The Civil War

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ahh and I see you totally ignored the part about why he wouldnt let the south go.

Because I knew you wouldn't like my answer.

His basic point is, if the South can legally go, any state would just leave instead of having to pay taxes (Tariffs were the main source of Gov't revenue then) and thus the union would continue to collapse.

[cpeeks]

No I dont dislike your answer, I just dont agree with it.

[cpeeks]

heres ya a few more
Charles Dickens views on the subject:

Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Karl Marx seconded this view:

The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.

[WillK]

heres ya a few more
Charles Dickens views on the subject:

Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Karl Marx seconded this view:

The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.

So instead of believing what the Americans who were actually involved said, you will turn to European journalists, including Marx?

[Frink]

heres ya a few more
Charles Dickens views on the subject:

Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Karl Marx seconded this view:

The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty

Clearly both Marx and Dickens were completely relevant key players in the Civil War with vast amounts of inside information on its causes.

[cpeeks]

Well you seem to want to ignore the quotes I give you from Jeff Davis, and even Abe Lincoln.

[WillK]

Well you seem to want to ignore the quotes I give you from Jeff Davis, and even Abe Lincoln.

I have no problem with Davis and Lincoln quotes (I do object to fake Lincoln quotes).

I quoted Lincoln myself earlier in this thread.  

And Davis was apparently a great speech maker, pleasing the home crowds:  "Rather than see the Executive chair of the nation filled by a sworn enemy of our rights, he would shatter it into a thousand fragments before he had an opportunity of taking his seat. The Government is at an end the very moment that an abolitionist is elected to the Presidency."
-- The Daily Mississipian reporting Davis's speech in Vicksburg, November 27, 1858.

[cpeeks]

Prove its fake. And Lincoln wasnt an abolitionist.

     If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution. – Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision. -General Pat Cleburne, CSA

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Prove its fake. And Lincoln wasnt an abolitionist.

     If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution. – Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

Try a  more complete quote.

If by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution — certainly would, if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them.

And from later on in that same address:

One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.

[cpeeks]

ok I guess I stand corrected on that.

[cpeeks]

I am not really sure what that means.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Prove its fake. And Lincoln wasnt an abolitionist.

     If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution. – Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision. -General Pat Cleburne, CSA

Actually quite the opposite is true. For instance, the Lost Cause mongers succeeded in achieving many historical revisions and also dominated Hollywood in its early years.

As has been established by posting more of tha very speech from Lincoln you realized that there was no such justification for secession or rebellion as the rights guarrenteed in the Constitution were still present protecting the south from the "Whims of the Majority" if you will. Which was the point I made week or two ago in reference to a previous quote from Lincoln which you had posted from the 1840's I beleive.

[cpeeks]

My point with the Marx and Dickens quote is that even ppl over seas monitoring Mr. Lincolns war knew this wasnt about slavery.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My point with the Marx and Dickens quote is that even ppl over seas monitoring Mr. Lincolns war knew this wasnt about slavery.

The War was about preserving the union torn apart by secession.

The Secession was motivated by the realization that the South finally lost slavery debate as it relates to the territory and the acceptability of the insitution in general. It was the same motivation that led New England to consider secession in 1806 and in the War of 1812, which was being on the losing side of the dominant political winds. And just like it was for them it was unjustifiable. Losing a political debated is not a legitimate justification for rebellion or secession.

[cpeeks]

The idea of states' rights dates back to Thomas Jefferson, who himself drew on the "social contract" theories of the British philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704). Jefferson maintained that the United States was formed through a social contract between the individual states rather than the people as a whole. In other words, because these states had united voluntarily to form a union—in Jefferson's language, a "compact"—the U.S. government derived its power only from them. This understanding of American government soon found expression in the U.S. Constitution. In 1791, the Ninth and Tenth amendments were ratified, reserving all powers not expressly granted to the federal government to the states and/or the people.

The nature of these rights and powers was hotly disputed just a few years later. In 1798, the Federalist-controlled U.S. Congress passed and the Federalist U.S. president John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Federalist Party favored a strong national government, and, according to the Alien and Sedition Acts, that government was now authorized to place restrictions on immigration and penalize certain kinds of speech, in particular the kind of speech coming from newspapers supporting the opposition Democratic-Republican Party. Some editors were even jailed.

In response, Jefferson, then Adams's vice president, secretly participated in drafting the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, passed by Virginia in 1798 and Kentucky in 1799. The separate resolutions provided an early articulation of a state's right to nullify—or declare null and void—a federal law it deemed to be contrary to its own rights and interests. While the New England states officially rejected the resolutions, they were nevertheless seduced by the principles.

The Nullification Crisis was the last outbreak of states' rights fever before the sectional crises of the 1850s. The Tariff of 1828 placed a tax on European imports in order to protect New England industry, a policy that hurt some southern businessmen. When, after taking office, U.S. president Andrew Jackson did nothing to mollify tariff opponents, the South Carolina legislature took matters into its own hands and declared the tax null and void within the state

States rights vs Federal goverment were embedded even before the revolution, the war was gonna take place. The seeds were sown early on and nothing to do with slavery.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You up and decide you want to you leave using States Rights a justification. Slavery was the reason they claimed states rights and left the union.

Also the Consitution makes no mention of a "union of states" just a union of the "The people".

Also following Jefferson's logic of "first things" you would have to go back to the Declaration of Independence which makes no mention of the states rebelling and grievances motivating it but the people rebelling and the grievances which motivated them to do it. Thus the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions had no basis in the law.

[cpeeks]

I have always mantained that states rights was the justification, on the issue of tarrifs, not a bunch of slaves.

[WillK]

The idea of states' rights dates back to Thomas Jefferson, who himself drew on the "social contract" theories of the British philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704). Jefferson maintained that the United States was formed through a social contract between the individual states rather than the people as a whole. In other words, because these states had united voluntarily to form a union—in Jefferson's language, a "compact"—the U.S. government derived its power only from them. This understanding of American government soon found expression in the U.S. Constitution. In 1791, the Ninth and Tenth amendments were ratified, reserving all powers not expressly granted to the federal government to the states and/or the people.

The Constitution does not express the understanding you describe.  The Constitution starts "We the People", not "we the States".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to those who led the secession movement it had everything to do with slavery.  Several of the rebel states published Declarations of Causes:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

[cpeeks]

The idea of states' rights dates back to Thomas Jefferson, who himself drew on the "social contract" theories of the British philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704). Jefferson maintained that the United States was formed through a social contract between the individual states rather than the people as a whole. In other words, because these states had united voluntarily to form a union—in Jefferson's language, a "compact"—the U.S. government derived its power only from them. This understanding of American government soon found expression in the U.S. Constitution. In 1791, the Ninth and Tenth amendments were ratified, reserving all powers not expressly granted to the federal government to the states and/or the people.

The Constitution does not express the understanding you describe.  The Constitution starts "We the People", not "we the States".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to those who led the secession movement it had everything to do with slavery.  Several of the rebel states published Declarations of Causes:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I am sorry I guess you have never read the tenth amendment the states and the people are the same thing, and it sure doesnt start off saying "We the Federal Goverment"

[WillK]

The idea of states' rights dates back to Thomas Jefferson, who himself drew on the "social contract" theories of the British philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704). Jefferson maintained that the United States was formed through a social contract between the individual states rather than the people as a whole. In other words, because these states had united voluntarily to form a union—in Jefferson's language, a "compact"—the U.S. government derived its power only from them. This understanding of American government soon found expression in the U.S. Constitution. In 1791, the Ninth and Tenth amendments were ratified, reserving all powers not expressly granted to the federal government to the states and/or the people.

The Constitution does not express the understanding you describe.  The Constitution starts "We the People", not "we the States".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to those who led the secession movement it had everything to do with slavery.  Several of the rebel states published Declarations of Causes:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I am sorry I guess you have never read the tenth amendment the states and the people are the same thing, and it sure doesnt start off saying "We the Federal Goverment"

I have read it.  The States and the People are not the same thing.  The 10th clearly refers to them as two different things. 

[cpeeks]

The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it the states, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTFULLY, OR TO  THE PEOPLE.

Then I would suggest you read it again you obviously missed the last part, its the same thing.

[WillK]

The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it the states, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTFULLY, OR TO  THE PEOPLE.

Then I would suggest you read it again you obviously missed the last part, its the same thing.

I didn't miss anything.  "The States ... OR  ... The People"  Two things, separated by the word OR. 
The 9th Amendment does not mention the States at all.

[cpeeks]

Its refering to the same thing because its the states rights amendment not the peoples rights amendment, the people or the states is the same thing.

[Derek]

Unfortunately states' rights aren't taught in schools today.

[cpeeks]

Your not from Alabama, states rights is alive and well here.