The only Confederate flag that mattered

[muff528 3]

DaVinci

Quote

Never mind that citizens of the slave (and non-slave!) states, south and north, frequently violated the Constitutional rights of actual people for most of a century. (...and beyond). The Rights of the People are unalienable ...not the rights of the states.

You are still trying to make it into something it was not. The Constitution did not see slaves as people. As revolting as we can look at that today (and as some did even back then). The Constitution was written as it was written. It has since been amended to correct the errors... As it should have.

But even the Supreme Court in Dredd agreed with the Constitution at the time.

And NONE of this changes the reason for the civil war. You can claim it was because of slavery, but that is just not true...

The Civil War was about States rights issues. Slavery was the catalyst, but not the reason. The southern States wanted to run the States the way they wanted and for the Federal Government to stay out of the States issues.

If someone tried slavery NOW, the 13th Amendment would make it a Federal issue, but the 13th did not exist till AFTER the war.

I fail to see how this is a difficult concept. I can only assume that slavery is so evil to us that we just assume it was THE reason and not just the issue that was rallied around.

Well, I was only commenting on the South Carolina quote and how, IMO, it doesn't square with the Constitution. If the slave-holding states had any cause to secede it should have been because they did not agree with founding principles of the Constitution ...not because the Union was violating their Constitutional "states rights". (IMO, of course).

But, the Constitution doesn't "see" squat. It is only a set of rules agreed upon by the founders ...and it can be interpreted in any way that those in power at any given time decide. The Constitution, prior to the 13th, does not even use the word "slave". However, if you are referring to Art.IV, Sect.2, the Constitution does say "person". I think that is the same as "people", but only one. So, even if you insist that Art.IV, Sect.2 necessarily refers to slaves, you have to agree that the Constitution does "see" slaves as people.

Actually, I do agree with you that the Confederate States seceded for economic reasons ...but the Union's moves to halt the spread of slavery was the overwhelming economic issue for the South. Their entire economy was grounded in slave labor.

Also, the North did not go to war over the issue of slavery, but over the secession of the Southern states. The Emancipation Proclamation showed, in writing, the hypocrisy of the North with regard to slavery. I support "states rights" as spelled out in the Constitution. But, I don't believe that gives any State the "right" to violate the Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights of any person.

[Southern_Man 0]

muff528

Actually, I do agree with you that the Confederate States seceded for economic reasons ...but the Union's moves to halt the spread of slavery was the overwhelming economic issue for the South. Their entire economy was grounded in slave labor.

Also, the North did not go to war over the issue of slavery, but over the secession of the Southern states. The Emancipation Proclamation showed, in writing, the hypocrisy of the North with regard to slavery. I support "states rights" as spelled out in the Constitution. But, I don't believe that gives any State the "right" to violate the Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights of any person.

Yes, to all of this, especially the bolded part. It is impossible to claim the south succeeded because of "economic reasons" or "states rights" as though those are somehow distinct from slavery. It was the only economic reason and the only state right that had the potential to lead to war.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DaVinci 0]

"It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England."

Again, removing power from the States.... Using Slavery as the catalyst.

GA:
"They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. "

People claim that the South left over States Rights issues and the North tried to keep the Union whole. Well, that means it is a States right issue.

And again, that does not mean slavery was not the rally cry, but the very act of the North trying to force the South about slavery is why the South wanted to leave.... A States right issue.

[Southern_Man 0]

DaVinci

People claim that the South left over States Rights issues and the North tried to keep the Union whole. Well, that means it is a States right issue.

And again, that does not mean slavery was not the rally cry, but the very act of the North trying to force the South about slavery is why the South wanted to leave.... A States right issue.

What "states rights" were the confederate states concerned about other than slavery (and the ability to extend slavery into new territories, forcing Northern States to enforce the fugitive slave act, etc) were the Southern States concerned about?

Would any of those other states rights have led to succession or war?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[skybill 22]

davjohns

I'm not a historian, but I've read a fair bit on this subject. The US Civil War is very popular with US Army Officers for study.

As I understand it, the Southern states were using their cotton to get excellent deals with Europe on goods that directly competed with Northern goods. Northern states attempted to thwart this with import restrictions and tarrifs. At the same time, the abolitionist movement sought to undermine the financial underpinning of the Southern agrarian system. The Southern states left.

After two years of war, the North was sick of it. They were not doing well. They had anticipated a very short skirmish before returning to normal. Lincoln was a devout believer in a federal government. He turned to the abolitionists to provide a moral pupose for his war. They responded. The information campaign that followed rallied the North and continued the war for a purpose it didn't really start out with.

Today, we are taught in school that it was about slavery. Part of that is left over from the post-war abuse of the South that was so prevalent. Part of it is because it's hard to teach anyone that the root of most all wars is money.

The people on this forum are adults...regardless of how some act. It's time to admit that wars are almost always about money. Pretending wars were morally just in the past is just silly.

Hi DJ,
Yup, 'wanna find out the "Truth?," "Follow the money trail."

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

What "states rights" were the confederate states concerned about other than slavery

Does not matter. The REASON they tried to leave is because the Federal Govt was trying to tell the States how to live. This was/is against the Constitution.

You can keep saying it was slavery, but it was States rights issues. Slavery WAS a States rights issue. So the more you crow it was slavery, you just prove the point.

Quote

Would any of those other states rights have led to succession or war?

Great question, you would have to ask them. But the point still stands, they tried to leave because the Federal govt tried to tell the States what they could and could not do.

The issue (Slavery) was a plank, but it was not the platform.