Northeastern US Seccessionist Movements

Why padre, if we discuss northern secession movements it just might lead to some thinking that secession just might not be illegal. Lord knows where that truth might leads us.:wink2::shifty:

The next thing you know somebody will be saying that Jeff Davis was a hero or "The South will rise again" god forbid!!:wink2::hi5:

"gafinfan wrote:

Why padre, if we discuss northern secession movements it just might lead to some thinking that secession just might not be illegal. Lord knows where that truth might leads us.:wink2::shifty:

The next thing you know somebody will be saying that Jeff Davis was a hero or "The South will rise again" god forbid!!:wink2::hi5:

God Forbid indeed.

As far as secession goes I think we all know my stance on that (in the case that you don't it is; that although there is no law saying secession is illegal I tend to look down on it as it breaks the informal law of a union or in other words you don't agree to be a part of something then just get mad and leave, that's not how things work even if you didn't sign off on it and got lumped in you still don't betray the union and secede). :up:

Now that the initial argument has been laid out I'm sure some of you will disagree.:wink2:

"sking29 wrote:

God Forbid indeed.

As far as secession goes I think we all know my stance on that (in the case that you don't it is; that although there is no law saying secession is illegal I tend to look down on it as it breaks the informal law of a union or in other words you don't agree to be a part of something then just get mad and leave, that's not how things work even if you didn't sign off on it and got lumped in you still don't betray the union and secede). :up:

Now that the initial argument has been laid out I'm sure some of you will disagree.:wink2:

Oh how I love this site!!:up:

I was always taught to respect others beliefs, so now you know I respect yours, but "informal law?" The Union is made up of a Compact with the several states. Secession is far more complicated than saying I'm Mad and I'm leaving, this a tool just as other tools that the several states should be able to use to override the federal governments intrusion into areas that they shouldn't get into. Is it extreme, of course, illegal or underhanded, NO! As was pointed out by padre31 the northern states used the threat of secession and got us out of a war we shouldn't have been in anyway.

God forbid that today a state would have pulled that trick to cause us to never have invaded Iraq.

Of course because of the illegal 14th Amendment the Fed super imposes the states but thats for another thread.

I will leave you with this thought/question. Are we a Nation of laws or not? We can't be both (although everyone would have you BELIEVE that its so - A little bad for a greater good - PLLLLEEase)!:pity: You either do the right thing or you don't, now THATS simple!

So now you know; My belief is that the South was right and handled secession properly and within the law and guidelines of the Constitution as it is written. There are times which call for one to stand up for what is right or live with the thought of failure. While I'm sure your retort will be to use that same statement to me I will respond with Lincoln's total disregard for Constitutional law and only say If I ever have to chose (as the South did) between my oath to that same Constitution or stepping on it to remain a part of this Union that I will man up and remain loyal to my oath. You will take notice I didn't say break up or tear up the Union (overthrow the Government) I only said leave; just as the Southern states did.:wink2:

So take your best shot my friend.:yes:

"gafinfan wrote:

Oh how I love this site!!:up:

I was always taught to respect others beliefs, so now you know I respect yours, but "informal law?" The Union is made up of a Compact with the several states. Secession is far more complicated than saying I'm Mad and I'm leaving, this a tool just as other tools that the several states should be able to use to override the federal governments intrusion into areas that they shouldn't get into. Is it extreme, of course, illegal or underhanded, NO! As was pointed out by padre31 the northern states used the threat of secession and got us out of a war we shouldn't have been in anyway.

God forbid that today a state would have pulled that trick to cause us to never have invaded Iraq.

Of course because of the illegal 14th Amendment the Fed super imposes the states but thats for another thread.

I will leave you with this thought/question. Are we a Nation of laws or not? We can't be both (although everyone would have you BELIEVE that its so - A little bad for a greater good - PLLLLEEase)!:pity: You either do the right thing or you don't, now THATS simple!

So now you know; My belief is that the South was right and handled secession properly and within the law and guidelines of the Constitution as it is written. There are times which call for one to stand up for what is right or live with the thought of failure. While I'm sure your retort will be to use that same statement to me I will respond with Lincoln's total disregard for Constitutional law and only say If I ever have to chose (as the South did) between my oath to that same Constitution or stepping on it to remain a part of this Union that I will man up and remain loyal to my oath. You will take notice I didn't say break up or tear up the Union (overthrow the Government) I only said leave; just as the Southern states did.:wink2:

So take your best shot my friend.:yes:

I don't disagree that Lincoln disregarded Constitutional law but I am sorry I will never accept secession as something appropriate for either the north or south. Its not a southern thing to me but in the situation of the south's secession it's all relative about what you think is "right" for them to secede. To me when you are bound (creating a bond) to something ie the Constitution you are to follow it. Now I know at the time the federal government was weak and states pretty much ran the show but still I feel secession was wrong. We are not arguing my friend but its simply that I can not support secession except under the most severe of situations (which I don't feel the southern states were under) but even then I would be hesitant to do it. So was secession wrong according to laws within the Constitution, I would say no but by agreeing to bond together as one nation it was because they were breaking that bond. So legally I suppose secession was fine but breaking the bond of the Constitution to do so was incorrect. Also the problem of what one believes is right for the federal government to do comes into question. Obviously you like as little as possible where I favor more federal government bonding (however that is not to say I think everything should be up to the federal government as that would be very dangerous). I also agree that secession is a good threat to keep the federal government in line but it should stop there...a threat.

I've always wondered if the best thing for Lincoln to have done was to approve the secession but before doing so seeing if he could secure ample cotton from Central and South America (or anywhere else) to keep alive the northern economy and then been able to persuade England and other European nations to not buy cotton and other crops from the south. As the civil war showed the south's economy was clearly inferior to the north's and possibly Lincoln could have choked them out without war just as he did with it. I doubt this could have happened since I am sure it was discussed but I've always wondered. It would have sort of been like a parent punishing a wayward child until they come back asking for forgiveness. :wink2:

This all ultimately comes down to which side you supported and for me I can not support any people that openly wanted to subject anyone else to slavery. I know the Civil War was much more but still it was the backbone of the war.I also know that many northerners themselves were racist wanting to keep former slaves in the south but still they were not subjecting them to torture and keeping them in bondage. Slavery for me is deplorable and I refuse to support anyone who can uphold that trade. That alone is enough for me.

Sorry GA but I think my arguments will fail to persuade you and vice versa but we can agree to disagree. Plus I feel like I am in the minority here anyway. :up:

What could be missed in all this discussion is the "why" New Englanders were dissatisified with the Union off and on, the Hartford Convention was in reaction to...trade barriers being erected by the largely agricultural Southern Presidencies, the Mercantilists were losing profits via the High Tariffs and that set the effort into motion.

The Bottom Line is often the Bottom Line of why these efforts took place.

"padre31 wrote:

What could be missed in all this discussion is the "why" New Englanders were dissatisified with the Union off and on, the Hartford Convention was in reaction to...trade barriers being erected by the largely agricultural Southern Presidencies, the Mercantilists were losing profits via the High Tariffs and that set the effort into motion.

The Bottom Line is often the Bottom Line of why these efforts took place.

padre31 you hit the nail square on its head! The Bottom line is ALWAYS the problem/answer. Greed is a terrible thing. That and talk of Manifest Destiny.

"sking29 wrote:

I don't disagree that Lincoln disregarded Constitutional law but I am sorry I will never accept secession as something appropriate for either the north or south. Its not a southern thing to me but in the situation of the south's secession it's all relative about what you think is "right" for them to secede. To me when you are bound (creating a bond) to something ie the Constitution you are to follow it. Now I know at the time the federal government was weak and states pretty much ran the show but still I feel secession was wrong. We are not arguing my friend but its simply that I can not support secession except under the most severe of situations (which I don't feel the southern states were under) but even then I would be hesitant to do it. So was secession wrong according to laws within the Constitution, I would say no but by agreeing to bond together as one nation it was because they were breaking that bond. So legally I suppose secession was fine but breaking the bond of the Constitution to do so was incorrect. Also the problem of what one believes is right for the federal government to do comes into question. Obviously you like as little as possible where I favor more federal government bonding (however that is not to say I think everything should be up to the federal government as that would be very dangerous). I also agree that secession is a good threat to keep the federal government in line but it should stop there...a threat.

I've always wondered if the best thing for Lincoln to have done was to approve the secession but before doing so seeing if he could secure ample cotton from Central and South America (or anywhere else) to keep alive the northern economy and then been able to persuade England and other European nations to not buy cotton and other crops from the south. As the civil war showed the south's economy was clearly inferior to the north's and possibly Lincoln could have choked them out without war just as he did with it. I doubt this could have happened since I am sure it was discussed but I've always wondered. It would have sort of been like a parent punishing a wayward child until they come back asking for forgiveness. :wink2:

This all ultimately comes down to which side you supported and for me I can not support any people that openly wanted to subject anyone else to slavery. I know the Civil War was much more but still it was the backbone of the war.I also know that many northerners themselves were racist wanting to keep former slaves in the south but still they were not subjecting them to torture and keeping them in bondage. Slavery for me is deplorable and I refuse to support anyone who can uphold that trade. That alone is enough for me.

Sorry GA but I think my arguments will fail to persuade you and vice versa but we can agree to disagree. Plus I feel like I am in the minority here anyway. :up:

Thank you, yet we can still have a discussion, be friends and still disagree. We both love our country and only want what is best for it, I'm sure.:up:

First let me say that I agree with you in total concerning slavery, of any kind, yet at that time it was legal. Not only in the South but in the North as well at that time. I can't tell you what was in the minds of our ancestors; can you? I would guess not and if we are to place blame lets at least be honest enough to place it in everyone's hands Northern as well as Southern if we are to believe the school book excuse of the reason for this war. For we both know that if 630,000 Americans are killed there must be an excuse that is worthy of the bloodletting. Money and greed and power just won't wash!

The war was precipitated, IMHO, only because both sides were unwilling to face the countries problems head on and for that I blame both sides never the less war and subjugation are never an answer; do you think? I don't and rather than trying to overthrow a government under a constitution you passionally believe in with all your being isn't it so much better to get a divorce and remain friends?

Besides slavery has nothing to do with the Constitution being the law of the land and either we are a nation of laws or we are not. Slavery didn't make the Constitution, the Constitution legalized slavery, if they didn't want slavery change the Constitution; its that simple. Unless of course you believe what is taught, that being, the slave states wouldn't sign it unless slavery was included? Seems to me that in 1776 every state in our union was a slave state so that excuse just won't wash. Besides the two loudest for slavery, SC and GA only had about 5% of the population which would mean that the tail was wagging the dog. I don't believe for one minute that George Washington would have stood for that besides it took only 9 states to ratify and GA was the third to sign.

Which takes me back to my original premise that the South had every legal and moral right to seceed, if they did so within the Constitutional law of the land. Its not a question of the South being a saint, they weren't, the question is was it legal?

We can both agree that slavery is bad, in any form, it is BAD. So is war and the distruction of a society, which then took over 100 years to raise itself back to its pre war standard. The war only subjugated part of the population while freeing the slave to that same subjugation and left him with little or no means to support himself and or his family.

Let me be clear that while I uphold secession; I abhor the very fact that the two sides allowed it to go that far. Being right doesn't clear the South from the stinch of slavery nor does freeing the slave clear the North from the stinch of killing the very laws which are supposed to govern this nation. We all lost IMHO.:yes::hi5:

If I may let me leave you with this quote which is one of my favorites in answering your last remark about being in the minority:

"The truth is this: if only one man among all of the rest will not break ...then all
of them, all those who so despise men that they believe all men can be broken and all
men can be bought, all of them have failed and all of them are defeated, because one
alone destroys them and one alone can give heart to all other men." - Robert Crichton

I eagerly await your reply.

"gafinfan wrote:

Thank you, yet we can still have a discussion, be friends and still disagree. We both love our country and only want what is best for it, I'm sure.:up:

First let me say that I agree with you in total concerning slavery, of any kind, yet at that time it was legal. Not only in the South but in the North as well at that time. I can't tell you what was in the minds of our ancestors; can you? I would guess not and if we are to place blame lets at least be honest enough to place it in everyone's hands Northern as well as Southern if we are to believe the school book excuse of the reason for this war. For we both know that if 630,000 Americans are killed there must be an excuse that is worthy of the bloodletting. Money and greed and power just won't wash!

The war was precipitated, IMHO, only because both sides were unwilling to face the countries problems head on and for that I blame both sides never the less war and subjugation are never an answer; do you think? I don't and rather than trying to overthrow a government under a constitution you passionally believe in with all your being isn't it so much better to get a divorce and remain friends?

Besides slavery has nothing to do with the Constitution being the law of the land and either we are a nation of laws or we are not. Slavery didn't make the Constitution, the Constitution legalized slavery, if they didn't want slavery change the Constitution; its that simple. Unless of course you believe what is taught, that being, the slave states wouldn't sign it unless slavery was included? Seems to me that in 1776 every state in our union was a slave state so that excuse just won't wash. Besides the two loudest for slavery, SC and GA only had about 5% of the population which would mean that the tail was wagging the dog. I don't believe for one minute that George Washington would have stood for that besides it took only 9 states to ratify and GA was the third to sign.

Which takes me back to my original premise that the South had every legal and moral right to seceed, if they did so within the Constitutional law of the land. Its not a question of the South being a saint, they weren't, the question is was it legal?

We can both agree that slavery is bad, in any form, it is BAD. So is war and the distruction of a society, which then took over 100 years to raise itself back to its pre war standard. The war only subjugated part of the population while freeing the slave to that same subjugation and left him with little or no means to support himself and or his family.

Let me be clear that while I uphold secession; I abhor the very fact that the two sides allowed it to go that far. Being right doesn't clear the South from the stinch of slavery nor does freeing the slave clear the North from the stinch of killing the very laws which are supposed to govern this nation. We all lost IMHO.:yes::hi5:

If I may let me leave you with this quote which is one of my favorites in answering your last remark about being in the minority:

I eagerly await your reply.

That is very true, GA. :yes:

Anyway now on to the point of discussion. GA I understand that slavery was legal and in the minds of southerners they did not think it was wrong or so as you say we were taught. They used Bible verses and different things to justify the practice, to them slaves were below them. The same goes for the north I agree and I maintain that they change in their economic system and geography is what led them to not need slaves and hence they decided on abolition. We can see how little northerners cared for former slaves by letting Jim Crow laws be enacted after getting tired of Reconstruction (and of course the shady Hayes election). However history is all about hindsight really and even though I understand slavery was justified at the time that doesn't mean I can condone it. I also wonder if anyone can really think keeping someone in bondage and under constant torture can be a good thing. I also think about how if we condone, and I know you don't GA, slavery because of what people thought at the time could we also say because Hitler honestly thought Jewish people were evil that the Holocaust was justified. I mean he honestly believed Jews were the scum of the earth and pointed to examples to prove it, but does that make it right? I say no, just in the way the slavery was a deplorable act so was the Holocaust and both were done under warped thoughts about other people. In essence just because someone thought something was right at the time we can look back at history and see just how crazy (Hitler) or evil (the Holocaust/slavery) it was.

However I still think we disagree on state versus federal rights as I tend to like a balance and don't mind federal intrusion if its needed. Just think how the South would be today without the federal government stepping in with public works projects like TVA and their involvement in the securing of civil rights for African Americans in the 1950s and 1960s (more so). Of course you can rebuke this by saying if they never interfered in the 1860s these would not have been problems but that's a different argument for a different day. :wink2:

Also GA I agree about the war being fought because two groups of grown men couldn't agree enough to prevent it. However isn't that how all wars start...a group of angry old men who are mad at one another or need to get even so the young men (and now women) have to pay for their grudges with their lives? As we all know diplomacy is for the weak. :wink2:

"sking29 wrote:

That is very true, GA. :yes:

Anyway now on to the point of discussion. GA I understand that slavery was legal and in the minds of southerners they did not think it was wrong or so as you say we were taught. They used Bible verses and different things to justify the practice, to them slaves were below them. The same goes for the north I agree and I maintain that they change in their economic system and geography is what led them to not need slaves and hence they decided on abolition. We can see how little northerners cared for former slaves by letting Jim Crow laws be enacted after getting tired of Reconstruction (and of course the shady Hayes election). However history is all about hindsight really and even though I understand slavery was justified at the time that doesn't mean I can condone it. I also wonder if anyone can really think keeping someone in bondage and under constant torture can be a good thing. I also think about how if we condone, and I know you don't GA, slavery because of what people thought at the time could we also say because Hitler honestly thought Jewish people were evil that the Holocaust was justified. I mean he honestly believed Jews were the scum of the earth and pointed to examples to prove it, but does that make it right? I say no, just in the way the slavery was a deplorable act so was the Holocaust and both were done under warped thoughts about other people. In essence just because someone thought something was right at the time we can look back at history and see just how crazy (Hitler) or evil (the Holocaust/slavery) it was.

However I still think we disagree on state versus federal rights as I tend to like a balance and don't mind federal intrusion if its needed. Just think how the South would be today without the federal government stepping in with public works projects like TVA and their involvement in the securing of civil rights for African Americans in the 1950s and 1960s (more so). Of course you can rebuke this by saying if they never interfered in the 1860s these would not have been problems but that's a different argument for a different day. :wink2:

Also GA I agree about the war being fought because two groups of grown men couldn't agree enough to prevent it. However isn't that how all wars start...a group of angry old men who are mad at one another or need to get even so the young men (and now women) have to pay for their grudges with their lives? As we all know diplomacy is for the weak. :wink2:

Its funny you bring up the Holocaust, which was well known by all the players even if they didn't say so. Over 6 million by Germany and, some say, 20 million by Stalin yet our reasoning for getting into this fray was the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hmmmm doesn't that make you question the Government's piorities at all?

Then you have to add to the fact that slavery as a war issue was a late comer onto the scene and put there by Lincoln only because pressure was applied plus the very real fact that the war was going badly for Lincoln. He questioned the validly as well as if it were the smart thing to do, Stewart if I remember correctly, was the one person who kept the pressure up on Lincoln.

Never the less we are straying away from the original intent of this thread and you still have not answered my question. Are we a nation of laws or not? If we are then secession has a leg or two to stand on. If on the other hand we are a nation of Might is right then the mob rules and Uncle is watching.:wink2:

PS I care less if its big or little; I want it to do its job and interfere with my business as little as possible while not breaking any of the laws itself.:up:

"gafinfan wrote:

Its funny you bring up the Holocaust, which was well known by all the players even if they didn't say so. Over 6 million by Germany and, some say, 20 million by Stalin yet our reasoning for getting into this fray was the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hmmmm doesn't that make you question the Government's piorities at all?

Then you have to add to the fact that slavery as a war issue was a late comer onto the scene and put there by Lincoln only because pressure was applied plus the very real fact that the war was going badly for Lincoln. He questioned the validly as well as if it were the smart thing to do, Stewart if I remember correctly, was the one person who kept the pressure up on Lincoln.

Never the less we are straying away from the original intent of this thread and you still have not answered my question. Are we a nation of laws or not? If we are then secession has a leg or two to stand on. If on the other hand we are a nation of Might is right then the mob rules and Uncle is watching.:wink2:

PS I care less if its big or little; I want it to do its job and interfere with my business as little as possible while not breaking any of the laws itself.:up:

I agree that Lincoln was reserved about going through with emancipation until the north needed to deprive the south of valuable labor. Also I've even read about Lincoln getting more religious being a cause but I say it was more of a move to hurt the south than anything.

As for my Holocaust reference I did not mean it as the reason the US entered WWII but simply a parallel of making excuses for travesties because of their historical period. Are you suggesting the US entered the war because of the mass killings or not, I'm a little confused on this part?

Also I would say that yes the US is a nation of laws but remember I am not arguing whether secession is legal or not. What I am arguing that even if it was legal it should not have been done because when the Constitution and everything was ratified they were binding agreements to create a "United" States of America. Even if secession was allowed we all know that it was not preferred and was more than likely included to appease state first delegates. Its simple, for me when all the United States was created that was what it was meant to stay so even if secession was included and legal, the initial agreement to be one nation should have trumped all else. People should have been willing to give on both sides and work these things out. Remember I am not saying secession was illegal but the wrong thing to do.

What I'm saying is that the high moral ground of Freeing the slaves is used today (in our time) to make palatable the loss of so many while in Lincoln's time it was questioned as even being a proper war move and was used even then only with the hope of disrupting southern society as well as keeping the Brits and French out of the war.

While in WWII that high moral ground was never used and in fact was shied away from Because of the people involved. If you remember there were German Jews that were turned away from entering the US.

We agree on that, I too, believe it was the wrong move to make. Just because its legal to kill someone who breaks into your house doesn't make it the best option to pick all the time.

My guess is that if we disagree it is on the actions taken after secession took place. I would have NEVER gone to war, which was an illegal responce to a legal act. Use the court system, thats what it there for. Compromise on whatever the problem was but it was dead wrong to use the sword to solve the problem IMHO.:wink2:

If your wife wanted a divorce would you beat her to save the marrage? IMHO thats what it came down to.:wink2:

"gafinfan wrote:

What I'm saying is that the high moral ground of Freeing the slaves is used today (in our time) to make palatable the loss of so many while in Lincoln's time it was questioned as even being a proper war move and was used even then only with the hope of disrupting southern society as well as keeping the Brits and French out of the war.

While in WWII that high moral ground was never used and in fact was shied away from Because of the people involved. If you remember there were German Jews that were turned away from entering the US.

We agree on that, I too, believe it was the wrong move to make. Just because its legal to kill someone who breaks into your house doesn't make it the best option to pick all the time.

My guess is that if we disagree it is on the actions taken after secession took place. I would have NEVER gone to war, which was an illegal responce to a legal act. Use the court system, thats what it there for. Compromise on whatever the problem was but it was dead wrong to use the sword to solve the problem IMHO.:wink2:

If your wife wanted a divorce would you beat her to save the marrage? IMHO thats what it came down to.:wink2:

If your child is being a brat should you not punish him? :wink2:

I agree I would have avoided the war anyway possible but if I had to go to war to save the country that so many died for I would have. Like I said I may have let them secede if I were able to secure enough supplies to keep the northern economy going, while striking deals with England and other European nations to stop them from buying southern crops. In essence I would allow the south's weaker economy to fall in on itself until they needed to reunite. Like I said this would be like punishing a bratty child but I am sure it probably wouldn't have worked. I would have avoided deaths by any means.

The best thing would have been for each side to give in a little but I still think the south was being a bit bratty in the situation because after they lost control of the federal government they decided to secede. When congress and the presidency was southern dominated things were fine but the moment they weren't they became the victims (yes high tariffs were a problem) and left. Like I said before GA its all who you sympathize with and for me the south gave me no reasons to feel sorry for them because to me all their problems were self inflicted (to arrogant to comply with the federal government). The north weren't angels either and had their faults I just blame the south more. :up:

I guess then if we differ at all it is in the fact that you blame the south more than the north, which is your right, while I'm much more interested in the legality of the moves.

With some 30,000 southern civilians dead I don't much think you would call it a mild "punishment" even worse what of the 630,000? And thats not even adding on the 8+ years of Martial law. Seem like one heck of a spanking to me but thats just from my point of view.:wink2:

"gafinfan wrote:

I guess then if we differ at all it is in the fact that you blame the south more than the north, which is your right, while I'm much more interested in the legality of the moves.

With some 30,000 southern civilians dead I don't much think you would call it a mild "punishment" even worse what of the 630,000? And thats not even adding on the 8+ years of Martial law. Seem like one heck of a spanking to me but thats just from my point of view.:wink2:

I'm not justifying the war because as I said they should have done anything to avoid it, but yes if I had to blame the war on either side I blame it on the south for doing the instigation leading to the war. Now secession may very well be legal and it was their right but still I feel when you agree to become a nation you stick through the bad things and don't decide to leave when you get angry that you've lost power. :wink2:

"sking29 wrote:

I'm not justifying the war because as I said they should have done anything to avoid it, but yes if I had to blame the war on either side I blame it on the south for doing the instigation leading to the war. Now secession may very well be legal and it was their right but still I feel when you agree to become a nation you stick through the bad things and don't decide to leave when you get angry that you've lost power. :wink2:

If you truly believe that then you must believe that the former Soviet Union break up was a bad thing? And Russia had every right to go to war to hold on to those smaller countries that left? You believe that Georgia should never have left Russia and that Russia has every right to attack Georgia even though the Georgians no longer want to be a part of that Union? South Carolina of 1860 was NO different than Hungary of 1956. You can't have it both ways, my friend.:wink2:

Either people have the right to control their own lives and live in freedom, as our Constitution says or they don't. To me its just that simple. And yes that includes the slaves living there. So what would have become of them? We will never know because the South was invaded and put under the sword for some 12 + years.:wink2:

A couple of points, if I may, you said (and I agree we were taught this way)

in the minds of southerners they did not think it was wrong or so as you say we were taught.

. If you read the leaders quotes of the times you know that what we were taught was "Hog Wash" the Southern leaders of that era all wanted to end slavery they just didn't know how and get the results that were needed. IE that the Slaves, once free, would be able to take care of themselves and their familys. Which surely was not accomplished by going to war and freeing them out of hand. You only have to look at the young man who is intering the draft this year (his name escapes me) and multiply that by 3+ million to see the horror those people must have lived thru after being freed that way.

I'm sorry WAR just was not the answer and to allude to the fact that the North would have collapsed doesn't hold water because it didn't, did it? No, of course not, it fought a war costing over $2 million a day for 4 + years and held an election during that conflict.

It all goes back to what padre31 said, "it was nothing more than increasing the bottom line and being in control." MONEY and POWER.:up::wink2:

So with all of that being said; what say you?

"gafinfan wrote:

If you truly believe that then you must believe that the former Soviet Union break up was a bad thing? And Russia had every right to go to war to hold on to those smaller countries that left? You believe that Georgia should never have left Russia and that Russia has every right to attack Georgia even though the Georgians no longer want to be a part of that Union? South Carolina of 1860 was NO different than Hungary of 1956. You can't have it both ways, my friend.:wink2:

Either people have the right to control their own lives and live in freedom, as our Constitution says or they don't. To me its just that simple. And yes that includes the slaves living there. So what would have become of them? We will never know because the South was invaded and put under the sword for some 12 + years.:wink2:

A couple of points, if I may, you said (and I agree we were taught this way). If you read the leaders quotes of the times you know that what we were taught was "Hog Wash" the Southern leaders of that era all wanted to end slavery they just didn't know how and get the results that were needed. IE that the Slaves, once free, would be able to take care of themselves and their familys. Which surely was not accomplished by going to war and freeing them out of hand. You only have to look at the young man who is intering the draft this year (his name escapes me) and multiply that by 3+ million to see the horror those people must have lived thru after being freed that way.

I'm sorry WAR just was not the answer and to allude to the fact that the North would have collapsed doesn't hold water because it didn't, did it? No, of course not, it fought a war costing over $2 million a day for 4 + years and held an election during that conflict.

It all goes back to what padre31 said, "it was nothing more than increasing the bottom line and being in control." MONEY and POWER.:up::wink2:

So with all of that being said; what say you?

Did I say the North? Because if I did I am sorry because I meant it would be the South's economy that would have collapsed.

Also I disagree about the slaves. The reason being that Southerners wanted to hold onto their old agricultural lifestyle and there is no way possible they could have done that without slaves. The very thing southerners were fighting for was their agricultural lifestyle and hated the north for trying to industrialize them. Also they were not worried about how the slaves would live after they were freed because quite frankly they didn't care because slaves were dirt to them. How else can you explain the treatment of African Americans in the south all the way until the 1960s and even beyond? Trust me the South did not want to end slavery.

Once again GA, my history loving friend, its all relative how you look at this.You bring up the Russia-Georgia conflict and for me that doesn't apply because they are two different subjects. For me the South had nothing done to them that warranted secession that could not have been worked out. The reason they actually seceded is because of losing power because the South desperately hated Lincoln and feared he would change their whole way of life. Russia's treatment of its outlying neighbors was totally different because they regularly starved and killed them for little to no reason. What was the American government doing so bad to the south? Making them pay higher tariffs and not a lot more. Definitely nothing along the lines of starvation or murder. It was a war of ideologies and the south feared they might lose theirs with Lincoln as president.

Once again I want to also say I don't support war for the sake of supporting war, but only in times the nation's health or security is in desperate need of help. Now that also should only happen if all other methods haven't been explored and I think if both northern and southern leaders had gotten off of their high chairs and actually acted like adults this could have been prevented. Still however when things don't go your way you don't just throw up your arms and leave you try to work things out. I mean even cotton restrictions to the north may very well have been enough to get tariffs lowered.

How relative I look at it? This will be fun, just give me a day or two to get the true facts together that I need to debate this last post of yours.:lol:

BTW, I used the word North, your word was Union. My mistake.:wink2:

"gafinfan wrote:

Thank you, yet we can still have a discussion, be friends and still disagree. We both love our country and only want what is best for it, I'm sure.:up:

First let me say that I agree with you in total concerning slavery, of any kind, yet at that time it was legal. Not only in the South but in the North as well at that time. I can't tell you what was in the minds of our ancestors; can you? I would guess not and if we are to place blame lets at least be honest enough to place it in everyone's hands Northern as well as Southern if we are to believe the school book excuse of the reason for this war. For we both know that if 630,000 Americans are killed there must be an excuse that is worthy of the bloodletting. Money and greed and power just won't wash!

The war was precipitated, IMHO, only because both sides were unwilling to face the countries problems head on and for that I blame both sides never the less war and subjugation are never an answer; do you think? I don't and rather than trying to overthrow a government under a constitution you passionally believe in with all your being isn't it so much better to get a divorce and remain friends?

Besides slavery has nothing to do with the Constitution being the law of the land and either we are a nation of laws or we are not. Slavery didn't make the Constitution, the Constitution legalized slavery, if they didn't want slavery change the Constitution; its that simple. Unless of course you believe what is taught, that being, the slave states wouldn't sign it unless slavery was included? Seems to me that in 1776 every state in our union was a slave state so that excuse just won't wash. Besides the two loudest for slavery, SC and GA only had about 5% of the population which would mean that the tail was wagging the dog. I don't believe for one minute that George Washington would have stood for that besides it took only 9 states to ratify and GA was the third to sign.

Which takes me back to my original premise that the South had every legal and moral right to seceed, if they did so within the Constitutional law of the land. Its not a question of the South being a saint, they weren't, the question is was it legal?

We can both agree that slavery is bad, in any form, it is BAD. So is war and the distruction of a society, which then took over 100 years to raise itself back to its pre war standard. The war only subjugated part of the population while freeing the slave to that same subjugation and left him with little or no means to support himself and or his family.

Let me be clear that while I uphold secession; I abhor the very fact that the two sides allowed it to go that far. Being right doesn't clear the South from the stinch of slavery nor does freeing the slave clear the North from the stinch of killing the very laws which are supposed to govern this nation. We all lost IMHO.:yes::hi5:

If I may let me leave you with this quote which is one of my favorites in answering your last remark about being in the minority:

I eagerly await your reply.

Of course we do, Ron.

Before answering your post sking29 I have to thank not only you but padre39 as well as Marty for allowing you and I to highjack this thread about Northern Secession. Thanks guys.

BTW Marty, if at any time you feel I've gone to far, for whatever reason and you put your foot down I will understand.

Again thanks to all!:up:

"cnc66 wrote:

:lol::lol::lol::up:

Well since its not yet on the floor I shall continue!:up::shifty::lol:

Man that is one uuuuuggggglllly foot!:lol:

"sking29 wrote:

Did I say the North? Because if I did I am sorry because I meant it would be the South's economy that would have collapsed.

Also I disagree about the slaves. The reason being that Southerners wanted to hold onto their old agricultural lifestyle and there is no way possible they could have done that without slaves. The very thing southerners were fighting for was their agricultural lifestyle and hated the north for trying to industrialize them. Also they were not worried about how the slaves would live after they were freed because quite frankly they didn't care because slaves were dirt to them. How else can you explain the treatment of African Americans in the south all the way until the 1960s and even beyond? Trust me the South did not want to end slavery.

Once again GA, my history loving friend, its all relative how you look at this.You bring up the Russia-Georgia conflict and for me that doesn't apply because they are two different subjects. For me the South had nothing done to them that warranted secession that could not have been worked out. The reason they actually seceded is because of losing power because the South desperately hated Lincoln and feared he would change their whole way of life. Russia's treatment of its outlying neighbors was totally different because they regularly starved and killed them for little to no reason. What was the American government doing so bad to the south? Making them pay higher tariffs and not a lot more. Definitely nothing along the lines of starvation or murder. It was a war of ideologies and the south feared they might lose theirs with Lincoln as president.

Once again I want to also say I don't support war for the sake of supporting war, but only in times the nation's health or security is in desperate need of help. Now that also should only happen if all other methods haven't been explored and I think if both northern and southern leaders had gotten off of their high chairs and actually acted like adults this could have been prevented. Still however when things don't go your way you don't just throw up your arms and leave you try to work things out. I mean even cotton restrictions to the north may very well have been enough to get tariffs lowered.

Brfore starting to answer this let me step back and remark to my example of a divorce and your rebuttle of the spanking of a child.

This is the core problem of our debate IMHO; while I "see" this Union as a partnership (Marrage) between the several states to stand as a barrier to the outside world at large; which no one individual could hope to stand against you "see" the Union as a separate entity (family with Union=Parent & states=Kids) which is in charge of and over all the several states, a mother and father, if you will. The Federalist V the Anti-Federalist revisited some 75 years after the Articles are replaced by the Constitution and again today between you and I. You are right we will never agree to give up our core principles. Thats ok as long as there is mutual respect and an openmindness about what is the real truth of our history. I'm willing, how about you?

Ok moment of truth. Slavery. Lets look at the facts, no sugar coating, no I'm good you're bad, history as it was. No baiting. Are you game?

Slavery as it was

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm

This is a long but honest look at slavery in the South backed up with first person accounts by people who have no steak in this other than observors or the slaves themselves.

The South has long carried the stigma of racism and bigotry The fact that slavery ended abruptly because the South lost the War serves to reinforce this common stereotype. For this reason, most Southerners take little pride in their nation's role in the War Between the States. The only thing they can boast about is how well they fought — but they are not allowed to defend the cause itself. They have been told that they cannot talk of principle or speak of righteousness. The institution of slavery has so blackened the Southern position that nothing about the South can be viewed as good or right. Slavery is considered to be such a wicked practice that it alone is sufficient to answer the question of which side was right in that unfortunate war. The fact that the South practiced slavery is enough to cause many moderns to feel they do not even have to listen to the various biblical and constitutional arguments that swirled around that controversy. Consequently, to have a closed mind on this issue is to be cloaked in virtue.

In the South, there were times when slaves were punished, and when this happened, they were commonly punished by means of whipping. But Engerman and Fogel place this practice in context for us.

Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence.

But it was far more in the master's interest to motivate his slaves by positive means. Far more important than whipping in managing the slaves was figuring out how to motivate. No plantation owner wanted slaves who were sullen, discontented, and hostile, who did just enough to get by. They wanted devoted, hard-working, responsible men who identified their fortunes with the fortunes of their masters. Such attitudes cannot be beaten into slaves. They had to be elicited.22

To achieve the desired response the planters developed a wide-ranging system of rewards. Some rewards were directed toward improving short-run performance (prizes for the individual or the gang with the best picking record on a given day or week). The prizes were such items as clothing, tobacco, whiskey, and very often cash. When slaves worked during times normally set aside for rest, they received extra pay — usually in cash.23 Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves

The Slave Narratives of the 30's was IMHO the one truly good thing FDR did for this country yet it is swept aside like so much trash because it doesn't fit into the overall picture of the South that must be believed to give credence to the South being the Bad guy. There are two narratives by the way the one that is held in South Carolina set up by FDR and another less known done by and held in Alabama.

Please keep in mind I in no way want this to be taken as an excuse. Our History is what it is and the more truthful we are about it the better we stand to be able to leave the past behind us IMHO. But to make the comment that

Also they were not worried about how the slaves would live after they were freed because quite frankly they didn't care because slaves were dirt to them.

is in no way an accurate statement of the facts and could more accurately be laid at the door of the Northern slave traders because there were deaths (killings) on every crossing made. It was understood as part of being in the slave business.

http://oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com/2009/03/sage-of-old-virginia-on-slave-trade.html

A short but honest look at the slave trade and the 22+% of the Africans that died during the Alantic passage. If you look at the total number of Africans brought to the Americas the US only recieved about 6% of the total. Then if you use the 22.5% figure of the slaves lost on the Wayfarier on its last/only slave run you see that some 120,000 died before they got here.

http://www.slavenorth.com/index.html

This last section is about slavery in the North and it covers slavery from its earliest beginnings and the part that the Americas played in it. Some of the richest familys in New England made their fortunes in the Sugar-Rum-Slave triad.

After reading these links I come away with a better understanding of the whole sad affair and everyones part in it. As I've said before no one had clean hands. North or South or for that matter all of Europe. Yet 148 years later we still have slavery in the US. Just last year a couple in Calif. from the mid East bought a young girl into this country where she lived in slavery for 3 years before the couple was found out. There is good and bad in all parts of this country. The South had/has no corner on the market of slavery or their treatment good or bad.

A look at life in Georgia by Bill Arp

http://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/arp/arp.html

This link covers more than can be written in a link but I assure you that it is a wonderful step back into history and it will give you a real sense of life in the 1800's in Georgia and I would think the South as a whole. I hope everyone finds it as interesting as I have.

Bill on slaves page 349:

He does not know that Judge Story, chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, when presiding in Boston in 1834, charged the grand jury that although Massachusetts had freed their slaves, yet the slave trade with Africa was still going on and Boston merchants and Boston Christians were steeped to their eyebrows in its infamy. He does not know that when our national existence began the feeling against slavery was stronger in the Southern States than in the Northern. Georgia was the first to prohibit it, but later on the prohibition was repealed. New England carried on the traffic until 1845--and is doing it yet if they can find a market and can get the rum to pay for them. The last record of a slaver caught in the act was in 1861, off the coast of Madagascar, and it was an Eastport vessel. The slave trade with Africa was for more than a century a favorite and popular venture with our English ancestors. King James II. and King Charles II. and Queen Elizabeth all had stock in it, and though Wilberforce and others had laws passed to suppress it they could not do it. New England and old England secretly carried it on (see Appleton) long after slavery was abolished in the colonies. They could afford to lose half their vessels and still make money.

No, no, my friend. If slavery was a sin at all, which I deny, it was not our sin, nor that of our fathers, nor were we cursed with so many illiterate, low-lived negroes as you suppose. Our slaves were not educated in books as they were in manners and morals and industry, and, mark you, there was not a heinous crime committed by them from the Potomac to the Rio Grande.

General Henry R. Jackson said in the great address he delivered in Atlanta in 1881: "During the four years of war, when our men were far away from home, and their wives and daughters had no protectors but their slaves, there was not an outrage committed in all the Southland. Where does history present a like development of loyalty? Does it not speak volumes for the humanity of the master and the devotion of the slave? If I had power to indulge my emotional nature I would erect somewhere in the center of this Southland a shaft, which should rise above all monuments and strike the stars with its sublime head, and on it I would inscribe, 'To the loyalty of the slaves of the Confederate States during the years '62, '63, and '64. ' "

There is much more to read if you wish but it is evident to me that there was a feeling of loyalty and caring between the white and black people of the South that was lost because of reconstruction and still has not returned to that same level in the South except in the case of one on one individuals and familys.

The Middle Passage:
the statement of 120,000 dead in coming to the US in no way compares with the total lost which some say was as high as 1 million 5 hundred thousand.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p277.html

Amazing Grace

Written by an ex slave captain.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p275.html

I came across one other link you might be interested in because it contains remarks about Washington's religious leanings. It also contains Lincolns thoughts on that subject.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/steiner0.htm

Part 2 of my rebuttal

I wanted to break my response to you into two parts in order that 1. I could be as complete as I felt the need to be and 2. you could concentrate your reply in any form you wish short or long.

Now we come to the question of secession.

But before I start I would be remiss if I didn't also add a question to my first part. Just What are your feelings on the State of Texas with respect to being a part of the Union, the positive light that we all spin on the Independence of Texas from Mexico, and the war fought with Mexico over Texas. When in point of fact Mexico was a nation that outlawed slavery long before Texas was thought of in any form. Add to that the fact of the Americans who were in Texas were mostly Slave owners and their slaves. Yet as Americans we all, or I would at least guess 90%, would and do talk with pride about both The Alamo, Sam Houston and Texas independence. While no one brings up slavery? What say you?

Alrighty then, here we go.

http://www.historyvortex.org/LegalitySecession.html

The entire discussion of the legality of secession hinges on the nature of the union formed by the former British colonies, as determined by the Founding Fathers of the United States.

The document that actualized – brought into being - the United States of America was the Declaration of Independence, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson (he will play a significant role in this discussion) as part of a larger group assigned this task. How does Jefferson describe this union? In the document, he states, “We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress…in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

Jefferson refers to the states as “free” and “independent”, with the power to conduct any and all affairs to which sovereign states are entitled. Notice that Jefferson refers to the states in plural form; whatever the form of this “union”, it certainly is not a singular, nationalistic entity (unless, of course, we are to believe that the sage of Monticello was ill-equipped as a political writer and philosopher - would anyone dare mount such an indefensible argument?).

And the last of the quotes from that Link

Virginia Declaration of Rights (the blueprint for the U.S. Bill of Rights), the primary author of the Virginia state constitution, and a leading Anti-Federalist at the Constitutional Convention. As per Stampp, “Most arresting is the contribution that George Mason made to the mechanics of secession, should it ever be attempted. Mason opposed referring the Constitution to state legislatures for ratification, ‘because succeeding Legislatures having equal authority could undo the acts of their predecessors; and the National Government would stand in each State on the weak and tottering foundation of an Act of Assembly.’” [Ibid. 14] In other words, Mason believed that as states could ratify the Constitution when seeking to join the Union, that very same statutory power allows them to undo that ratification and secede from the Union. It was for this reason that Mason preferred that the people of each of the several states elect delegates to a convention (as opposed to the sitting state legislature) for the sole purpose of debating and, if agreed upon, ratifying the proposed national constitution. States would retain their sovereignty, and the right of secession would still exist, but the power to do so would reside much closer to the people of each state. “Thus, delegates to the Philadelphia convention, in effect, explained both what proved to be the principal justification for secession (violations of the compact) and the method by which it might be accomplished (through a state convention).” [Ibid. 14-15] This is precisely the mechanism used by the eleven states of the Confederacy when they seceded from the Union.

This one act by Mason more than anyother act or any other man save Jefferson holds the key to the legality of secession and the proper way to go about it. It was meant to make it much harder to accomplish the very act we are speaking of today.

Two other links of note:

http://thomaslegion.net/secessionandtheconstitutionandlegality.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

And one sucessful secession so far from the United States pointed out in the above link.

In 1946, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, a United States territory which became a commonwealth, was the only part of the United States to have gained independence.

And last but not least stands the 10th Amendment, the cornerstone, as Thomas Jefferson would refer to the equality of the several states in this compact with eachother in forming this Union.

As we all know there are some 20 states that are, at this very moment, in the process of using the 10th to reafffirm their rights as sovereign states.

I am left but with one question for you. You state that you are not arguing over the legality of secession but the fact that the reasons the South used were "not good enough" (my impression of your words). That being the case What would be a good reason for secession or are there none in your mind?

I await your reply.:up::hi5:

My full response will be a day or so from now but for a small taste I will say that I think their is sufficient evidence too suggest slavery was not so rosy as for slaves to be loyal to the Confederacy and that although men like Jefferson were high on state's rights there were others on the opposite side of the fence. Picking a man to represent fighting for state's rights with Jefferson would be like me fighting for a stronger Federal government by citing Alexander Hamilton both being that they are quite radical choices.

Great posts though GA and I know my response will not be as thorough as yours but I hope it at least holds some water. :wink2: