Yeah, we like to call Florida "the southernmost Yankee state". :D That's ok, we still love ya. But leave the U-Hauls!Quote:
Originally posted by Savaric
Must be a lot of retired yankees down there.
Printable View
Yeah, we like to call Florida "the southernmost Yankee state". :D That's ok, we still love ya. But leave the U-Hauls!Quote:
Originally posted by Savaric
Must be a lot of retired yankees down there.
Quote:
I have. Point I was making in bringing up the Emancipation Proclamation was that if slavery was any kind of significant factor in the declaration of the war, the Proclamation would never have been necessary.
This is the only time I'm going to do your research for you.Quote:
Slavery was only an issue after 1863 when the proclamation was issued.
Here's the FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession (from 1860 - three years prior to when "slavery mattered"). I was originally going to bold the pertinent parts, but it's all pertinent.
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union
In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
The SC Declaration of Secession cites the failure of the North to enforce Fugitive Slave laws as its first reason for secession. The Georgia declaration states slave-related property laws as the main reason in its second -sentence-.
So, uh, if it never happens, wouldn't that mean declaring independence, more often then not, essentially means that it is willing and/or able to defend that independence militarily before the issue is actually settled?Quote:
Bottom line is once a nation declares itself independent, it essentially is. It's on the previous government to either let them go (which never happens) or try to reconquer the country.
I lied. In interests of keeping it simple, I'll do one more bit of research for you:
From that website: Article I - The Legislative Branch:Quote:
A sure way to shut me down is to post ONE link showing how secession is illegal... meaning: from http://www.usconstitution.net/
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Consider yourself shut down. I appreciate that you feel strongly, but you aren't translating your strong feeling into historical accuracy.
You are passing off personal feeling as fact. That amounts to nearly the same thing.Quote:
I guess the thing that irks me to no extent is your persistence that I make shit up.
I like this quote. This is a popular mode of thinking for people.Quote:
Originally posted by Darion
You are passing off personal feeling as fact.
Interesting find on the state secession publications. I'll need to read further into those, but you can't deny what I've pointed at either.
As far as your other one...
No they can't... while within the United States. Those states had already seceded before doing any of those actions. Consider me not shut down.Quote:
Originally posted by Darion
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
You are killing me by parroting back this same "They said they were independent, so instantly the US has no sway within their territory". Part of the legal argument at the time of secession was whether or not it could even take place. The President seemed to think it couldn't, and that the United States was an unbreakable compact between states.Quote:
No they can't... while within the United States.
You continually fail to recognize that there is no "law of statehood" or something similar that grants a state their undisputed sovereignity. I have pointed out the failure of this argument more than once, and the closest thing you have to a reasonable defense would be either the constitutive or declarative theory (pick one) of statehood.
I'm at work and going to leave for a field exercise in a couple hours (on an unrelated note, if you're an 11B and ever get offered a temporary NG staff job while a unit is deployed - take it), and so, though it pains me, I resorted to Wikipedia for an example of failure to achieve international recognition. There is an entire section devoted to international relations of the CSA here, and it includes a kindergarten-level walkthrough of most European powers never granting the CSA recognition as an independent, international actor.
I can't deny what you've pointed at because you haven't actually pointed at anything verifiable. Your slavery diatribe has been blown away. Your sovereign status argument has a gaping hole that you won't acknowledge. It sounds to me like my work here is done.Quote:
I'll need to read further into those, but you can't deny what I've pointed at either.
You've said that like three times already...Quote:
Originally posted by Darion
It sounds to me like my work here is done.
The dead horse is beginning to stink. :cyclops
On an unrelated note, congrats on the job! Definitely gotta beat the usual 11B stuff. Though field problems generally suck no matter what MOS. (And I'm glad I'm NOT 11-series!) :D
Anyway, I actually conceded that they never were officially recognized internationally. One of the self-defeating links I showed. Read back.
It seems that no one wants to truly touch the issue officially, because no law exists concerning such sovereignty and secession. The only thing that comes close is Article I, Section 10 as you pointed out, but nothing is written into law saying a state cannot secede, nor is it written that they can. I think what we can agree to here is a legal gray area that we have differing beliefs on. The legal issue existed prior to the Civil War, and it hasn't legally been resolved yet, though there is no issue today and no need to clarify. Now, I think I remember reading about proposed amendments clarifying this, but don't hold me to it. The fact remains that such an amendment does not exist. So the legality of secession is essentially undetermined.
As far as a "law of statehood", there is none as you describe it. No state has "undisputed sovereignty". But, they do have all rights and powers "...not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..." or to the people. Now, as states within the Union, they are specifically denied certain powers. This I have not denied. We can debate the legality of secession all day to no avail, but it won't be resolved until Congress passes a law concerning it.
The other thing is the relevance of slavery as an pre-war issue. We've both presented information supporting both sides. I guess one could say that it meant more to some than to others. But once again, why issue the Proclamation if it does nothing?
Oh, by the way...
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
If slavery was such a big deal and Lincoln was such an opponent of slavery that his threats of abolition caused the Southern states to secede, why would he say:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Given VP Stephens' remarks, it seems that slavery was a big deal to some... and that Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas all mention slavery in their secession declarations.
Though you're probably correct in the sensationalism of the abolitionist movement. A small group may have caused a panic within the Southern states' Congresses, unfounded they may have been. Or were they? Had the CSA states not seceded, might Reconstruction have been avoided? Would there have been some form of compensation once the 13th Amendment was ratified? We'll never know.
Now, what you said earlier about the President thinking that states could not legally secede, that is in the same inaugural address I linked. Of course, he thought it wasn't legal. That was the whole point of the war to begin with. So, if Lincoln wasn't interested in abolishing slavery, but disagreed with the states' right to secede, doesn't that make the war about saving the Union? Come on, basic math.
Then again, since when does the President's opinion mean law? Pres. Bush thought his wiretapping was legal and the courts disagreed with him. Though the courts DID agree with Lincoln, it still does not make the opinion law. Not until ratified by Congress, that is.
Damn, I'm bouncing back and forth... Anyway, Lincoln promised not to touch slavery, and the states seceded in part to protect slavery among other rights held by the states they thought were threatened. Bottom line, the seceding states didn't trust Lincoln to hold to his word. They were right not to trust him, he IS a politician. Kinda laughable that his nickname is "Honest Abe".
So what we're down to is two gray areas. One of no legal mention, and one of conflicting opinions. I'm sure we will never agree on those. :)
What you seem to be failing to recognize is when I give you credit. Though I feel I must defend my position to the best of my ability, I am interested in what is the truth. I wish to educate myself and others as to what really happened.
Not NG Field Artillery field problems when the only exercises going on are weapons familiarization and computer-simulated fires for effect :DQuote:
Though field problems generally suck no matter what MOS. (And I'm glad I'm NOT 11-series!)
Ok, seriously. You said:
I said:Quote:
As far as a "law of statehood", there is none as you describe it.
The reason secession itself is not prohibited is typically because it (prohibition of secession) is an implied task in nation-building. To rip a line off of my very good friend on the same matter: "Passing a law forbidding secession is like passing a law that prohibits sunshine." Pointless. Your argument, therefore, is essentially rooted in semantics.Quote:
You continually fail to recognize that there is no "law of statehood"
I have claimed that the main reasons for the Civil War were twofold: the practice of slavery and tariffs meant to protect the North's formative finished-goods industries, as well as a more broad front of states/minority rights. You do not seem to want to make an issue of the economic side of things which is fine because the issues inherent therein are readily apparent.
Further, you have shifted through a multitude of points throughout this discussion. The first, and perhaps most ridiculous, was that the slaveowners (based upon their daily interaction with the slaves) were not "as racist" as "everyone else" (Northerners). Then you compared slaves to vehicles, presenting as evidence that an owner would never mistreat his car which, in all honesty, made me raise an eyebrow and re-read that whole part several times. How this is meant to explain away anything in regards to the 'pecular institution' of the South and its effect on the Civil War still eludes me.
Despite all the discussion that has gone on, we still do not have a talking point. Each time I present a set of facts, most notably when you claimed that slavery was not such a big deal to the South, you change the angle somewhat and resume a position still as fundamentally flawed. You have also trotted out the ever-popular American Revolution phrase "taxation without representation" to describe the North's 'legislative subjugation' of the South. At the time of secession, the South actually had 2 more votes in Congress. It was the potential admission of further free states that lit a fire, so to speak, under the formative CSA. To further discount your belief that slavery was not a significant consideration in the attempted secession are the declarations of the slave states themselves.
Now you are claiming that Abraham Lincoln was not necessarily anti-slavery. Believe it or not, I agree with you completely. Lincoln was pro-Union if anything, and I firmly believe that he would have permitted slavery if he thought it would have preserved the Union. This is also far beside the point.
Your original point was that slavery was not a significant consideration in the outset of the Civil War, and instead it had to do with "taxation without representation" (states/minority rights) and economic issues. That is the initial point. The slave states themselves agree with me, and not you. It does not matter whether you believe that Abraham Lincoln was pro or anti-slavery, as this has no bearing on what we are actually discussing.
Slavery was a highly significant factor in the causation of the American Civil War. True or false?
I've said it once, and for effect. I appreciate that you're keeping up with the discussion, but keep it constructive or don't bother.Quote:
Originally posted by Rijiny
You've said that like three times already...
The dead horse is beginning to stink. :cyclops
Actually, there IS a law guaranteeing sunshine in California! :D Just like the law prohibiting ugly people from walking down the street. Dumb laws definitely exist. One may think that a law prohibiting or clarifying the process of secession is pointless, but secession actually happened, which makes it not so pointless. I would like to think it's pointless today and that the whole debate is nothing but semantics, but you never know what the future holds. But I'd give it a 0.001% chance of ever happening again.
And for the implied task (my God I hate that fucking term), the first government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation would have allowed it as would the CSA. Even the name "United States" implies a union of separate entities, be it in name only. So it's not really that far-fetched a concept. But as the Preamble says "in order to form a more perfect Union", perhaps the establishment of a stronger central government was the main purpose of the rewrite of the Constitution... and the main reason for secession.
I held that the tariffs were the main if not the only reason for the war. Economy sure as hell was a HUGE matter. Though the relevance of slavery at the beginning I will have to rethink.
My mention of the lack of mistreatment of slaves was actually knee-jerk defense of the average slaveowner at the time. I merely wanted to show that though the institution of slavery was wrong, the owners were not evil. And I didn't say owners would never mistreat their slaves, just that most wouldn't. They were too damn expensive. But then, you got dumb fucks who don't deserve their fortune today that abuse that fortune and destroy or neglect their expensive things. So yeah, there are always exceptions. Though I'd still argue that the owners had a better bond with their slaves, and were thus "less racist". Whatever... they still weren't quite right either.
So... true or false? Undecided... I'll get back to you on that. :)
And I've heard stories about test fires and fires for effect from a former 13, so yeah, I bet it was fun.