| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > States rights and slavery |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > States rights and slavery |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...   |
|
|||||||||||||
| States rights and slavery | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 08:17 pm |
|
42nd Post |
|
Doc C Member 
|
I differ in opinion as to the arguments at the constitutional convention revolveing around big and little states. Again going back to Madison who stated "the states were divided into different interests not by their difference of size but principally from their having or not having slaves......It did not lie between the large and small states: it lay between the Northern and Southern." Franklin and the Pennsylvanian congressional delegation actually introduced a bill, contrary to the afore agreed upon Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 1 of the constitution which forbade congress from passing any law that abolished or restricted slavery until 1808, which would abolish the slave trade and slavery. Doc C
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 08:18 pm |
|
43rd Post |
|
Doc C Member
|
I differ in opinion as to the arguments at the constitutional convention revolveing around big and little states. Again going back to Madison who stated "the states were divided into different interests not by their difference of size but principally from their having or not having slaves......It did not lie between the large and small states: it lay between the Northern and Southern." Franklin and the Pennsylvanian congressional delegation actually introduced a bill, contrary to the afore agreed upon Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 1 of the constitution which forbade congress from passing any law that abolished or restricted slavery until 1808, which would abolish the slave trade and slavery. Doc C
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 01:16 am |
|
44th Post |
|
JoanieReb Member
|
"But aren't we talking about a bias that goes a bit overboard?" Hate to be complicating this thread further, as this thread is complicated and the "author bias" thing seems more of a separate subject, but it only took me a split second to spit out McPherson's name in answer to your "name one" question - as the man is both an icon when it comes to CW history, and has a bias that I consder more than a bit overboard. That is, if you are looking at him as a CW historian, which most people do. As a socialogist specializing in the later half of the 1800's, perhaps not.....but then again, perhaps. Anyway, coming down with bronchocitis I think, I can never adjust to these Michigan winters, and will be taking tomorrow off, so will steep myself in chamomile tea and my defense then. Will fix my bayonet at sunrise, or whenever I feel like rolling out of my blanket. Great thread, Y'All!!!!!!! 
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 02:55 pm |
|
45th Post |
|
David White Member 
|
Ole: To save you the research here is the direct quote/clause from the AoC: Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 04:54 pm |
|
46th Post |
|
ole Member 
|
Thanks for the leg up, Aggie, but I should be looking for a popular vote in a state's ratifying the Constitution. Guess I should also be looking for some tart mustard with which to dress the crow. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 06:47 pm |
|
47th Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
'Madison who stated "the states were divided into different interests not by their difference of size but principally from their having or not having slaves......It did not lie between the large and small states: it lay between the Northern and Southern." ' I may be wrong, but I believe Madison made this comment regarding the various states interests during the debate over apportioning representatives and senators... HankC
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 08:14 pm |
|
48th Post |
|
Doc C Member
|
Hank You're correct that Madison made this statement (28 June 1787) during debates at the Constitutional Convention. However, as evidenced by his quote, his concern was not on apportionment but the apparent and probably unsolvable (in his mind) problem of slavery. Though, he agreed with the north and abolitionists, Madison believed that attempts, which included debates, to resolve this issue at this point in the country's young history would eventually result in the dissolution of the United States, a belief that Washington and other Federalists held. Hence one possible reason for their silence, not because they didn't recognize slavery's presence or evil but b/o the consequences of slavery battle at that time. In addition, the potential solutions to the problem seemed insurmountable - create a biracial society with the freeing of the slaves (inconceivable to southerners and probably a majority of northerners at the time), creation of a separate country for freed slaves in the Caribbean, Africa or western areas of America; or compensating the slave owners for their loss of "property". South Carolina and Georgia did bring up the issue of secession during the debate of Benjamin Franklins and Pennsylvania's bill introduced to Congress but who is to know if it was real or a bluff b/o the passage of the house bill which stated that Congress to have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the states. Doc C
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 01:16 pm |
|
49th Post |
|
PvtClewell Member 
|
Wow, what a thread. In way over my head (I'm speaking in rhyme and I LIKE IT). Feels like a discussion I might have enjoyed in a college history class if I hadn't been playing Ping Pong that day. Good job, all. Never in my entire life did I read the Articles of Confederation until now. Had no reason to, because this conversation usually doesn't come up in the middle of football games. It does give you pause to wonder why secession was addressed in the AofC (that wouldn't be the Army of Connecticut, would it?), but not in the constitution. Now watch me as I skillfully tie two current threads together: I am quoting from that incredibly biased historian James M. McPherson from his collection of essays 'This Mighty Scourge,' in which McPherson is actually quoting an excerpt from James Buchanan's last message to Congress in Dec. 1860, where Buchanan said that the Union "was not a mere voluntary association of States to be dissolved at pleasure.' The founders of the nation 'never intended to implant in its bosom the seeds of its own destruction, nor were they guilty of the absurdity of providing for its own dissolution.' If secession was legitimate, said Buchanan, the Union became 'a rope of sand...The hopes of the friends of freedom throughout the world would be destroyed...Or example for more than eighty years would not only be lost, but it would be quoted as conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government." Buchanan was a great American. Or could have been. Is McPherson biased? The sub-title of this book is 'Perspectives on the Civil War.' If he is showing bias, at least he's up front about it. Perspectives indeed.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 04:01 pm |
|
50th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352 
|
Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew If you're going to read one book on the subject... The words of the men at the time cannot be ignored; they said why they wanted secession and at the heart of it a view as Lincoln being a direct threat to their slaveocracy. Slavery was at the heart of Secession, they said it in various documents w/ no shame in fact they were proud about it.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 07:40 pm |
|
52nd Post |
|
ole Member
|
Gotta love that Lincoln invaded schtick. Somewhere, we forget that the flag of the US of A got somewhat shot up in the early days...before the invasion of Alexandria. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 11:34 pm |
|
54th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
Attacking Ft. Sumter was the worst possible thing for the Confederates to do. It was exactly what Mr. Lincoln hoped that they would do, since it helped him to arouse passions in the north and raise an army. In the end, however, if they had waited Anderson out and he had left, it would have made no difference in the final accounting. Mr. Lincoln was never going to accept secession, so there would have been a war regardless. The NEW YORK TIMES continually referred to Ft. Sumter as: "Ft. Sumpter." Almost a century and a half later, the quality of their product has not improved.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 12:40 am |
|
55th Post |
|
Doc C Member
|
My point in submitting this topic was to initiate a dialogue regarding our founding fathers and their thoughts/responses/or lack thereof, on the question of slavery. I believe that those same debates which occurred generations later had their birth during this early period and that subsequent discussions/debates were just repeat performances, i.e. see Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania, James Jackson of Georgia, William Smith of South Carolina. Doc C
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 12:35 am |
|
56th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
Doc, In placing Madison's comment regarding states intersts in their proper context, it is fairly obvious why the camps divided into slave and not-slave - for that debate, and not for others. Madison was not describing the entire convention - only the portion of it deciding if slaves counted as 1, 0 or 3/5... HankC
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 01:50 am |
|
57th Post |
|
Doc C Member
|
Hank Maybe he was thinking about how slaves were to be counted in terms of population but his real fear and other federalist was that the issue of slavery would destroy or divide the already fragile country. As an aside, went to Mt. Vernon yesterday, a great trip since I'm currently in the revolutionary mode and would be glad to send pics to all who wish, just email me at mjc4321@mjc.com. Doc C
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 12:40 pm |
|
58th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Helped Lincoln to raise an army, exite passions... good lord does everyone conveniently forget Mr Davis calling for 100,000 troops at a point when Lincoln had called for none? 75,000 troops called up AFTER FT Sumter was fired upon. Why does everyone conveniently forget seizing arsenals, ships, mints, forts etc? The CS wanted war, and they got it. They needed war to drag the other slave states into the CS. Were Secession commisioners sent to Illinois or Iowa? No, and why? Because those were not slaveholding states. Look out west & elsewhere in the CS, CS forces were priming for War well before FT Sumter was fired upon. Lincoln & the US the aggressor? Please, that fails to hold water upon even the laziest research. Why was the war fought in the South... you beat the hell out of the enemy in his backyard, not yours. The ACW is merely one more bit of proof that wars are not won my ythe most competant army but by the least incompetant. From logistics to stategic direction the CS was a dismal failure w/ but two shining stars: the fighting man and R.E. Lee and neither were enough to overcome the incompetance of their govt.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 03:37 pm |
|
59th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Johan- The Confederates seized arsenals, ships, mints, forts, etc. because they considered that they were a sovereign nation and could not tolerate the presence of: "foreign" troops and installations on their soil. I have said many times that it was the wrong approach for them to take. My position in my last posting was that war was inevitable even if they had never seized a US arsenal, or a ship, or a mint, or a fort. It was inevitable because the new president of the United States declared that he would not accept secession. Therefore, any approach taken by the Confederates would in the end have not made any difference. Both sides were pathetically unprepared for war, but the north had many inherent advantages (numbers, manufacturing, railroads, ships, and many more). I have previously described the Confederacy as: "Eleven little oligarchies" that continually squabbled with the central government. Of course such an arrangement was not a competent way to run a war. So- who was: "the aggressor?" You can point to the southerners' actions against federal property and maintain that they were. Someone with a different point of view can ask: "Who invaded whom?" Here is a short piece on Virginia in 1861. Virginia: Spring 1861 Your attention is invited to the entry for May 24th. It states: "At 2:00 AM, just hours after Virginia voters had approved secession, 11 regiments of Union soldiers invaded Virginia and began occupying the countryside across the Potomac River from Washington, DC." It does not say: "Virginia secedes and Virginia militia marches on Washington." Militarily, it was in the interests of the Union to invade Virginia. Virginia seceding on May 23rd was the signal to send troops. The U.S. Government clearly considered that it was now fighting a war. We can argue endlessly over which side was the real aggressor, but no purpose would be served by it, because it made no difference. We differ, I think, in that I believe that Mr. Davis was sincere when he said: "We propose no invasion of the north, no attack on them, and ask only to be left alone." However, I also believe that even in 1861, he realized that it would not be so.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 05:16 pm |
|
60th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Militarily, it was in the interests of the Union to invade Virginia. Virginia seceding on May 23rd was the signal to send troops. The U.S. Government clearly considered that it was now fighting a war. As far as it goes, TD, the facts are there. However. Militarily, the Federal Government could not risk leaving a hostile force in possession of the high ground across the Potomac -- the Capitol being within range of Confederate guns. Virginia had amply signalled her intentions when her troops siezed Federal installations (and, for a brief moment, invaded Maryland) before the referendum was approved. But Lincoln did nothing overt before that fact, in which Virgina voted to cast her lot with the other secessionist states all of whom, in effect, declared war by declaring themselves soverign nations and siezing Federal property. To make a short story longer, Lincoln's call for state militias to rush to defend the capital, verged on panic. There were few regulars in Washington City. Of the few militias available to defend the capital, about half were unreliable for various reasons, including hoarding arms to possiblely take over. Lincoln saw an invasion coming. Much like the southern fears for slavery, there wasn't much substance other than perception. If the south's fearful perception can be forgiven, so also ought Lincoln's. (And he had taken an oath to defend the Constitution. I doubt he would have been forgiven inaction if Confederate forces had taken the capital.) But I ramble. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 03:22 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > States rights and slavery | Top |
