Talk Elections

I really can't believe the people who defend the Confederacy and try to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery--these are usually conservatives, who still call it the ''war of Northern Agression.'' I go on conservative message boards and it's amazing to see after 140 years these Southerners still calling the war by that name, arguing slavery had little to do with the war and even referring to those from the Northern states as "Yankees" It's like many of these cons are still stuck in 1870. Yeah, let's defend a state's right and freedom to own slaves...Little bit of irony there.

The Civil War was mainly started because the North wanted new stated admitted to the Union to be Free states, while the South wanted them to be Slave states. If I remember correctly, the Senate was to vote on whether a state would be free or slave, and the South didn't like that since they had less Senators than the North. Also, much of the South's economy came from cotton, and if all the slaves were freed, they would be screwed economically, as they would have trouble finding workers to pick the cotton.

Because in actuality, slavery was the main focus of the 'states rights' debate.

The Civil War started because both sides were tired of compromise. The Whigs and Democrats, were not really supporting the needs of the people, and were mostly there for their own selfish reasons. Politicians had quickly become seen as malignant and corrupt, which made people begin to lose faith in the Party System's ability to solve problems. Politicians were also seen as out of touch with their constituents as no side, Slave or Free were really winning the argument by the 1850's, the argument had only been postponed by a series of compromises such as the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas Nebraska Act.

All of these had attempted to cool tensions between an enraged South, and an angry North. Not only did any of these compromises fail to do that, but the parties had lost the faith of the people who had elected them into power to accomplish a specific goal. For example, Stephen Douglas, who was seen as a "moderate" on slavery, supporting Popular Sovereignty in States, was rejected by the South as the Democratic Nominee in 1860 because the Southern Wing of the Democratic Party did not view Douglas as "pro slavery" enough. The people on both sides were simply tired of political compromise.

The politicians' failure to please their constituents lead to a rise of people creating new parties, such as the Republicans, to "fix Washington," or some people, like John Brown, merely took matters into his own hands and started killing people. Brown's attack on Harper's Ferry and subsequent execution heightened North-South tensions to an even higher level. People turned to violence because of the political system's inability to solve the Slavery issue.

It almost sounds like today. Not the whole details (as in Slavery, harpers ferry, etc) but the rise of new parties or political groups, the intense disdain for compromise on both sides of the aisle, the tension getting higher and higher between the two parties or ideals.

The Conservatives are trying to revise history in order to change the appearance of State's rights proponents.  Its hard to make an argument that State's Rights is important when we see from history that State's Rights was used to justify the institution of slavery.  The only way the Conservatives can whitewash the dangers of absolute State's rights is to turn the Confederates into heroes.  

States' rights was also used to fight slavery and war and other terrible things. New England planned on seceding multiple times, and Wisconsin I believe attempted to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act, which ran roughshod over states' rights.

How many people died in the war?

620.000 but that's conservative IMHO.

Really?  What makes you think the number would be higher?

Civilians, MIA etc. The paperwork trail was terrible back then, especially for confederates.

I assumed the 620,000 figure did take those things into account.  Where would you put the number, then?  800,000?

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm


I wouldn't say the number is dramatically off but records were horrible in the south.

So, something I've been mulling recently: why did the South lose the war, and who's to blame?  I'm writing an essay putting much of the blame on Lee, but of course there are other options.  What do y'all think?

Start with the railroads, that answers a lot of problems. North Carolina was found to have warehouses busting with food and supplies at the end of the war but the problem was the gauge on the tracks varied from state to state and they had a problem getting the supplies to the front.

I'd see the Union collapsing if the South won...In present day, I could see the map looking like this:

()
Blue is the United States of America
Red is the Confederate States of America
Green is the Republic of Texas
Dark Green is the Republic of California
Light Green is the Commonwealth of New England

I can't see the South keeping West Virginia, and an independent New England would be too weak to survive nestled in there between the US and the Dominion of Canada.  It'd rejoin the Union if it ever left.  Also, you should probably give Oklahoma to the CSA.

Especially since the railroads were the reason the Union wanted WVA in the first place.

Didn't the Union have an estimated 85% of rail roads, or something to that figure?


Yes, the CSA actually had territory in Oklahoma.

     I seem to recall it being very proportional to population, actually. That would have helped the more urban & more densely populated North, which makes sense in view of history.

I think it was largly the fault of President Davis, whofar too often attempted to lead as essentally an armchair general.  This was especially prevalent on the Western Front where he directly contradicted General Johnston.

Ah. I'd read the figure (to the best of my recollection) in my old history book (this is dating back to freshman year...) but yeah, that makes sense.

The south had:
1/4 the numbers of people
1/2 the soldiers
3% of firearm production
and relied heavily on exports that were gone during the war

Blaming Lee for the loss is nuts.

Hell if anything Lee and other Southern military leaders should be given mad props for keeping the war going that long.

..and that's what I thought history had always told us.  One of those rare times history class in high school actually got it right. :)

(unless somebody has evidence pointing somewhere else, but I ain't seen it)

Lee gave the South a small chance, honestly. Better than every General on either side, except for Grant, maybe.
Major problems of the South, which contributed to the loss:
1. Lack of Railroads
2. Lack of Industry
3. Lack of Trade
4. A governing system that was at best terrible- since it was confederal, rather than federal, there were many problems organizing troops, paying for the war, and even getting the troops to leave their states in some cases. Even if they had won the war, it wouldn't have been surprising if they broke apart later.

Bingo. The other three reasons you listed would have been hard to overcome, yes, but not insurmountable. There seems to be some sort of idea that if the Confederacy had managed to squeak by in the war, it would have lasted. Which is false. It would have been very hard for the Confederacy to stick together for much long without tearing itself apart. There was talk of Georgia seceding from the Richmond Government as early as 1861. Georgians and Texans would have been at the throats of the Virginians and South Carolinians in no time over the most trivial of details. The Confederacy lacked a unified government, and would have surely crumbled soon, if not by the 1870's.

First of all it wasnt cemetery hill, it was culps hill that Ewell didnt take, it commanded the town, and Lee was the reason the south lasted so long. He was the greatest commander ever. Tactics today are based on him, speed and mobility. And slavery didnt become an issueuntill the emacipation proclamation, and it only applied to states still in rebellion and they were not gonna give them. Lol so in essence "the great emancipator" didnt free one slave the 13th amendement did.

What?  Are you kidding?

I am not kidding anyone, Lincoln didnt send troops to free slaves. He sent them to stamp out the rebellion, the only reason he even issued the the proclomation was to take the moral high ground and keep Britian and France out of the war. LOL I mean really, when the battles were taking place do you really think southerners charged into yelling "keep the slaves", and the yankees were yelling "free the slaves"?

No, he's correct. Prior to the emancipation proc the main goal of the US Govt and Military was to save the Union and end the war. While their was strong pressure from abolitionist groups to change the ultimate goal up until that point the EP changed the whole nature of the mission. He was also correct in stating that the EP didn't really free one slave, if you read the document the only slaves that were "freed" were done so in Confederate held territory, which at the time was a foreign nation and therefore the federal authorities had no powers to enforce the law. Slaves in MD, KY, MO, and DE, and CS states that were occupied by Union forces were left unaffected by the EP.

Yes, it kept them from officially joining with the south but both nations, especially Britain, shipped thousands of weapons, provided sailors and built ships for the Confederacy.

Correct. The South lost for economic reasons, which is generally the case in most wars.

But, they also had some advantages:

1.  Exceptionally high moral.

2.  Arguably a more experienced and better trained officer corp (a lot of the really top people, including Lee, were West Point trained).

3.  Generally, they fought on known ground (and map making was not particularly extensive by the federal government prior to the war).  Gettysburg and Antietam were notable exceptions.

4.  A not particularly capable blockading force, at least prior to 1863.

I'd say you are correct on slavery not being an issue for the North before the Emancipation Proclamation, but it was certainly an issue for the South. Why do you think they seceded in the first place?

It was more of the tarrifs imposed, the south had 20%of the population, but 80% of the tax burden......And yes the south would have took more casulties on the first day but it would collapsed union defenses sending them reeling towards washington, and the south then could have done what Longstreet wanted to pick out a good piece of high ground and then the north would have to attack. Lees aggression cost them Gettysburg and ultimately the war.

cite?

I don't know where to find it right now but I can back up that he is very close to correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1828 Not necessarily addressing that but it was a major issue.

I will have to find it for again, but just google protective tarriffs that will give you a good idea of how the north manufacturers were manipulating the southern economy by making the south pay higher tarriffs for there goods, thus causing  rescessions in the south.

If you ever can back it up, please do becuase I'd like to know how.
Otherwise, his statement sounds like complete crap.

But the US Govt wasnt the only participant in the war. As an example, Mississippi had declared in January 1861 that "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery", thus slavery was an issue from the beginning.

According to the federal government, the rebel states were not a foreign country so federal law was still considered to be applicable. 

In several areas the EP applied and the US had control at the time it took effect.  For example: Corinth, Mississippi; Huntsville, Alabama; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Helena, Arkansas; New Berne, North Carolina;  Hilton Head and Port Royal, South Carolina;  Alexandria and Winchester, Virginia.  Add all that up, and there was a lot of slaves freed immediately by the EP.

I know quite a bit about economic theory yet I see nothing that explains the geographic distribution of tax burden that has been claimed.  Enlighten me if you can.

No the EP only applied to states still in rebellion it didnt apply to areas in union control or borders, and the states in rebellion were not going to give up there slaves,  the EP didnt free one slave the 13th amendment did.

My statement was exactly correct.  The EP applied to the locations I listed AND those locations were held by the US army at the time the EP was issued. 

Those slaves were not freed. The EP didnt free slaves under Union control.

you are wrong.
Try reading the EP and studying actual history.

The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863

The proclamation did not name the slave-holding border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation.

Nice cut and pate job from Wikipedia.  

Did you get to the part which says "Although most slaves were not freed immediately, the Proclamation did free thousands of slaves the day it went into effect in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception).  In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas and at least 20,000 slaves were freed at once on January 1, 1863."

You know the civil war had nothing to do with slavery until politics was involved at the end. The Republicans at the time used it as a political tool to stay in power once the south was allowed to enter the country again.

Republicans have always been for big business and the civil war was no different, the republicans got rich.

Why do you think the south left the Union in the first place other than simply wanting to keep their slaves?

How many times are the goal posts going to move in this thread?  Did you all go to the Libertas School of Debate?  I'm waiting on proof the South paid 80% of all taxes and all of a sudden we're back to debating why the South left the Union and oddly, everybody is right.  Yes, the South left because of "states rights"....the only problem is the "right" they wanted was to continue to keep slaves.  If they were fighting for the "right" to keep and bear arms or even the "right" to set their own speed limits (yes I know not an issue at the time and probably not one worth dying over because really, it is a silly thing...but it makes a million times more sense than the "right" to keep another individual as property) then maybe I could get behind them.

Now, get back to showing me proof the South had 80% of the tax burden before the war because northern industrialists were complete douchebags or whatever...which is also something I could get behind.  Rich people from the NorthEast are the most annoying rich people anywhere in America.  Compare Trump to Buffet or Gates.

The GOP was not the party of big business between 1901 and 1913.

A highly debatable proposition at best.

U.S. Congress immediately passed the Morrill Tariff (the highest import tax in U.S. history), more than doubling the import tax rate from 20% to 47%. This tax served to bankrupt many Southerners. Though the Southern states represented only about 30% of the U.S. population, they paid 80% of the tariffs collected. Oppressive taxes, denial of the states' rights to govern their states, and an unrepresentative federal government pushed the Southern states to legally withdraw from the Union.

cpeeks, I strongly suggest you pick a better source for your data than Thomas J. DiLorenzo or LewRockwell.com.


Here is one of many rebuttals (http://hidhist.wordpress.com/lincoln/thomas-j-dilorenzos-the-real-lincoln-a-rebuttal/) made of Thomas J. DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln, but it is the one that goes directly to your claim.


The relevant page of the source cited in the rebuttal is readable on Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=_kq7diciSsQC&pg=228&dq=Lifeline+of+the+Confederacy#v=onepage&q&f=false) so you can check it for yourself.

That was not the source of my quote.

Then what was?  It's a simple question, and given that other sources, which I have provided, directly contradict your assertion, there's no reason to believe your assertion unless you can back it up with a source.

So what did started the Civil War? Tariffs. Taxation, without representation.
South Carolina had already foiled the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" and had vowed to leave the Union if the Senate passed the 1861 Morrill tariff.
The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent. The slap in the face was that 80% of the import tariffs were being paid by the South and revenues were mostly going to the Northern industries.
Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.
What this meant was, the South could not sell their goods to other countries at a world price.

If you doubt any of this, research for yourself. Go to books that were printed in the late 1800's

You typing or cutting and pasting something isn't a cite.  We need actual links here Batman.

I have researched it myself and find that what you wrote is not supported by the evidence.

Take a look at what the leaders of South Carolina said were their reasons for secession:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Anything about tarrifs in that?  nope.
Anything about slavery in that?  Yes.

Lets look at Lincoln's first inaugural address: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
The only mention of tarrifs is in a list of activities that he is responsible for as president. Nothing shocking in a president stating that he will do what his oath of office says he is supposed to do.
 Does the inaugural address  say slavery has anything to do with the situation?  Yes, in fact he said slavery "is the only substantial dispute".

Where does the claim that "80% of the import tariffs were being paid by the South" come from? This is a great mystery to me. 

Yea learn your history!

I would hope you would be aware that the tariffs were being collected only on imported goods, not exported ones.  Indeed, the original Constitution itself forbids export duties from being imposed.  So the tariff could do nothing to affect the price the South could sell its goods for abroad.

http://www.madisonjournaltoday.com/archives/966-OPINION-Journalists-write-first-draft-of-history,-but-seldom-get-it-right.html

Since we won't accept your unsourced statements, we should accept this guy's unsourced opinion instead.  I don't think so.  A lack of source is still a lack of source.

Sir I have checked your source also, and I was  not overly impressed with his "opinion" either.

So what did you find lacking in the figures of the amounts and locations of customs revenues the U.S. government itself recorded during 1858-1859?  Those figures aren't opinion, they're sourced data.  You have yet to produce any source for your claim based on actual data, just more hearsay.

I read what you sent me I have not yet had a chance to research it through the Southern Historical Society as of yet, but from what I have gathered it seems that this gentleman was cherry picking in an attempt to discredit DiLorenzo.

le sigh

I have been readingly material from history source with an obvious conservative bent (Patriots History of the US) and it states firmly the tariff debates were proxies for the Slavery debate.

Most other sources, especially mainstream respected ones agree with that.

I don't know about the rest of the South, but the only reason NC left the union was because Lincoln wanted NC to attack SC and they didn't want to do it. The Western half of NC at the time was very pro-union during the war and many didn't own slaves at all and were very much against it. It was the rural eastern half of NC that owned most of the slaves.

Since this thread was generating enough discussion on one aspect of the Civil War, I used my moderator magic to split it off into a separate thread: The Value of Stonewall Jackson in the Civil War (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=118027.0).

The vote for secession was close in all southern states. The following was the margin of victory in these three deep southern states:
GA - 3,500
MS - 5,000
LA - 1,200

Try squaring your Neo-Confederate revisionism with the statements of Davis, and Stephens.

CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens, "Our new gov't is founded upon the great truth that the negro is not the equall of the white man. That slavery - subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

CSA President Jefferson Davis in respone to the Emancipation Proclamation, " On and after February 22, 1863, all free negroes within the limits of the southern confederacy shall be placed on slave status, and be deemed to be chattels, they and their issue forever".

I like how it is put in "A Patriot's History of the United State" on page 302.

There was no justifiying or escaping the truth with regards to the CSA. It was a regime built entirely on racism which would not be matched until Hitler's rise in the 1930's. The rhetoric of Southerners with regards to the issue had shifted entirely from the 1790's when most despised it and thought it would be gone withing a decade or two, to the 1820's when they saw it as a "necessary evil", to finally the 1850's when people like Jefferson Davis challegned openly whether anything was "evil" about it.


Also I wouldn't be relying on the books in the "late 1800's" since that was the height of neo-confederate revisionism to try and turn the south into some kind of noble utopia that was disrupted by the evil immoral Yankees.


Thats because its revisions to the historical record that aren't true. Thats why it has no basis in fact.

Your quote from Jeff Davis is in Feb, 1863. Furthering my poing that it became about slavery after Lincoln issued the emancipation proclomation.

no, its in late 1862.

The Stephens quote is from 1861. And the Robert Johnson quote is from period between Lincoln's election and his taking office. Try again.

Davis served in the Senate in the 1850's.

PGT Beuraguard did not fire on Fort Sumpter to keep slaves, and Lincoln did not call for 75,000 troops to free slaves, he did it to put down the rebellion. Why dont you try again.

But why was there a rebellion in the first place?

Answer: slavery.

He didn't fire on Fort Sumpter at all, he fired on Fort Sumter, despite how the New York Times consistently misspelled the name during the crisis.  Calling it Fort Sumpter always strikes me as an attempt at faux authenticity.

Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter because he was ordered to by Montgomery (Then capital of the CSA), which was siezing all federal property because they were rebelling against the lawfull federal gov't over the fear that the Lincoln administration would shut off expansion of slavery and then risk blacks outnumbering whites in the South, as Senator Robert Johnson had admitted at the time, was their fear.

Im sure when Pickett's, Trimble, and Pettigrew's divisions were charging the center at Gettsburg on the third day there battle cry was not keep the slaves, just like when Burnside's Grand Division were charging Marey's Heights at Fredricksburg were not screaming free's. The soldiers who fought the civil war were not fighting for slaves, lol slavery was not there battle cry. When you consider  90% of Rebel soldiers did not own slaves.

We weren't talking about battle cries. We were talking about the South's justification for the rebellion.


Battle cries are often propagandistic, meant to get the troop's dander up and get em a movin. What th troops were fighting for means little and had no bearing on what the politicians' who started the War by rebelling were thinking. 

 I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination.  President Jefferson Davis, Confederate States of America

Lol wow REALLY I MEAN REALLY?

Or maybe you would prefer this one

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world".
Abraham Lincoln-U.S. Congress 1847

A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that , Lincoln, when asked, "Why not let the South go in peace"? replied; "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government"? "And, what then will become of my tariff"?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861

The reason why Fort Sumter was fired on was due to the fact that the US Military would not leave the property of the Confederate govt. Sorry but the constitution does not state anywhere that the federal government has any right to own property.

This is a totally made up quote.  You have been suckered.

It was not property of the Confederate govt.


Shocking ignorance of the constitution.  Article 1, Section 8, 17th clause clearly gives the federal government the power to purchase and own property.  It was by this constitutional provision that the Federal government owned Sumter.   

The exact same clause appeared in the Confederate Constitution -- the Confederate government had not purchased Sumter.

So the property that is now federal parks and military bases were purchased from the states? Somehow I highly doubt that. The federal govt only has such lands at the pleasure of the states IMHO.

No, and thats not what the Constitution says.

The Constitution says that the state legislature must give its consent for the feds to purchase land in that state. 

And if that state secedes?

Haha good point.

If such a thing could occur,  what of it?  Does secession nullify property titles?

That would be up to the seceded state? Would Germany have the right to evict us from our bases?

Does Cuba have the right to evict us from Guantanamo?  No, the U.S. and Cuba signed a lease, and as long we maintain our end of it, the U.S. cannot be evicted.

The whole reason we had a crisis at Fort Sumter is that Governor Pickens was a greedy idiot.

Major Anderson and his troops were originally in Fort Moultrie.  Governor Pickens rather than occupy Fort Sumter when South Carolina seceded, let the workmen who were constructing Fort Sumter using Federal funds stay on the job.  It was only when Anderson moved his command from Moultrie, which was in no condition to be defended against a land attack, to Sumter that Pickens suddenly thought that the Federal government should have nothing to do with Sumter.  If Pickens had simply bothered to move a militia company into Sumter and evict the Federal workmen, there would have been no crisis over Fort Sumter.

Of course he would say that. He wanted to keep the non slaveholding whites  not only that but get them to die for his cause. Its also downright false as he spent the whole decade of the 1850's denying that slavery was evil and insisting on not only the South's right to maintain it but that it was consitutionally protected and all laws restricting it were unconstitutional.


Notice he says any people have the right not any state or entity. That was a common statement at the time and today but usually it is contect of "the world" or "other" countries. As most considered, including Lincoln, that the people of the US had been liberated in the Revolution. The people have the right in the US to overthrow the gov't VIA elections. And you have a Bill of Rights and the parts of the Consitution meant to protect the political minorities rights unlike in direct democracies or attempts at Republics which failed that didn't protect. No Southerner was going to become less free because the Republicans won the election of 1860.  They could still speak what they wanted to, go to the church of their choice, write what they wish, etc etc. The Bill of Rights was perfectly intact. They lost a political fight and couldn't tollerate that and tried to engage in an illegal rebellion to get their way.


Very true.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

ok I guess I stand corrected on that.

I am not really sure what that means.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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. 

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.

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.

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

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

That's good.

Edited to remove off topic material.

There is nothing wrong with States rights or limited gov't. But the worst thing that has ever happened to the Conservative movement was an attempt by some to use it as a shield to cover a most embarrassing epsiode in history. The continued use of it to hide that blemish will lead to its destruction if not challenged and destroyed by those trully concerned with either a limited gov't or states rights. There was and is nothing that Conservatives have in common nor anything that they sould be concerned with defending, with regards to that. Those people proved clearly they didn't care about states rights once they formed the CSA, and as such I see no purpose in risking the entire movement in an effort to legitmize what they did or cover their true motives, not the to mention the numerous historical revision by "lost cause" mongers to make the attempt at the connection, which draw my ire as they would any true student of "real" history. This is what has guided my arguements in this thread and motivated me to take part in the discussion.




If you will look closely at the arguements of the James Madison and others at the Constitutional convention the effort and the final compromise over the structure of the Congress was to balance the interest of the states (senate) with those of the people (the House). Hence why people say the House is closest to the people and considering that Senators were elected by State Legislatures the arguement made perfect sense. And so that was clearly not the intention of the framers that the States and the People would be the same thing. They were clearly viewed as seperate by the founders and by most people who trully understand the document. And hence the use of the word People in the preamble declares the goal of the document to create a union of the people not the states.

There was no provision to break that union ever included in the Consitution. Meaning the intent was to create a perpetual union by creating the means to Amend the Consitution when necessary but not at the whims of simple majority but a widespread number of the people (Through the House) and the States ( though the Senate and the ratification process) as well as granting protections to political minorities and restricting the powers of the gov't to the point where leaving the union would be unecessary. Hence why a provision giving states the right to succeed was not included. It is why the VA and KY resolutions were incorrect assertions about a document which James Madison should have better understood considering his intimate involvement in its creation and likewise, Calhoun 30 years hence and Davis 30 years after that were also wrong when asserting that the states have the power to secede.

The 10th Amendment reverts all authority to the States and if the Consitution stated that it was a union of "states" then secession would have been lawfull, but it clearly puts the union out of the touch of the states by making clear that it was a union of the people not the states and by creation of the amendments process but not a means to break the union, indicates that power to the ever break the union was restricted from all concerned as long as the terms of the Constitution and the protections granted within are not infringed upon and there is no clear evidence of their violation in either 1799, 1806, 1812, 1832, or 1861. The people can theoretically end the union by amending the constitution out of existence. But that requires a vast majority of the people not the whims of a 51% majority or loud politically defeated Minority like the South whose rights were protected still by the Constitution but who had lost a political fight and couldn't stand it and deceided to try and leave and cover their tracks with faux reasons and misinterpreted sections of the Constitution.

The Founders wanted to create a democractic republic that would stand the test of time and not fly apart at the first political fight that was lost. All five of those years were motivated by political defeats not violations of the constitution.

Its called a Lost Cause for a reason. Let it go.

The schools teach states rights alright and thats the problem and why many young people are so anti-Conservative. The Schools fail to show the hypocracy of Confederates who hastilly wrote a consitution then proceed to sh**t on it at every turn. Tariffs on exports as well as imports, a draft (a year before the US resorted to one), no supreme court (mandated but never formed, how convenient). Like I said, contrary to being something to be defended by the right, the CSA is an anvil weighing the movement down and a clear effort should be made to expose the confederacy for the hypocracy on which it existed not to distort the historical record to defend it.

The goverment gets that right to govern by the consent of the people, and when in the course of human events that goverment encroaches on the rights of the people, then they have the right to throw off a tyrannical goverment and start over. And  if your saying the people never have a right to scrap a document and start over, then we never had the right to break away from England in the first place, and the Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the others had no right to break away from the Soviet Union.

Leaving aside the issue of whether restricting slavery in the territories really was tyranny, what you saying is that the South was using the right of revolution, not a right of secession when it attempted to form a separate government.

In some state constitutions, the right to rebellion is included.  It is n Pennsylvania's.

I think that a state could secede, with the consent of the other states.

Ya I believe that sums it up pretty well.