"Ty Seidule On Exposing Robert E. Lee, Lost Cause Myths..." Topic

From Blu …

… Secession is founded upon a property rights issue, pure and simple. No mention whatsoever is made of the institution of slavery per se.

And slaves were property, we'll give ya that.

From MB …

… Slavery in 1860 was the essentially the representation of a gulf that had growing between the two sections for two decades. So obviously it plays some role in secession but it was really an effect of a political divide rather than the cause.

Bah … a gulf over slavery, and the idea that southern nationalism was again at play, chicken and egg sort of stuff to me, it was both, the same stuff reviewed during the constitutional convention, and there were those who wanted to keep the states together, and so they compromised to get the form of government that they did.

More eggs of conclusion! If we keep coming up with conclusions, maybe we'll have a dozen more arguments of chickens pop out of their shells. It'll be like the cycle of life.

I have to disagree about the property rights issue standing sort of generically on its own with out a mention of the nature of the property. We all know, as they did then, what the "property" was. The states rights issue was not a generic disagreement over forms of government or lifestyles, it was about the right to uphold slavery as an institution.

Again, maybe the South had the letter of the law on their side, but the great cloud that hung over everything from the birth of the nation was that all men are created equal, therefore how can some be enslaved? No legal loopholes could provide a way around this in the long run. The intent of American founding principles did not allow for slavery, even as it was given a pass.it had to explode sooner or later.

the South ironically wanted freedom from The US while continuing to hold people in slavery. Wanting to keep the right to withhold the rights of others, the self evident truth of the matter, could not last.

It does seem that in several instances, the Lost Cause approach incorporates sanitizing some issues and terms and remaining vague about others.

A falling out over "Property issues" sounds very mild and responsible until we remember that chattel slavery was the property.

Mississippi's secession document helps us out:

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

One does wonder after losing 4 billion dollars ($138,556,144,578.31 in 2022 dollars) worth of slaves what the other property they worried over was; maybe lawn mowers and kitchen appliances?

We'll never know because they didnt think after listing slavery as property worth seceding over that anything else even came a close second.

Remind me, how the South was at risk in 1860 to losing slave property? Slavery was constitutionally protected and lawful (whatever we think about that today.) The South, while now in a minority political position, still had considerable ability to block any changes to both. If you read the SC Convention declaration carefully you will realize that the question of property is marginal to the underlying issue. SC was not leaving the Union because they are afraid of losing their slave property. That was not the issue at hand.

The primary objection in the SC declaration is the compact or contract between the States as exemplified in the Constitution. Either the legal order carries effect or it doesn't. If parties to the constitutional order are not prepared to follow the constitution and the law that comes from it then that makes the compact null and void. Why would SC stay in a system that was hostile to its constitutional and legal interests? The election of Lincoln made it very clear that the Federal government would no longer be a friend to South on a number of matters. While the new Republican administration was walking softly with respect to slavery it was deeply engaged with its economic agenda outlined, in part, in its 1860 platform.

If slavery was not allowed to spread to the territories those territories would eventually enter statehood as free states. After 2/3 of the states were free the constitution could be amended to abolish slavery.
In 1860 Kansas was looking to become a state so the balance was right on the cusp of shifting and would only get worse.

Amending the US constitution requires 2/3 support in both houses of Congress and agreement from 3/4 of the States. A very high bar to meet.

Remind me, how the South was at risk in 1860 to losing slave property? Slavery was constitutionally protected and lawful (whatever we think about that today.)

Me, remind you? These aren't my words, they're the words of the Southern States. I have nothing to do with it.

I know a few people on here maintain that the North and the Republicans were not going to free the slaves but I naturally assumed that to be a sly, one way street argument, used only by pro secession posters when it proved convenient.

But I have no idea why they thought that. Paranoia, Temper tantrum?

Whatever the reason a several of the Southern states seemed to cite it as the reason for secession.

But don't listen to me, Listen to the words of the Great State of Georgia:

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

Wow, the equality of the black and white races, that's some secession justifying stuff right there.

@Murvhill

If slavery was not allowed to spread to the territories those territories would eventually enter statehood as free states. After 2/3 of the states were free the constitution could be amended to abolish slavery.
In 1860 Kansas was looking to become a state so the balance was right on the cusp of shifting and would only get worse.

You realize you are saying that to preserve slavery from eventual abolition, the slave states had to secede? I mean, to preserve what they were.

Again Aux pas de Charge you are cherry picking the Georgian Declaration of Secession in the same way that you cherry picked the SC declaration. This is a very long document that goes into great detail both the history of the Republic, the constitutional issues, the crisis of Lincoln's election and the decision of the Georgian Convention to secede from the Union.

As I said above, the issue of Secession has nothing directly to do with slavery per se. There was no risk to slave property in Georgia or any other southern state in 1860 or in the near or medium future. I didn't read anything in the Georgian declaration to suggest that imminent risk of slave property was the reason they were seceding from the Union. The institution of slavery in Georgia was not in immediate imperil because of Lincoln's election. In fact, it seems to be the unlawful exclusion of slavery from the Territories that was the primary issue around slavery in the two Secession documents that we've looked at. This was understood by Georgia and SC as the fundamental breaking of the compact that gave rise to the United States of America.

If you noted, there was considerable grievance in the Georgia declaration that the Southern States were funding the Federal government to great extent against their own interests (for instance with merchant marine restrictions that raised the price of shipping of cargo.) One interesting detail in 1860 was that 9 or the 10 wealthiest states were Southern and they were more than proportionally bearing the cost of the Federal government. Why stay in a system that is hostile to your State's best interests as you perceive it?

One final note. If I want to be faithful to history then I need to let the voices of the past speak their own truth and not impose my value system on them. I find you and a few others conflating your own views and the values of our current age on an older time. I don't think that does justice to history. As I mentioned before, we need to listen sympathetically to the voices of the past and not scapegoat the past by imposing our value systems on them. Let's not create strawmen out of Southern voices and then think we are doing something noble by knocking them over.

@Marcus brutusa

I am cherry picking? So, you're suggesting that $3,000,000,000 USD of slaves being restricted from spreading into the new territories and ultimately targeted for liberation isn't a big concern but heightened cargo prices were something to secede and fight over?

Besides that got overturned.

Are you suggesting that the South gets to leave whenever it doesnt get what it wants? Is that the way things work in a country? Are you alright with any group pulling away and rising up if they don't like something?

Doesnt sound to me that Georgia thinks this way:

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

Let me see if I have this straight. Georgia has the right to secede and then rebel but slaves who dont like what they've got trying to escape or rebel is an outrage?

Take a look at the only property value mentioned by Georgia:

But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 USD of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides.

Why do they put a price on the value of slaves but no numbers for this cargo business? Is it in the trillions? Or is it just too awful, a tariff that dare not speak its name?

I am judging them by my own times? I'm using their words. Am I now responsible for those? Using their words isn't fair to them?

Me, conflate? That's not a charge I can take seriously from a person who thinks referring to the Southern Poverty Law Center delegitimizes being a republican but neo-confederates are the genuine article.That sort of confusion is just short of blither. Lincoln would do a spit take.

But at least you managed to work in and misuse "strawmen" again, so kudos.

I don't think that does justice to history. As I mentioned before, we need to listen sympathetically to the voices of the past and not scapegoat the past by imposing our value systems on them

One more thing. I have respect for the Confederates. When it came to self interest, greed, white supremacy, slavery and good, old fashioned American shortsightedness they were loud and proud. None of your sniveling Lost Cause pablum. Oh look, it's not slavery it's states rights, its not states rights it's tariffs, it's not tariffs it's preventing property (not slaves) to be taken from them.

If it's not "noble to knock over strawmen" of past voices, is it "noble" to slobber all over them like you're doing, Brutus?

It seems to me that your weird fixation on defending the honor of long dead secessionists is just as misguided as what you accuse us of. I assure you, Jefferson Davis will not go on a date with you.

MB is the same poster who posted the link to the video of the guy giving the chat who is espousing that the South secede again now. So yes, not surprising that MB's "cherry picking" what he wants to read and talk about, just like the guy in the video that he linked. And it's just as wacky to think that slavery was only "incidental" to the war and the South's secession at that time. However, I'll give him some credit, he's demonstrating Southern nationalism today, just as the dude in the video is doing as well. It is alive and well, being propagated on at best weakly linked ideas, if linked at all, which doesn't appear to be the case, and mixed with plenty of attempt to use such in support of the nationalism that is desired. At the same time, it deflects and draws away from what was being written about by the guy who wrote the book that is referenced in the original post. MB's actions are at least similar to the "lost cause" crud.

There is no immediate threat to Southern slave property in 1860. That is not the issue of Secession. This was a constitutionally protect institution whatever we think about it today. Doesn't matter how big the value is. It could be 3 trillion dollars.

GP, ad hominem attacks are really a sign of the poverty of your own position.

It seems to me that your weird fixation on defending the honor of long dead secessionists is just as misguided as what you accuse us of. I assure you, Jefferson Davis will not go on a date with you.

No, what I object to is mischaracterizing the past by imposing upon it values and sensibilities of a later time. I do think many of you who post on this subject have attempted to create a strawman view of the South in 1860. That is consistent with the way you generally form an argument from my observation. Mischaracterize and then try to knock down. I have seen this first hand in the ways that you have attempted to mispresent what I am saying.

Marcus, I think I understand where you are coming from and while I don't agree, I find that I have had to double check a lot of the secession docs.

Yes there were legal questions and cultural differences between north and south. But IMO Slavery was foundational regarding these differences. Cultural differences remain, and northern racism has been as vehement at times as southern. But slavery is not some sidebar here. It was related to everything the south believed about its rights.

The Cornerstone speech is a significant manifestation of the South's position at the time and helps form the contemporary point of view of the power elites, who orchestrated the rebellion. It is what is is. Many poor whites would have aspired to own slaves as a cultural mark of status. This has been suggested by scholars and comes up in letters,I believe. That is what it meant by their standards in those times. That is who they were. Too long ago to judge or blame, but not too long ago for learning for today.

Can you imagine such a huge gap between cultures, such fierce hatred and anger between regions, such a willingness to fight such a brutal war to the finish, if there had been no slavery in the south?

Tort,
"can you imagine such a huge gape……."

Unfortunately yes. I see way too much of it today. Last night was a perfect example. Just like Capital Hill, Portland, Milwaukee….

Subject: "Burn It All Down!" – Democrats, Leftists Call for Violence Following Leaked SCOTUS Abortion Ruling


link

FYI, leaks like this, although very, very, very rare, are not Unprecedented. Guess when the first appeared?

"In the mid-19th Century, the New York Tribune published three Supreme Court opinions before they were officially released. The first came in 1852 when the publication released the results of Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company ten days before the official decision was released. When that same case came back to the court a few years later, the Tribune again published their decision before the court was able to announce it.

The Tribune was at it again later that year, publishing details on deliberations in the infamous Case Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford as they occurred. "

MB is the same poster who posted the link to the video of the guy giving the chat who is espousing that the South secede again now. So yes, not surprising that MB's "cherry picking" what he wants to read and talk about, just like the guy in the video that he linked. And it's just as wacky to think that slavery was only "incidental" to the war and the South's secession at that time. However, I'll give him some credit, he's demonstrating Southern nationalism today, just as the dude in the video is doing as well. It is alive and well, being propagated on at best weakly linked ideas, if linked at all, which doesn't appear to be the case, and mixed with plenty of attempt to use such in support of the nationalism that is desired. At the same time, it deflects and draws away from what was being written about by the guy who wrote the book that is referenced in the original post. MB's actions are at least similar to the "lost cause" crud.

GP, ad hominem attacks are really a sign of the poverty of your own position.

Oh my, another conclusion. What I've done is … see the pattern of your actions on this thread, and pointed them out for what they can bring us as a conclusion. I can't help it if you're the individual that is responsible for your actions. Shifting the blame doesn't make ya accurate on your conclusion, and merely deflects from the actions that you've demonstrated leading to the conclusion provided.

More from MB …

There is no immediate threat to Southern slave property in 1860. That is not the issue of Secession. This was a constitutionally protect institution whatever we think about it today. Doesn't matter how big the value is. It could be 3 trillion dollars.

I see … so no need for any them to mention slavery in their declarations of secession, even though they did … things that make ya go hmmm … YouTube link

Tort,
"can you imagine such a huge gape……."
Unfortunately yes. I see way too much of it today. Last night was a perfect example. Just like Capital Hill, Portland, Milwaukee….

Subject: "Burn It All Down!" – Democrats, Leftists Call for Violence Following Leaked SCOTUS Abortion Ruling

link

Your imagination is running off your stream of consciousness again. Slow down and give even an inkling of thought before posting such things because … even though there will be extreme left Democrats calling for crud over abortion, it doesn't mean that calling for such action is correct, anymore than it was correct for the Southern leaders to call for succession and then proceed to fire on Ft. Sumner.

@ Marcus Brutus

There is no immediate threat to Southern slave property in 1860. That is not the issue of Secession. This was a constitutionally protect institution whatever we think about it today. Doesn't matter how big the value is. It could be 3 trillion dollars.

I don't know that there was an immediate threat to slavery itself. However, the South seems to have thought so. Every one of the secession documents that fleshed out the reasons mentions that slavery itself was targeted for termination. Thus, it isn't my opinion or fact, it may not even be fact but it was definitely the South's opinion.

I suppose because they believed the Federal government wasnt enforcing the fugitive slave act or allowing slaves into the territories they couldve been assigning motive and actions to the Federal govt that the ultimate goal was to also abolish slavery throughout the nation. Now that's a classic straw man argument. I'm actually surprised and a little disappointed that the one time you couldve asserted a straw man argument, you missed your opportunity.

You say that the value of the slaves doesnt matter but the South did. They mention it and really the value of nothing else. Did they include things in these secession documents that didnt matter?

I dont see how I am not following the record. If anything, you are dismissing the record because of inconvenient facts.

Unfortunately yes. I see way too much of it today. Last night was a perfect example. Just like Capital Hill, Portland, Milwaukee….

Subject: "Burn It All Down!" – Democrats, Leftists Call for Violence Following Leaked SCOTUS Abortion Ruling


The Gateway Pundit? One tweet and it's a national riot? I assume that this was linked for it's comic unreliability and irresponsibility? Rather like the National Enquirer but where the writers dont realize that inventing news is dishonest?

In any case, source aside, are you saying that it is OK for people to burn it all down if they dont get the SCOTUS decision they want?

GP just pointing out the outrage exists on both sides today, unlike anytime in my lifetime. You may not see it in New England. I see it in the Midwest and South. I see it on the news elsewhere. Saw it this week with the black clad ANTIFA attack on a Republican rally in Portland with smoke bombs and fireworks with 2 injured. Tort made the statement that he had not seen anything like that, I was pointing out it is happening again. Disregard, it matters not to me.

Au Pas, be serious. You know that is EXACTLY NOT what I am saying. As with GP, feel free to disregard, I mean it is NOT from one of your accepted sources. Those same sources that said the Vaccine prevented you from catching Covid. It stopped you from spreading COVID. Masks prevent you from catching COVID. The Hunter Biden laptop was not real. Donald Trump paid prostitutes to pee on a bed Obama slept in. Russian collusion was real. Etc,.etc. So please, keep believing YOUR sources. I am sure there are some Ostrich's out there you can hide your head next too. 🤣🤣

No, what I object to is mischaracterizing the past by imposing upon it values and sensibilities of a later time. I do think many of you who post on this subject have attempted to create a strawman view of the South in 1860. That is consistent with the way you generally form an argument from my observation. Mischaracterize and then try to knock down. I have seen this first hand in the ways that you have attempted to mispresent what I am saying.

Misrepresent what you are saying? I dont know that this can be true if for no other reason than you present no consistency in your approach to this. Rather, you appear to use whatever excuse gets you out a particular confederate jam.

For the record, I dont dislike the South, I dont dislike the confederacy and I dont dislike honesty. I am examining the South's motives based on their views, not my own. Your follow up cannot be because you find it makes them look bad against your own wistful views about the Old South to then respond by saying that I am the one misrepresenting them.

To be clear, I have no issues with the Confederacy, it is the Lost Causers I find offensive.

I have said, the South's leaders did what they did and were proud of it. One hundred percent pure dedication to their own feudal interests and slave economy. They employed the purest form of immature "why should I?" thinking that I am aware of. They were 100% racist, knew it and were loving it. They knew the value of a chattel slave and apologized to no one. That my friend is a people who knew who they were and what they wanted. FREEDOM!

Whereas it is the Lost Cause myth folks who have to jump from Lilly pad to Lilly pad trying to connect incongruous events and frequently trying to use the same facts to sometime argue one thing and then a few moments later use it to argue the opposite.

In addition, this Lost Cause argument deploys denial of the written record and then accuses everyone else of misquotes and, dare I say it, Straw Men?

Further, while accusing others of judging the Confederates by todays moral standards, the people suffering from Lost Cause Syndrome (LCS) dont seem to realize they themselves frequently promote arguments in defense of secession and war which the Old South itself never made on its own behalf. However this doesnt stop the LCS sufferers from magically ascribing these reasons and defenses to the men of 1860.

Finally, when they can't answer a question, cant face an inconvenient fact or find themselves backed into a confederate corner, they then figuratively throw themselves on the ground and kicking and wailing, asking why people hate the South or them?

In short, the Lost Cause is a never ending "Who's on First" dystopia which in turn creates the sort of hilarious "Old Southern Colonel" imagery associated with an American Don Quixote.

GP just pointing out the outrage exists on both sides today, unlike anytime in my lifetime. You may not see it in New England. I see it in the Midwest and South. I see it on the news elsewhere. Saw it this week with the black clad ANTIFA attack on a Republican rally in Portland with smoke bombs and fireworks with 2 injured. Tort made the statement that he had not seen anything like that, I was pointing out it is happening again. Disregard, it matters not to me.

OVI … its your linking of crud to crud without giving it a long enough thought before spouting your own crud. Here's the deal dude … ready, wait for it … it's too good to not be true … ready? Two wrongs don't make a right. Except of course when its running off the top of your consciousness with out thinking before you write. I'm not disregarding your comments, past or present, and here's another example … you've wanted us to be truthful, ok … when the bad idea is bad, it's horrid, no matter who is doing the crud.

Au Pas, be serious. You know that is EXACTLY NOT what I am saying. As with GP, feel free to disregard, I mean it is NOT from one of your accepted sources.

Am I to understand then that you think the South's secession was wrong? Not just in the sense that it didnt work out for them but also in the sense that it isnt the sort of behavior civilized people engage in just because they dont get their way?

Can you imagine such a huge gap between cultures, such fierce hatred and anger between regions, such a willingness to fight such a brutal war to the finish, if there had been no slavery in the south?

I am Canadian with a real interest in US history. The idea that I am proponent of the Lost Cause or an apologist for the South is laughable.

It is hard to argue a counter factual but I can tell that the risk of Secession can develop independent of slavery. In Canada we are constantly having to deal with Quebec secession. There is certainly a deep cultural divide between English and French speaking Canada. It has nothing to do with slavery directly but there are claims of oppression that surface every so often. It seems to me that there was a powerful cultural divide between the North and South in the 19th century. Is it possible that the South could have felt oppressed by the North independent of slavery? I think so. My suspicion is that slavery became a kind of gestalt in the South for a much deeper feeling of oppression.

MB +1 on your last post.

My last posts in relation to Tort's had nothing to do with slavery, but was in answer to these lines:

"Can you imagine such a huge gap between cultures, such fierce hatred and anger between regions, such a willingness to fight such a brutal war to the finish"

To make it clear to those who miss understand or intentionally miss understand.
Yes Tort, I can imagine it. I believe we have been seeing it building for over 20 years, but it has gotten progressively worse in the last almost 6 years. There is a divide in this country the likes of which I do not believe we have seen since the times of the Civil War. It is both regional and political. It is between many of the big cities and the rest of the country. I threw two recent examples out. Those are not in a vacuum. Yes that divide is fueled by the media of both sides. Just read some of the threads in TMP related to subjects that deal with current events for examples. Tort I know you can vouch for the last, as we both have been in some.

FYI, I don't see that MB would have a vested interest in defending the lost cause, he is neither southern or from the US. I personally don't believe in it, but if someone wants to, it doesn't faze me in the least. I have meant southerners who do and most are pretty decent people.

"Crud" isn't that what you get a the bottom of a cheap bottle of wine. I being no expert on wine, nor can even stand it, will have to defer to your expertise.

I can accept that there would be differences, it's a big country, settled by many cultural groups over the years.

The divide is terrible, it threatens all that we stand for as Americans. We are too emotional now to step back, understand, listen to each other. The media has completely lost any integrity it might have had in pursuit of ratings. Ignorance and lies are fuel for the fire. This is not like the Civil War, this is a self inflicted wound, driven by power and greed of a few.

But worst of all, not a single leader of stature with the character and moral standing to undo the damage and lead ALL of us. We will survive, I hope, but not until that kid in the 8th grade who sees beyond the garbage we are buriying ourselves in becomes the President. IMO.

Tort, agree with most of what what you say. Not sure I trust that 8th grader. 😉

OVI … how short your memory is, and so therefore here is an example of your original crud only a few posts back from your questioning of crud …

Tort,
"can you imagine such a huge gape……."
Unfortunately yes. I see way too much of it today. Last night was a perfect example. Just like Capital Hill, Portland, Milwaukee….
Subject: "Burn It All Down!" – Democrats, Leftists Call for Violence Following Leaked SCOTUS Abortion Ruling

link

And here was my reply …

Your imagination is running off your stream of consciousness again. Slow down and give even an inkling of thought before posting such things because … even though there will be extreme left Democrats calling for crud over abortion, it doesn't mean that calling for such action is correct, anymore than it was correct for the Southern leaders to call for succession and then proceed to fire on Ft. Sumner.

And as for MB having a vested interest or not, he's been defending it on this thread, whether or not he does. However, your defending it isn't any better. Instead of wine, enjoy a cup of coffee, eat healthy, exercise regularly, get enough rest, and stimulate your mind to forge new pathways.

@OVI35th

Perhaps accidentally but your reference to the potential overturning of Roe brought up an interesting point. Do people who feel like their rights are threatened by a minority or a majority have the right to secede, rebel, rise up against the country?

In addition, who possesses the right to secede or rebel?

Do you believe that slaves have the right to escape, rise up or kill their masters?

FYI, I don't see that MB would have a vested interest in defending the lost cause, he is neither southern or from the US.

Interesting because several of his points and comments have gotten personal, he has also engaged in accusing people of having certain beliefs or being (or not being) certain things. Do you have to be Southern or even American to hold Lost Cause views?

I personally don't believe in it, but if someone wants to, it doesn't faze me in the least. I have meant southerners who do and most are pretty decent people.

What if you met someone who thought the South was treated far too leniently, that the population shouldve been either moved off the land or given to free blacks to be their slaves for a generation? Could they also be decent people?

Au Pas

I have said that the one thing I agreed with the South about, was the right to succeed. So if enough feel Disenfranchised, then yes I believe they have the right to succeed. I may not agree with their reasons, be it slavery or the right to kill babies. But I believe it is their right.

A slave has the right to fight against his slavery. Does he have a right by law? Is that what you ask? Obviously by law of the land they are enslaved in, no. But they have their own right to do so.

I have talked to those who believe the South was treated too Leniently. They can be as extreme as those of the "extreme" lost cause people. There are extremes on both end. The extremest would be the ones advocating the movement of Southerners off their land and giving it to free blacks. Most who believe the North was to Lenient are not bad. But they have been few in number in my personal experiences.

I will let MB answer for himself.

Now Au Pas I have answered your questions again. Please try and not miss interrupt what I say in the future and give fair responses to my questions in the future.

GP, I have no idea what you said in that last post. My original post holds a partial line of Torts paragraph instead of his whole original post I.e. the …. I did not want to retype the whole paragraph. I then in a separate entry tried to explain again what my meaning was, even Quoting Torts whole paragraph. Obviously Tort understood my Intent, maybe he can explain it to you. Please try and understand what I am saying, before going into reaction mode.

"Do people who feel like their rights are threatened by a minority or a majority have the right to secede, rebel, rise up against the country?"

Er, isn't that exactly what happened in 1775? And established a sort of precedent for what happened in 1861…

Er, isn't that exactly what happened in 1775? And established a sort of precedent for what happened in 1861…

Not quite. But I didnt ask whether it happened, I asked if he felt people have the right to do so under the US Constitution.

Feel free to give your view as well.

The leadership crisis may be the worst in our history, building up for the last three decades or so, worsening as we fall into disarray. By splitting us into factions we are more easily controlled. No branch of government is immune from this kind of manipulation. Culture wars are portrayed as governance.We decline to discuss our differences. Washington is like some sort of weird carnival these last few years or so.
Does this rise to the level of the slavery question in the leadup to 1860?

Au Pas, fair question, do you?

OVI … go slow, read, relax, process, instead of "going into reaction mode", and then your unnecessary, undecipherable, cruddy mess of an explanation wouldn't need to be provided. Perhaps it is just avoidance, deflection, and inappropriateness, although that wouldn't be surprising either. A cup of coffee, eating healthy, regular exercise, getting enough rest, those are the kinds of things that could help, while stimulating your mind to forge new pathways.

(GP … you're repeating yourself.)

Mr. Conscience … sometimes folks can learn through repetition, although suspect some never do, and thus why folks have to be on the lookout for more of that "lost cause" crud espoused by some here even on this thread. Sort of like what that guy who wrote the book that was referred to in the original post of the thread is countering with his writing.

Tort, I believe it could. One hopes not,

GP if I am such a burr under your saddle, Ignore me. But alas, you can't. So obviously "crud" or not, it must be hitting that sore spot.

Your sore spot, your feelings are your responsibility, not mine. The question is whether or not you're willing to be honest with your healing from the support of the "lost cause" stuff or choose to keep spreading your crud.

Aaaahhhhhhhhhhggg!!!!!!

Again GP, you accuse me of something I did not espouse, an agreement with the lost cause. I just do not feel the need to degrade those who might. My beliefs are not so shallow that i feel a need to degrade them. I also refuse to judge those of their times, by our mores and emotions. The only thing I have agreed to has been the right of succession.

Hi Tort/OVI,
I suggest that you consider not wasting any more of your valuable time with these gentlemen. They are lost causes.

B

Au Pas, fair question, do you?

These are interesting questions. I havent thought them through completely and there is some complexity involved but for the sake of an answer, here:

I don't think States have the right to secede; not then and not now. I do think that States can be removed by the other states via a Constitutional amendment.

I am not quite convinced that the South uniformly believed they had the right to secede, they seemed to expend a lot of ink justifying the action. However, at the time, it seems likely that many in the North were not sure themselves whether secession was legal.

Under the Constitution, if you dont get what you want, you have the right to protest and lobby.

There is a difference between when a law isnt giving you something that you want and when it is immoral. A law you find burdensome should be worked against but an immoral law can be disregarded.However, unless I havent thought of an exception, an immoral law still doesnt justify secession or organized violence; just noncompliance.

I believe that slaves have the right to rise up, escape and ultimately do violence to their oppressors. I dont know that violence is something I wouldve have wished to have happen but certainly the South created militias to prevent this possibility which was at least partially projection; that if they themselves were slaves, they would naturally rise up and do violence.

Thanks Blutarski. It does not bother me. I just pretend I am the only conservative on "The View". 😉

Au Pas
A fair response.

You don't agree with succession being legal. That's fine, you are entitled to your view, as I am to mine. We disagree, but no issues with that.

I agree, the South was not uniform in that belief. It was extremely opposed by the mountainous areas of many Southern states. Causing one part of a state to succeed from their own state and become their own state. The South had to expend troops to subjugate rebellion in some of those areas. There were Southern states which initially opposed succession and did not join the Confederacy until the North took military action. Yes there were those in the North who believed succession was legal. There were those in the North who were pro Confederacy, "Copperheads".

Yes we agree, slaves have a self given right to revolt against their slavery, it is rarely successful, but they have the right to try. We know that, that rebellion is not sanctioned by the government that enslaves them. Those Assisting those slaves to revolt, are breaking the law. But as long as they both understand the Consequences and results of their actions, they have the personal right to try.

Both State sovereignty and Union were strong sentiments in the 1780s. The idea that the States either hanged together or hanged by themselves probably still had strong currency in 1860. The notion of Union was still strong in the South. Witness Lee's own struggle of country versus state.

There was considerable concern amongst the Secession leaders in the South that given enough time and some sober second thought some of the States would rescind their secession declarations. People got caught up in the emotion of the 1860 election and allowed something to happen that in hindsight that could easily be recognized as a mistake. I think this one of the reasons for the attack at Fort Sumter by the Secessionist hotheads. They wanted to create an unalterable divide between North and South. And they succeeded.

Excellent points MB, deserves far more consideration.

Your have made a reasonable assessment. I might go farther. Maybe the Confederacy was a radical, reactionary insurgency, sold to much of the general public as northern invasion propaganda or culture salvation.maybe it was about hanging on to the wealth of the elites.

As such it may relate more strongly to todays divide than we think. I am throwing this out there, but as something I had not really thought about or looked into.