:the only way slavery had anything to do with the civil war is because it directly related to

money

Agreed.

--A

Av, is your debate b/c its really about money? Well, that's true, the south wanted to keep slavery b/c it meant bigger profits (well, they thought so at least). But that's just the reason they wanted slavery, the reason they seceded was b/c slavery was endangered (in their eyes).

serscot, eternal contracts? No, anyone could break any contract whenever they want, provided they have the means too. The southern states tried to break it, and they didn't have the means (the North won the war).

No my debate is that the North did not go to war in order to end slavery.

--A

Oh, I guess to be clear, the south seceded due to slavery, the north fought to keep the union.

SerScot wrote:Cybr,

Cybrweez wrote:I don't see it that way, that you sign an agreement, that says this particular body has the authority to do these particular things. Then, that body exercises its authority, but in ways you disagree with, then you decide the agreement doesn't bind you anymore? Nah, I'm not buying it. Again, it would make the agreement worthless, and I don't think the original approvers believed it was a worthless experiment they were doing.

So, Contracts are eternal? You can never choose to leave once you've agreed to the terms even if the Contract itself says those things not addressed by the Contract may be done by the parties to the Contract?

But is it actually a contract in any ordinary sense? Once a State joins, it isn't an independent entity anymore, it is a United State...simply a sub-division, not a contracting party; one with the system.
And, a possibly silly quibble, as a Citizen of the U.S., if my State decided to leave, there's no real way it can do so without making my Federal rights meaningless...and that the States are prohibited from doing.

Vraith,

Vraith wrote:

SerScot wrote:Cybr,

Cybrweez wrote:I don't see it that way, that you sign an agreement, that says this particular body has the authority to do these particular things. Then, that body exercises its authority, but in ways you disagree with, then you decide the agreement doesn't bind you anymore? Nah, I'm not buying it. Again, it would make the agreement worthless, and I don't think the original approvers believed it was a worthless experiment they were doing.

So, Contracts are eternal? You can never choose to leave once you've agreed to the terms even if the Contract itself says those things not addressed by the Contract may be done by the parties to the Contract?

But is it actually a contract in any ordinary sense? Once a State joins, it isn't an independent entity anymore, it is a United State...simply a sub-division, not a contracting party; one with the system.
And, a possibly silly quibble, as a Citizen of the U.S., if my State decided to leave, there's no real way it can do so without making my Federal rights meaningless...and that the States are prohibited from doing.

Two points:

First, at the time of the late Unpleasantness the "bill of rights" did not apply to the State Governments or State Government Actions. It was only protection against actions by the Federal Government. This was also pre-entitlement so it's not like the citizens of the seceding States were going to lose their juicy government benefit checks or lose some protection from the State Governments because that protection didn't exist until after the 14th Amendment was passed.

Second, how are you going to get around the reservation of powers in the 10th Amendment? States had the inherent power to choose to join the Union or leave the Union when they ratified the Constitution (otherwise it would have had force and effect over all the States once 9 had ratified it). That power is not taken from the States, therefore, the power to leave is retained under the express terms of the 10th Amendment.