Help support TMP


"The 'Other' Side of the Slavery Question" Topic


650 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the American Revolution Message Board

Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

18th Century
American Civil War

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

Sixty-One Sixty-Five


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Workbench Article

Guilford Courthouse

The modeler himself shows how he paints Guilford Courthouse in 40mm scale.


23,026 hits since 3 Oct 2021
©1994-2025 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 

doc mcb07 Oct 2021 6:14 p.m. PST

Blut, yes, on the whole I agree.

Brechtel19808 Oct 2021 4:27 a.m. PST

Slavery was the cause of the Civil War. It's quite simple and is not a jump in logic.

From the end of the War of 1812 until the Civil War slavery was the major political issue in the United States.

Those who supported it used the Bible and religion to justify it, and some even wanted to resume the slave trade.

James McPherson illustrates this very well in his monumental one-volume study of the war.

doc mcb08 Oct 2021 4:57 a.m. PST

So, Kevin, explain why THAT major political issue was more important than, say, the tariff, which almost caused a civil war in the 1830s. Or Indian removal, which could have brought civil war had Jackson not acted as he did. You are not wrong, you are just simplistic.

And the Trail of Tears, bad as it was, was LESS BAD than Georgia committing genocide against the civilized tribes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible, but LESS BAD than the invasion they prevented. There are REASONS why slavery was so difficult to eradicate, and they do not equate to "those people in the south were evil."

You really would not want to be judged by the standard you are trying to apply to something which, quite frankly, you do not understand very well. You know a lot of facts, but not the truth behind them. OFM, you too. Do you know the story of Washington's attempt to free his slaves? He and they were TRAPPED in a wicked system, and saying "BAD MAN! BAD MAN!" is, yes, childish.

Au pas de Charge08 Oct 2021 6:18 a.m. PST

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible, but LESS BAD than the invasion they prevented. There are REASONS why slavery was so difficult to eradicate, and they do not equate to "those people in the south were evil."

Interesting. If the North had had the bomb in 1864, should they have dropped it on Lee?


In one word, either "North" or "South", during the civil war, which side was was the bad side?

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP08 Oct 2021 7:32 a.m. PST

Don't forget "internal improvements", and who should pay for canals. Far more important than slavery as a dividing issue, right?
Using your logic and methods, why didn't Civil War break out over tariffs?

Stop acting like you're the only intelligent person here. Oh, you think we show glimmers and sparks, but kindly old Professor McBride is saddened that he can't steer us to the True Way of Thinking.

Yes, I know about Washington trying to free his slaves. But I refuse to take homework assignments from you. If you think it's so darn important, answer your own question. Again, stop acting like I'm defending my PhD thesis, and you're kindly, but tough, Prof McBride. I don't need a passing grade from you.
You're not the Chairman of the TMP University History Department.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP08 Oct 2021 7:33 a.m. PST

I agree about McPherson's book, by the way.

Brechtel19808 Oct 2021 9:35 a.m. PST

Stop acting like you're the only intelligent person here. Oh, you think we show glimmers and sparks, but kindly old Professor McBride is saddened that he can't steer us to the True Way of Thinking.

Well said, John, and right on the money. Keep up the good work.

doc mcb08 Oct 2021 9:48 a.m. PST

Charge, sorry, it doesn't work like that. On slavery the south was the bad side, but there are other things involved.

doc mcb08 Oct 2021 9:55 a.m. PST

John, maybe read some of the key books, and not just McPherson:

link

The Strange Career of Jim Crow argues that racial segregation in the rigid and universal form that existed in 1954 did not appear with the end of slavery. In the time between Reconstruction and segregation, there was a period of experimentation and change in race relations that saw considerable economic and political interaction between the races. Jim Crow laws were not comprehensively implemented until the end of the 19th century.

Through historical analysis, Woodward proves that segregation was not an inevitable outcome of Southern history but rather just one outcome of many possibilities that emerged from a combination of choices and circumstances. The significance of Woodward's argument lies in his assertion that segregation was not an ancient phenomenon that was inevitable or permanent. Southern history had experienced many radical changes, and in this context the rejection of racist doctrines, the integration of the American South, and the improvement of race relations was possible. Martin Luther King Jr. described the book as the "historical bible of the Civil Rights Movement," reflecting its influence (363).

In Chapter 1 Woodward argues that segregation was not an outgrowth of slavery. Slavery made segregation impractical, and there was extensive contact between the races. Because slavery enforced white supremacy, segregation was not necessary to preserve the existing racial hierarchy. Chapter 2 focuses on the fluid race relations in the post-Reconstruction South. Following the establishment of "Home Rule," there was no immediate shift to expand or universalize segregation. This chapter describes the "forgotten alternatives" to the extreme racism of segregationists that became established with Jim Crow. Chapter 3 describes the rise of racism across the United States in the late 19th century. Woodward highlights a wave of legislation post-1890 that expanded segregation.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP08 Oct 2021 9:55 a.m. PST

What's wrong with McPherson?

doc mcb08 Oct 2021 9:59 a.m. PST

Nothing, except you should not rely on a single source.

Au pas de Charge08 Oct 2021 10:03 a.m. PST

Charge, sorry, it doesn't work like that. On slavery the south was the bad side, but there are other things involved.

It works like this until the subject is a matter of concern to one personally. But, it does work like this.

For instance, which is the good and bad side below?

1. Japanese Empire vs USA in WW2

2. Eastern Bloc vs the West

3. Louis XIV vs the world.

doc mcb08 Oct 2021 10:07 a.m. PST

A common fallacy for anyone studying the past -- it is easy to do and must be constantly guarded against -- is to assume that the way something happened is the way it HAD to happen. The only way it COULD have happened. I don't know whether you enjoy alternate history as I do, but it is a (dangerous and) fascinating field. I recommend Flint's 1812 and 1824 Rivers of War books. Or read the 1941 chapter in MODERN TIMES: Hitler and Stalin played dice with mankind, nothing inevitable about it. It really is complex, and then temptation to teach the kids a simple answer is to be resisted at all costs. Teach them to reason, not to memorize.

doc mcb08 Oct 2021 10:10 a.m. PST

1. USA, but was Nagasaki justified?
2. the West, although it betrayed the Hungarian Freedom Fighters in 1956
3. maybe the "good" was the balance of power. If William of Orange led the good guys, why didn't they destroy the Sun King?

But good questions, you are (now) fun to play the game with.

Brechtel19808 Oct 2021 11:25 a.m. PST

Regarding the two nukes dropped on Japan in 1945, a friend of mine was a student at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College some years ago, along with a Japanese exchange officer.

During a seminar on War II, the Japanese officer asked the instructor why the United States dropped two nuclear weapons on the 'peaceful Japanese people.'

The instructor answered: 'Because we only had two. If we had possessed five, you would have eaten five.'

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP08 Oct 2021 12:08 p.m. PST

Au pas de Charge:

You are being naively simplistic in your statements. While I believe the Japanese were "wrong" in WW2, there are arguments to be made for their actions— that in many ways they were pressed into an untenable situation economically and politically by Western Imperialism and diplomatic and military excesses in Asia of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The USA, as much as I revere it, did indeed seize control of Asian nations, and there is no question that Imperial China was essentially shattered by the actions of Great Britain, etc.. It could be argued that Japan was responding to Western attempts, particularly by Britain, France, and the US, to isolate it economically and reduce its power and influence in the region. At the height of its own power, yet staring at a certain, precipitous decline, and under the influence of an overly nationalistic and dictatorial leadership, Japan lashed out. It's an entirely human response.
Now, that does not make them the "good" guys. And over the course of the war, and prior to it, they engaged in horrific abuses of human rights, from literal and officially sanctioned rape to the torture of prisoners— and of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor (which even I have to admit under the lens of examination was entirely a "necessary" assault in terms of the decision to go to war in the Pacific; there was no way the Japanese Navy could defeat the US Navy without a precipitous attempt to destroy or at least neutralize the latter. In retrospect (though also foreseeable at the time) it would never have been sufficient for the goal (which the Japanese Marshal Admiral Yamamoto himself stated), but if they were going to pursue military action, then it was a necessary military action to take. Was it heinous? Well, as red-blooded American, yes, of course it was! But as a student of military strategy, I have to admit that secret, preemptive strikes are superior tactics, and rather hard to condemn on that front alone.

Now, let's take the next: Eastern Bloc vs. Western Bloc.
This example actually weakens your argument, on several fronts.
1.) There was no "Hot War" going on vis-a-viz these specific regions, and thus no direct overt military action.
2.) The Cold War was NOT about the enslavement of the citizenry of the Eastern Bloc— it was about the attempts of the Soviet Union to spread totalitarian socialism around the globe, whether by military means or political ones. I'm not saying there wasn't concern over the excesses of the USSR regarding human rights, but in truth the actual motivations behind the conflict were entirely political in nature— the human rights abuses were to a great extent the public face put on the conflict as being the motivator for public support for the military spending, foreign aid and diplomatic pressures necessary to both conduct and win the Cold War. I am in complete agreement that the USSR and the Soviet Bloc constituted an "Evil Empire," in Reagan's pithy term, but I must note that this Evil, as great as and as equivalent to slavery as it was, was not sufficient inducement to pursue an actual, overt shooting war between the two sides.
But that also ignores the motivations within the USSR for their position. I am certainly not going to assume that the various soldiers and sailors and others who served the Soviet Bloc nations throughout the conflict were themselves whole-hearted supporters of the regime, though many, if not most, held some sense of patriotism towards their nations. And of course, many, if not most, were effectively conscripts, and may well have had strongly negative attitudes regarding their service and their government (else there would have been no need for the infamous "political officers" assigned to oversee various units). So therefore it is quite easy to see how soldiers can indeed by opposed to the views and goals of their leaders, and yet still serve either out of sense of loyalty, honor, or even quite simply fear.
But even then, let us take the dedicated Soviet's point of view. Given that Marxism is the underlying philosophy of the Soviet system, and that today we have people eagerly touting its wonders, one can see an individual arguing with fervent, unshakeable belief that the system is NOT evil at all, but instead offers the greatest good for themselves and the world at large. Now, you and I may agree that this is a false belief (or not— I don't know you), but there's no question that is a point of view that is still in high debate in the West, as a look at current news would attest.
So, while I do think the West were (and still are) the "good guys" in such conflicts, it is understandable that others might disagree. And unlike slavery (at least in the West), the question is regrettably not sufficiently settled to be universally stated.

3. As if the rest of the world were either strictly pure or strictly evil? In an age of autocratic monarchs we have an autocratic monarch behaving as one. Is that evil from our modern point of view? Yes. Was it thought evil at the time? Entirely a matter of perspective. One might as well go through history condemning every conqueror or would-be conqueror. It's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

doc mcb08 Oct 2021 1:23 p.m. PST

Kevin, I hope that isn't true, though it could be. Otoh, surely our treatment of the conquered Japan (under MacArthur) was unmatched in being generous and gracious.

doc mcb08 Oct 2021 1:31 p.m. PST

Parz, yes, and the north (especially the Free Soilers and then Lincoln's Republicans) had a "containment" strategy towards slavery, very similar to ours in the Cold War. They believed (as we believed about Communism, correctly) that it had either to expand or die. THE NORTH DID NOT WANT A WAR TO ELIMINATE SLAVERY! It just didn't. (I know Parz knows that, but others on the thread don't seem to.) The mutual paranoia following 1833 (Garrison starts THE LIBERATOR and Nat Turner) built to force a war, with John Brown quite plainly (and successfully) so motivated. But there are ALWAYS extremists within any large movement or group; most of the time they are not allowed to prevail and determine events. But in the 1850s the political system broke down. That is a key part of the story and simply repeating "slavery, slavery, slavery" is quite simplistic and misleading.

doc mcb08 Oct 2021 1:36 p.m. PST

Btw, (and I am tempted to begin a new thread on this point), it is quite clear that the main motive behind southern defense of slavery was FEAR rather than GREED. How many slave uprisings had the western hemisphere seen? We can debate to what extent the fear was justified, but does anyone doubt it was a major factor? THAT would motivate non-slave owners, who would feel as much at risk as the planters.

The south was straddle a man-eating tiger, trying to hold on to its ears, uncomfortable and terrified, but letting go was seen as making it even worse.

link

(Btw, I'm not dismissing white supremacy as a factor; multiple causation, baby!)

Blutarski08 Oct 2021 5:54 p.m. PST

Hi doc,
A couple of comments –

> The hot component of the "Cold War" was conducted as an an endless succession of proxy wars, violent "liberation movements" and terrorist campaigns waged around the globe, which did not end until the collapse of the USSR.

> The true history of role of the atomic bombings on Japan final surrender does a great deal more credit to the USA than the gross and shameless distortion of events perpetrated by the left on the occasion of the 50th anniversary commemoration. All anyone need do is review the planning projections of Allied and Japanese casualties resulting from an invasion of the Japanese home islands – it ran into the millions.

> In as much as you appear to be a scholar of the ACW, perhaps you can address acclaim I recently ran across to the effect that the original Insurrection Act which Lincoln invoked to justify invasion of the seceding states only permitted the intrusion of Federal troops into a state with the express permission of the state's governor … and that Lincoln had to hastily arrange amendment of said Act by a rump Republican congress. Deep rabbit holes everywhere.

B

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP08 Oct 2021 6:02 p.m. PST

It does make it easier to legislate, and pass Constitutional amendments, when all opposition has deserted the legitimate government. That's not a "rump".

Blutarski08 Oct 2021 6:12 p.m. PST

Re slave rebellions, they were clockwork occurrences in the European Caribbean plantation network. Only one was successful – that led by Toussaint Louverture (and others), which ultimately evicted the Spanish and French from Santo Domingue in 1804.

This event was hardly unknown in America, as it was one of the direct motivations for Napoleon to proceed with the sale of the Louisiana Territory to the United States. Yet, the American South nevertheless proceeded to organize a huge slave-driven cotton economy and grew it to an immense size. I question exactly how terrified Southern investors were of slave revolts if they were willing to commit such time, money and effort in developing King Cotton.

An interesting question, with more than one perspective from which to view it …

B

Personal logo Old Contemptible Supporting Member of TMP08 Oct 2021 6:27 p.m. PST

Any issue other than slavery could have been worked out by the tools in hand, the Constitution and the courts. Slavery could not, it took a war and 600,000+ dead to end slavery. There wasn't going to be a war over tariffs. The Confederates themselves said as much in the various state succession bills and in the CS Constitution.

Blutarski08 Oct 2021 6:28 p.m. PST

John OFM -
Does it not trouble you that the Constitution of the United States of America explicitly forbade any intrusion of federal troops into a state unless explicitly invited by its governor? Why do you suppose that clause was included in the Constitution?

The Constitution specifically provided that all powers not explicitly conferred upon the Federal government were retained by the states and the citizenry. The power to compel a state to remain part of the United States against the popular will of its own citizens was NOT a power granted to the national government; hence, to the logical person, the right of secession remained an option of each state.

Justifications tendered in support of Lincoln's decision to invade the seceded southern states are best described as acrobatic ex post facto circumlocutions and artfully creative misinterpretations of the language of the founding documents.

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your own opinion.

B

doc mcb08 Oct 2021 6:29 p.m. PST

Yet it was worked out, several times, earlier. What changed? Abolitionists and Nat Turner

Blutarski08 Oct 2021 6:30 p.m. PST

Oh yes ….. Hi Cleburne.

Still awaiting your response to my questions posed to you about a week ago. Do you plan to respond? Or can I quit looking for one?

B

Blutarski08 Oct 2021 6:39 p.m. PST

Doc wrote -
"Yet it was worked out, several times, earlier. What changed?"


I'll cast my vote – The slavery question was never the cause of the war. The secession of the southern states was the cause of the war, and the secession was an attempt by the southern states to remedy a fatal political defeat that they believed left their interests and their wealth at the mercy of a national government now dominated by northern interests. It is interesting to examine the steady erosion of the balance of power in the national Senate as more and more territories were granted statehood.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

Au pas de Charge08 Oct 2021 7:46 p.m. PST

The Constitution specifically provided that all powers not explicitly conferred upon the Federal government were retained by the states and the citizenry.

This is not what it says. It's not even what was originally proposed.

The power to compel a state to remain part of the United States against the popular will of its own citizens was NOT a power granted to the national government; hence, to the logical person, the right of secession remained an option of each state.

I suppose it's an argument but it's a weak one because when the bill of rights were debated, unilateral secession was both considered and proposed by a couple of states and each one eventually retracted that right. There are several other reasons that unilateral secession was prohibited but there's no need to go into that here.

Justifications tendered in support of Lincoln's decision to invade the seceded southern states are best described as acrobatic ex post facto circumlocutions and artfully creative misinterpretations of the language of the founding documents.


Are you suggesting that the South was for some purposes seceded and for other, convenient, ones still part of the Union? You're suggesting that Lincoln should've asked the governors of the seceding states for permission to invoke the insurrection act and/or to make amendments to it?

It's like a 1960s Sci Fi series where the robot goes "Does not compute, does not compute, illogical, illogical, system overload"

Tortorella Supporting Member of TMP08 Oct 2021 8:10 p.m. PST

Somehow this has come up – the whole Marxist thing does not click for me. I don't know anybody who talks about it or promotes it, I never hear anything about it – except on right wing TV. I have no clue what Mark Levin is talking about, never heard of him before now. I plan to stay away from both him and Marxism forever.

Our slavery conversation just will not come to a conclusion. I believe that a lot of Confederates believed they were fighting for something other than slavery and many conservatives believe this today.

doc mcb08 Oct 2021 8:41 p.m. PST

Once again: "The Civil War was caused by the unwillingness or inability of the northern and southern states to resolve peaceably within the federal union the question of the expansion of slavery into the western territories."

The word "slavery' is in that sentence. But so is the ambiguity about state and national power, the breakdown of the previously effective political system, and the rise of mutual and re-enforcing paranoias (that's the "unwillingness"). But it was the west, the west, the west -- the future. The west would be either like the north or like the south: THAT was ultimately uncompromisable.

Au pas de Charge09 Oct 2021 4:00 a.m. PST

I don't know whether you enjoy alternate history as I do, but it is a (dangerous and) fascinating field.

I doubt that I could rival your ability to craft alternative history but sure it can be fun. It's only dangerous if you start to confuse fiction for fact.

But good questions, you are (now) fun to play the game with.

Speaking of fun, you are bringing back some pleasant memories for me. I had a relative who had a complete civil war officers outfit and I always hummed "Dixie" when he entered the room.

@Parzival

The exercise isnt to make it obvious which side is good or bad but merely that if you have to assign "good" to one side and "bad" to the other, it isnt hard to pick.


I have no clue what Mark Levin is talking about, never heard of him before now

He is dangerous constitutional authority for the average Joe, he always only gives half the truth about the constitution and conceals the other half.

Brechtel19809 Oct 2021 4:03 a.m. PST

The slavery question was never the cause of the war. The secession of the southern states was the cause of the war, and the secession was an attempt by the southern states to remedy a fatal political defeat that they believed left their interests and their wealth at the mercy of a national government now dominated by northern interests. It is interesting to examine the steady erosion of the balance of power in the national Senate as more and more territories were granted statehood.

And the reason for secession? Slavery, pure and simple. All other disagreements between North and South originated with that 'peculiar institution.'

doc mcb09 Oct 2021 6:34 a.m. PST

Kevin, yes and no. The fundamental fact was that the south was staple-crop agriculture, first tobacco and then cotton, with a few other crops thrown in. AND these crops depleted the soil, so constant sources of new land were necessary AND the labor force had to be easily moved. In theory, and in fact if world geography and demographics had been different, the labor force could have been, say, Indians as in Mexico, or some other oppressed and dependent population of workers. If Africa hadn't been there, they'd have had to use London slum dwellers (and did in the early decades, until about 1676 and Bacon's rebellion) or Irish serfs (good luck with THAT!). African chattel slavery best suited their needs, but I would START with the geographical basics that made slavery attractive in comparison with indentured servitude.

doc mcb09 Oct 2021 6:43 a.m. PST

Charge, I have been in a few CW re-enactments, maybe three or four, but always as a private. And once was as a fancy-dress Union zouave; my brother's reenactment company does both sides, as many of them do.

If you ever get a chance to watch the History Channel's program on the battle of Pueblo (the Cinco-de -mayo battle) the French are my brother and nephews and about a dozen other zouaves from their group, the Union uniform being an exact copy of the French. He said it was great fun to film. The HC people have big smoke generators so everything is close-up in the smoke, to conceal that there are not armies there. One nephew got to have a bayonet vs pitchfork fight with a Mexican peasant soldier. HC still shows it every year.

And I think very highly of Levin. He goes against the current mainstream, no question, but with a lot of shrewd insights.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2021 8:46 a.m. PST

Mark Levin is a big pusher if the lunatic Convention of the States. He honestly (?) believes that only the Good People will serve, so they can pass Good Ideas like a Balanced Budget Amendment, term limits for Senators, Congress persons, Supreme Court justices, etc. he claims that its scope will be limited to only what conservatives believe in. Fat chance. The Constitutional Convention was only to amend the Articles of Confederation. Look what happened.

I used to listen to his show, just to hear him shout "Shut up, you big dummy!" and then hang up on the caller. Big fun.

I consider him a very dangerous person, with even more dangerous followers. He is deliberately divisive and I don't think he really believes in what he promotes. What was the fate of Robespierre? Be careful what you wish for.

donlowry09 Oct 2021 8:54 a.m. PST

The firing on Fort Sumter was the cause of the War.

Tortorella Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2021 10:04 a.m. PST

Out of the blue, no reason?

Tortorella Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2021 10:08 a.m. PST

Divisive has often been a big money maker. It can make a cause out of thin air and get people to feel wronged and spend their money on a steady diet of it.

Brechtel19809 Oct 2021 10:55 a.m. PST

The firing on Fort Sumter was the cause of the War.

The cause of the attack on Fort Sumter was secession. And the cause of secession was slavery.

Brechtel19809 Oct 2021 10:57 a.m. PST

And I think very highly of Levin.

And there we have it-an ignorant demagogue being admired for the false information that they promote.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2021 12:21 p.m. PST

The firing on Fort Sumter was the cause of the War.
The cause of the attack on Fort Sumter was secession. And the cause of secession was slavery.

Technically, the cause of the attack on Fort Sumter was to prevent the resupply of the Federally-owned and controlled military base which had legally long existed prior to secession.

I do NOT hold that a right to secession exists, regardless of the silence of the Constitution on that point. If anything, the silence does not acknowledge the right, but rather denies that such a right even exists, as, secession being an action that directly impacts and involves the federal system and the federal institutions within the Constitution, it should, if an actual right or legal possibility, therefore be a process provided for explicitly by the Constitution. As it is most definitely not so provided, and does not require any particularly mystic foresight to predict, it was therefore not contemplated as a potential possibility then or in the future.
Furthermore (as I long ago argued on this site), the act of secession violates one of the leading assumptions of the concept of law— which is what I call the assumption of perpetuity— that the Constitution is essentially a permanent document that acknowledges and provides for law itself to exist within the society. If the Constitution can be summarily ignored simply because a new generation finds it inconvenient, then that action in and of itself entirely removes ALL authority from the Constitution on any matter whatsoever. Either the Constitution applies to all, including generations not yet born, or NOTHING produced under the Constitution has any permanence whatsoever— and that includes such things as property rights. The secessionists were cutting off their own heads to spite their feet.
Thus, there cannot be a right to undermine the Federal system via secession in the Constitution, assumed, implied or explicit.

doc mcb09 Oct 2021 12:33 p.m. PST

Parz, a good argument. And I certainly agree that a "living constitution" isn't. Of course Lincoln ignored the Con when he needed to.

In any case I am glad the Union held together. But the question of secession is only "settled" because the Union won the war. It was not a bit settled in 1860.

link

And for your reading pleasure: link

No doubt Kevin will tell us of his disdain for Williams too, and for anyone who disagrees with him.

doc mcb09 Oct 2021 12:49 p.m. PST

Kevin, right, I admire Levin for the false information that he promotes.

How is the view from up there on that high horse? Doesn't the height make it hard to come down to the level of us poor mortals? Arrogance is off-putting, and I am sometimes guilty of it, but at least mine is justified.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2021 1:09 p.m. PST

"Mark Levin???!!!???"

What the heck does he have to do with the causes of the US Civil War? When did he become a part of the discussion?
Y'all aren't discussing the US Civil War at all, I gather. You're just trying to attack people for assumed political beliefs which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, thereby getting in proxy ad hominem attacks.
If that's not a signal you don't have a basis on which to support your position on the topic, I don't know what is.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2021 1:13 p.m. PST

I love the way everyone is handing out homework assignments in this thread.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2021 1:23 p.m. PST

By the way, it is actually incorrect to claim that the original Convention was called solely to amend the Articles of Confederation, or that it was called by the Confedration Congress. It wasn't. A Convention of the States held in Maryland in 1786 called for a separate Convention to address problems in the Articles of Confederation. The Confederation Congress had nothing to do with it. The various state legislatures then specifically empowered the representatives to the Convention to actually consider ANY change necessary to create a better national government— only the states of New York and Massachusetts restricted their representatives to "amending" the Articles. As for the Confederation Congress, they simply passed a resolution (which was in no way binding) to support the Convention which had already been called by the states themselves! They suggested that the Convention deal solely with amendments, but the suggestion had no legal authority over nor actual restriction upon the Convention— it was merely an advisement, at best. Furthermore, when finally asked to approve the results of the Convention— the Constitution— the Confederation Congress refused to make a statement either way, on the grounds merely that it did not have the authority to do so— that the decision remained solely with the states.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2021 1:25 p.m. PST

Who's handing out assignments, John?

All I see is some suggestions for things to read which might be of interest.

Don't worry, John. No one is trying to force you to learn anything new.

doc mcb09 Oct 2021 1:30 p.m. PST

I do agree with the OFM that a convention of the states -- which the Constitution explicitly provides for, but which has never been done -- would be dangerous UNLESS its scope was carefully limited. Of course the nation would ALREADY be in a very dangerous situation were such a convention necessary to resolve something.

doc mcb09 Oct 2021 1:40 p.m. PST

Parz, yes. The social contract idea is that the people choose to organize government to serve their needs. The several peoples of the states had ALREADY created thirteen governments and were bound by those contracts, but they could also choose to create a national government. It was Madison's genius that WE THE PEOPLE created the US government parallel to the existing state governments, as opposed to the states creating one as had been true with the Confederation. The US authority prevails when exercised within constitutional limits. But the states retain enormous powers, in particular a general police power that the US lacks.

So it is incorrect to think of the US "over" the states. (The states, however, ARE over their counties and cities.) It is like asking whether the cook or the gardener is the boss in the estate; the answer is neither, they both work for the same master. One runs the kitchen and one runs the outdoors. And if the issue is whether to plant roses or onions, the decision belongs to neither but to their common superior.

This truth is not widely taught.

Tortorella Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2021 6:08 p.m. PST

Parzival – didn't you say about Marxism: "today we have people eagerly touting its wonders"?

You must have missed my reply.

I responded that I don't know why this was brought up. I never hear a word about Marxism anywhere except on right wing TV. I mentioned that I have no idea what Mark Levin is talking about and hope I never do.
And then I said "Our slavery conversation just will not come to a conclusion. I believe that a lot of Confederates believed they were fighting for something other than slavery and many conservatives believe this today."

It is not complicated for me. Bubbling underneath everything is slavery, even if some of the participants did not realize it then or later. Or today. There are some good points here and also some smoke. But this conversation will never be finished.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14