Respect for the Confederacy?

Lol, at bottom, it was a war over economics. Absolutely slavery was an issue, but the north had been economically attacking the south and was trying to do it yet again when secession happened.

 

Look, they specifically said they left over slavery. And slavery was their primary economic concern (also stated in the Declarations of Causes), so even trying to say "but economics" doesn't change things. As I've already proven, the Morrill Tariff was doomed for failure. That's why tariffs didn't make it into the Declarations of Causes and slavery repeatedly did.

Lol, at the bottom, it's your word against theirs. They win.

 

I had not heard of the other confiscations; it has always been depicted to me that it was, specifically, this firing on Ft. Sumter which provided the necessary spark. If this is so, any student of history, whose love is of truth, would wish to pursue, I would think, the credibly-proposed theory that Lincoln, by resupplying the Fort, which had already occasioned an attack on the previous supply ship, sent by the former Administration, was hoping to provoke an attack. Just to make sure they knew these prohibited supplies were on the way, Lincoln let them know, in advance. Both the Confederacy's Secretary of War, & Sect'y of State, were dead set against allowing their newly-declared state from being baited into an attack on the Fort. But a headstrong commander on the field, and poor discipline throughout the military leadership, led to this tragically foolish act of bravado.

But, back to my main thesis, which you didn't specifically address: the Constitution's plan stipulates that this sort of exigency should have been handled by the Supreme Court. How is it that no one realized this? Was it ever mentioned, even by a member of the Court, itself?

Lastly, because it will no doubt be the sentiment of most that, despite the horrific loss of life (& limb), at least the war ended slavery, I will point out that, for a good long while, the condition of blacks in the South was little better than that of slaves. They worked, primarily as indigent tenant farmers, domestic servants, & the like; and whites mistreated, abused, & even killed them, with impunity. I feel it is worth considering-- not because we can change the past, but so that we might discern the correct lessons, & glean wisdom for the future-- if part of the lasting animus against blacks in the South might have been attributable to resentment over the heavy toll that the Civil War laid upon them, not to mention the bruising of that inestimable asset, Southern pride.


P.S.-- Note the mistake made, after World War I, requiring heavy German reparations, which was a strong contributor, leading to the Second World War.

 

Only judging by what you posted-- because I'm obviously not a Constitutional scholar-- I must point out that EVERY group of prohibitions, begins with, "No STATE..." and the Confederate States no longer wished to BE states. (I, therefore, see no contradiction).

If one considers the idea of a current state entering into its own treaties & alliances, it is obvious why this is a completely unworkable situation. Exiting the Union, however, removes all these difficulties (of minting its own currency, etc.)-- once a state leaves the Union, things of this nature no longer fall w/in the federal government's purview for regulation.

 

You are welcome to consider your line of reasoning as valid. I find that it lacks merit. You do not view what the 11 Confederate States did as a violation of Article I Section 10 because they were no longer bound by the US Constitution to which they had previously bound themselves simply because they said they were no longer bound to it? They even took the name from the text, the Confederate States of America.

In my opinion these 11 States violated their pledge and oath to their membership in the United States of America specifically by violating this exact section of the US Constitution, ratified by all 11 of these States, without any provision anywhere within its text stating the conditions under which a State may simply decide to no longer abide by its commitment to the federal republic.

 

You misrepresent my argument, which is very disappointing, as I know you are intelligent enough to comprehend it. But if you prefer to be treated as a dolt, I will try to comply with your wishes.

I NEVER said that declaring themselves no longer part of the United States was lawful. To the contrary, I specifically noted that this would entail negotiations (let me know if you are having trouble finding that, & I will quote it, for you). My central thesis had little to do, as a matter of fact, with what actually happened. I was contending that, according to the Constitution (which is the basis for all U.S. law), this dispute-- i.e., the Confederate states wanting to leave the Union, and the Executive branch of the federal government telling them that they could not-- was SUPPOSED to have been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, it wasn't President Lincoln's call, but the designated purview of the SCOTUS.

Though that quote comes from another thread, it was the same opinion I stated in your thread. I used that quote to provide the Constitutional reference, & save me the time of highlighting.

So that, Grey Matter, is my argument. If you would find fault with my reasoning, please have the courtesy to address my actual argument, & not some distortion, of your own fabrication. That tactic of the weak-minded & honorless, IMO, is beneath you.

 

That was the reason for the war.

 

I do. I like this show. I find it fascinating that the good guys always win in the end.
But I don't hate the losers.

 

US WW 2 propaganda was every bit as pervasive & dishonest as any other nation's propaganda machine during the war.

As late as the summer of 1941 almost 80% of Americans wanted the US to stay out of the war(1) so the OWI (Office of War Information) was formed to fabricate the lies needed to cultivate American war fever.

Possibly the most influential arm of the American propaganda machine was and is Hollywood(2) which produces WW 2 propaganda up to today. Among the more pervasive examples of outright US propaganda that exists today is the homicidal German gas chamber myth(3).

Polish propagandists claimed that the Germans executed people in "steam chambers", the Soviet propagandists claimed that that "electrocution chambers"(4) were used as a German means of execution but US propagandists have stuck with the "homicidal gas chamber" myth.

Every side in every war uses propaganda to justify its agenda and the North during the American Civil War chose "freeing the slaves" to ennoble a war fought primarily for economic reasons. The fact that Northerners didn't want free Blacks in America was exemplified by the New York race riots of 1863 that claimed over 100 lives.
The fact that many still believe that noble Northerners fought to free Black slaves is adequate testimony to the durability of outright propaganda



(1) “American Public Opinion and the Holocaust”
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/232949/american-public-opinion-holocaust.aspx
EXCERPT "Nine months later, as France and other Western European nations fell to Nazi Germany, 79% of Americans in a Gallup poll said if they had the chance, they would vote to stay out of the war, and by the summer of 1941, almost eight out of 10 Americans continued to say they did not want the U.S. to enter the war." CONTINUED


(2) "The Hollywood Directors Who Filmed the Liberation of Nazi Concentration Camps"
https://hyperallergic.com/426644/lamoth-filming-the-camps-the-holocaust/

. EXCERPT "George Stevens, John Ford, and Samuel Fuller, best known for their work in Hollywood, all documented the Allied liberation at the end of the war.

But during this period of war, they were acting less as artists than as functionaries of US propaganda and information efforts, working for the US Armed Forces and Secret Services.CONTINUED


(3) “Auschwitz: Myths and Facts”
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/auschwitz.shtml

EXCERPT “Allied Propaganda

The Auschwitz gassing story is based in large part on the hearsay statements of former Jewish inmates who did not personally see any actual signs of extermination. Their beliefs are understandable, because rumors about gassings at Auschwitz were widespread. Allied planes dropped large numbers of leaflets, written in Polish and German, on Auschwitz and the surrounding areas which claimed that people were being gassed in the camp. The Auschwitz gassing story, which was an important part of the Allied wartime propaganda effort, was also broadcast to Europe by Allied radio stations. [15] CONTINUED

15. Nuremberg document NI-11696. NMT "green series," Vol. 8, p. 606.


(4)"Auschwitz Electrical Conveyor belt of Death"
https://disjecta.wordpress.com/2018/01/26/auschwitz-electrical-conveyor-belt-of-death/

EXCERPT "It’s a little known fact that running alongside the scientifically implausible gas chambers at Auschwitz ran the electrified conveyor belts of death. These industrialised slaughter belts, we can assume took the passive cargo directly from the “cattle cars” and electrocuted the hapless victims without struggle then disposed of the evidence in Nazi furnaces. One can only guess at the “special devices” for killing children. Somehow visions of Willy Wonka’s Chocolate/extermination factory spring to mind."CONTINUED

 

I asked you one very simple question in the context of this specific statement you posted:

I took this statement at face value and assumed you were unfamiliar with Article I Section 10.

So I quoted it and asked what you understand it means.

I was curious if you were familiar with it, in particular whether or not you were familiar with the first 10 words:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

To which you responded that it is basically inapplicable since these States no longer considered themselves obligated to uphold the Constitution.

And now you are posting that that's not what you posted?

So, just to be clear, in my opinion, Article I Section 10 is the part of the Constitution that specifically restricts a State's right to leave the Union.

You have chosen not to discuss this part of the Constitution in greater detail, apparently preferring to share content from Article III as more relevant to your argument that the issues should have been resolved by the Scotus.

What's more, is that you propose that this would involve negotiations as though this is an obvious process to anyone with even half your grasp of the essential solution to the problems. Our courts, including the Supreme court, are not in the business of negotiating anything. What would they have had to determine? The South, "Your honors, if it please the court we would like to form a separate nation which we will name the Confederate States of America." The Court, "Nope. Next case...."

***
Regarding your personal notes, let me just offer this:

Ed, what an ugly thing to say.

I abhor ugliness. Does this
mean we're not friends anymore?

You know, Ed, if I thought
you weren't my friend,

I just don't think
I could bear it.

 

I can provide quote after quote of confederates stating it was about the constitution. Your refusal to acknowledge them doesn’t change their existence.

 

They had to rewrite our Constitution to provide more protections for slavery. And 99.99% of the quotes I found from them mentioning the Constitution, when they get into specifics, is about slavery. The Constitution, when they were concerned with it, was a subset of their concern about slavery, not the other way around.

There's a reason why their own Constitution made all of their states slave states, not allowing for free states. There's a reason why their only major changes to the Constitution where in regards to slavery. In their own writings, they make it clear that the Constitution did not give enough protections for slavery for their satisfaction, and that they were proud that their own Constitution put that issue "to rest."

 

No see you have it completely backwards. The constitution was their concern. Slavery was a subset of that concern which they used to provide evidence for their PRIMARY concern which was the repeated, willful violations of the constitution AND the scotus by the north. Something no amendment regarding slavery could address.

 

Again, you have it completely backwards. Slavery was their concern. The Constitution was a subset of that concern. Hence why they felt the need to change the Constitution to provide more protections for slavery and complained about the fact that the Constitution did not provide enough protections for slavery. If Constitution > slavery, they wouldn't have changed the Constitution to provide more protections for slavery and they wouldn't have complained about the Constitution not providing enough protections for slavery. These things only make sense if slavery > Constitution.

 

You apparently misinterpreted my comment.

I was NOT saying that your quote from article 1 did not apply to the states, while they were, still, in the Union. IF, however, they WERE-- note my use of the CONDITIONAL TENSE-- to LEAVE the Union, THEN these proscriptions would no longer apply.

Do you deny this? I agree that the states do not have the right to enter into their own treaties, alliances, or confederations, and still be part of the United States. Likewise, it clearly only makes sense that a state in the U.S. would not be permitted to print its own money, have its own, separate import duties, its own army, or unilaterally enter into war. I think this is only common sense, & I thought I made that point clear in my prior post. But I will accept that I was not clear enough to prevent your coming to the wrong assumption.

So, to be clear: yes, it was in violation of the Constitution for the states to enter into a confederation BEFORE their departures from the Constitutional CONTRACT had been litigated through the SUPREME COURT. However, it would be disingenuous not to mention that there WAS NO PENDING SCOTUS CASE. My question is: WHY NOT? To me, this is patently a legal question, and a DISPUTE BETWEEN THE STATES. This is SPECIFICALLY listed in Article 3 as the sole purview of the SCOTUS-- am I incorrect about this? I must also note that it is not insignificant that Article 1, section 10, DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY list leaving the Union among all the things it prohibits. Why not? It was considered to be implied? I consider that to be a weak case.

Here, once again, YOU misrepresent ME. And yet you have the nerve, in your personal note to me, to suggest that I am the one being unfriendly? Please show me where I choose, "not to discuss this part of the Constitution in greater detail." I merely gave you my opinion, for which you asked, that this only applied to states in the Union, & does not explicitly bar them from leaving said Union. I look at the Constitution more like a marriage certificate, whereas you apparently see it as a kind of death pact. Am I being clear enough for you?

If I were to call yours a specious argument, I would be giving it an undue complement: it is FLAT-OUT WRONG! Where do you think divorce cases are litigated? Answer: courts. Where are business disputes settled? Or where is it determined how much money should be awarded to someone who is the victim of medical malpractice, or of manufacturer negligence in producing a defective product, or of police brutality, etc., etc.? Courts are very much in the business of negotiating settlements. It would seem that you have decided to throw a bunch of semantic arguments at me, & then blame me for, "ugliness," for objecting to having you put words in my mouth. Well if you don't like to look at ugliness, you'd best avoid glancing in any mirrors!

I am happy to discuss any article of the Constitution over which one wishes to have a sincere conversation-- when have I ever indicated elsewise? But I do expect a modicum of civility; and when I encounter someone who insists on rudeness & dishonesty, I have been known to respond with venom. I have not yet done that with you, in the hopes that rational assessment will win out, in your own mind, over whatever personal emotional issues you have attached to this question.

I am no supporter of the Confederate states. My impartial reading of the Constitution, however, supports the right of a state to sue for separation from our national contract, though that was far more practical back then, than it is possible, now. But that I believe a wife has the right to sue for divorce, does not mean that I am in favor of adultery, which is the way you are seeing this issue: a person cannot divorce & remarry, according to your argument, because the marriage agreement strictly forbids marrying others/bigamy.

 

If a plantation owner in 1860 could have hired one white guy to hop on a tractor and harvest 1,000 acres of cotton in less time than it took his slaves to do it, do you think he would have blinked?
No, he wouldn't have.

Of course, slavery is wrong. But in the end, it was about economics, period. The North wanted to crush the south with tariffs, and also cut out their means of providing for themselves, immoral as it may have been.

It's why cooler heads could have prevented the war.

But the North hated that the South sent cotton to England instead of them at a cheaper price, so they rigged the system to punish the South.

Most southerners never even owned slaves. My family has been here since the 1700's, and never had a single slave.

 

Pssst, it would be cheaper to have a slave run the same tractor. Ever think of that? Again, look back at the invention of the cotton gin.

Their concerns about slavery went beyond economics. Economics was a subset of their concern for slavery. And they specifically mentioned slavery as their chief economic concern anyway.

I've already covered the historical facts that prove this is a fake concern. You ran away and have refused to address those.

You keep "forgetting" that the South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing. I've proven this several times, and you have refused to address these facts. Maybe if I repeat them a few times?

The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.
The South had control of tariffs at the time, and that the tariffs that the North wanted had no hope of passing.

The North wasn't producing cotton . . . so talking about the South producing it for cheaper is a fake argument. And the only reason that the South was able to produce the cotton so cheaply was because of (drumroll please) slavery.

About half of Southern Carolina and Mississippi households owned slaves. And even non slave-holders cared about slavery. This fake argument has already been demolished.

 

False. But thanks for playing. The tariffs sought by the north had already passed the House, and faced a stalemate in the Senate. A stalemate Lincoln could have forced.

Southerners cared about their incomes. Northerners threatened their income because they didn't want the south selling cotton to Europe at a cheaper price.

 

BEFORE the US officially entered WW2... FDR began sending billions of dollars [11 billion total in lend lease] in military hardware [tanks, trucks, planes, etc] to marxist mass-murderer STALIN to keep him in power. Then the USA allowed Stalin's horrific marxist red army to conquer half of Europe!

.

 

I've already proven this false. Anti-Morrill democrats had control of the Senate. It had no hopes of passing the Senate before secession. Again, I've proven this and you ran away. I've provided sources. You've only stamped your feet and screamed "NUH-UH." Please catch up. I even did the math for you to make it easier. Meanwhile, you can't show any math that would have allowed the pre-secession Morrill Tariff to pass.

The North didn't care about selling cotton to Europe; cotton was a Southern crop. It didn't grow well in the North. Cotton's low prices in the South were fueled by slave labor. I understand that you can't address these historical facts. The facts challenge your preconceptions, so they must be ignored.

 

No, you haven’t proven anything. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

 

Do you:
a) Not understand the final vote count for the Morril Tariff
b) Not understand how many states had already seceded and, thus, didn't vote

Those are the only options. Anyone who knows the answers to both knows why it couldn't have passed before secession. There's a reason why you have been completely incapable of addressing either of these historical facts and refuse to consult them (or any historical fact at all), and never will.

These are easily discoverable historical facts. I've provided sources giving you the object answers, if you are feeling lazy. What can't you comprehend about it?

 

Yes, I apologize, I am wrong. The civil war had nothing to do with money and was based solely on skin color like you claim, lol.

Okay, Gruber.

 

My claim was that secession was over slavery. Which is exactly what the seceding states had to say about their motivation. A fact you still haven't addressed, and never will.

You've asked for evidence, and I've provided, while you've provided none of your own. (Psst, slaves were worth money and were cited by the seceding states as their primary monetary consideration . . . so your 'buh buh money' argument doesn't hold as an argument against slavery as the primary motivator). This is why I sometimes hesitate to provide historical references to Lost Causers -- I've spent hours doing so in the past, and they never really address any of the evidence that they pretended to be concerned about, and they don't typically provide any of their own.

 

Whatever. I'm not going to discuss this further with you if you insist on yelling and making other banal formatting emphasis on words that offer nothing to enhance your argument. This style of posting, for me, just makes members' posts illegible and content that would otherwise be of interest I find myself instantly becoming disinterested in when it starts shouting at me with words that I well comprehend the significance of without needing the bold or the caps or the underlining.

You seem to be a bit unstable. I was arguing the merits of the argument and you were the one to make it about my personal character in post 157. And now you are even furthermore aggrieved that I made mention of the fact that you made it personal by using what I consider a classic reference meant to lighten up this dialogue. But, to be honest, one that was also meant to convey that I don't really care about your opinion of me in the very limited context of this discussion. Ideally I'd like every single person on Earth to have a high opinion of me, but that is simply unrealistic. Speaking of which,

UNREALISTIC. That is what your experimental hypothetical theory about the Civil War is - completely unrealistic. Geopolitical relations between nations and states and cities and tribes are not equivalent to marriages. The Scotus is not a divorce court. It does not negotiate. There are no cases before it that get settled "out-of-court". Negotiations and settlements are often the result of court cases because court rulings are not negotiable. They can be appealed, but decisions by the courts are not negotiable. Comparing the potentially peaceful resolution offered by placing the South's dissatisfaction with the results of the 1860 election before the Scotus is as you said yourself - a wonder that no one before you thought of it. And comparing it to divorce court? Really? That's your weapon in this discussion? What about divorce court? And you post that you had higher expectations of my post? TO BE CLEAR, I AM ASSERTING THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS FLAWED, NOT THAT YOU ARE FLAWED. I VALUE YOU AS A PERSON AND I AFFIRM THAT YOU ARE A CHILD OF THE UNIVERSE. IT IS SAID TO LISTEN EVEN TO THE DULL AND IGNORANT FOR THEY TOO HAVE THEIR STORY, NOT OF COURSE THAT I AM CALLING YOU DULL OR IGNORANT.

And all of these States were states at the time they formed a Confederacy against the Union. There is no provision in the Constitution for a State to secede and thus there would have been no basis for the Scotus to have the authority to invalidate any portion of the Constitution to allow these states to secede and form a Confederacy, much less violate the other restrictions of A I S 10.