Celebrating Secession?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The real reason Lincoln stopped the south from seceding was purely financial. The Union stood to lose a lot of tax revenue if the south seceded. It was never about ending slavery but rather about retaining power in Washington.

Every person or group of persons should have the right to secede from any level of government that they wish.[/quote]

Well, I would believe you except for one thing: not once in any speech Lincoln ever made or in any letter he ever wrote did he ever say that he went to war for financial reasons. You’re simply projecting your own suspicions onto him with this assumption.[/quote]

He did however repeatedly and specifically state that he did not care about slavery, one way or the other.

[/quote]

Not correct, he abhorred slavery but he put preserving the union above his desire to end slavery.

Slavery was THE core issue of the Civil War. The southern states succeeded because they knew the end of slavery was coming and they would be at a huge economic disadvantage without slavery.

The legality of secession and Lincoln’s response are debatable but the facts are not.

22

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The real reason Lincoln stopped the south from seceding was purely financial. The Union stood to lose a lot of tax revenue if the south seceded. It was never about ending slavery but rather about retaining power in Washington.

Every person or group of persons should have the right to secede from any level of government that they wish.[/quote]

Well, I would believe you except for one thing: not once in any speech Lincoln ever made or in any letter he ever wrote did he ever say that he went to war for financial reasons. You’re simply projecting your own suspicions onto him with this assumption.[/quote]

He did however repeatedly and specifically state that he did not care about slavery, one way or the other.

[/quote]
Only up until about 1862. After that he changed his tune.

This whole thread is starting to sound very familiar. Myself, Pushharder, Bill Roberts, Thunderbolt and a few others debated these issues back and forth ad nauseum in a thread titled “Jefferson vs. Lincoln” about a year ago.

Secession is not and was not legal. The Supreme Court decided as much in 1869. Is this simply a legal opinion? Sure, but it is a legal opinion that has never been even remotely successfully challenged. And no opinion regarding the interpretation of the Constitution from ANYONE on this site carries more weight than those of the Supreme Court.

Look, does the Constitution say that we should rise up and overthrow our govt when it no longer works for us? Yes. But that is NOT what the South did. They did not overthrow the old govt, nor did secession make any attempt to do so. They simply left the Union. There is a difference. The entire country benefited from the cotton industry in the South and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows a few states to remove that source of money from the rest of the country by circumventing the democratic process.

California provides the country with about half of all its agriculture. So the entire country has a stake in California’s economy. We here have the right to determine how that industry runs to a certain extent, but we do not and never have had the right to remove that source of food from the rest of the country. If California were to secede, or any other state for that matter, it is NOT an attempt to overthrow or put in place a new federal govt. It is simply an abandonment of the govt and the rest of the country.

Also, regarding Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, kangaroo courts and so forth: the Constitution specifically grants the President the power to do so in the face of invasion/attack from an enemy, whether foreign or domestic, and to also do so in order to combat treason. Did Lincoln stretch the meaning of these powers? Most certainly. But he did so to end slavery, because he knew that ending slavery would end the war. His primary goal as President, once the first 7 states seceded, was to bring the Union back together as one country. The Constitution specifically charges the President with the job of maintaining the Union, so Lincoln felt that it was his duty to do just that. Ending slavery everywhere in the U.S. was the key to accomplishing this. Furthermore, if ending slavery required that he wipe his fucking ass with the Constitution, then so be it. Human life/freedom is more important than even the document which purportedly exists to protect those very things.

23

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Doesn’t matter. Ultimately it was justified with emancipation.[/quote]

That is really the best one can say about Lincoln.

He kind of stumbled into freeing American slaves and all it took him was the suspension of habeas corpus, cangooroo courts, the execution of people disagreeing with him and killing 600000 of his own citizens even though everywhere else it was acieved without too much bloodshed.

Wicked job!

[/quote]

^this.

24

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The real reason Lincoln stopped the south from seceding was purely financial. The Union stood to lose a lot of tax revenue if the south seceded. It was never about ending slavery but rather about retaining power in Washington.

Every person or group of persons should have the right to secede from any level of government that they wish.[/quote]

Well, I would believe you except for one thing: not once in any speech Lincoln ever made or in any letter he ever wrote did he ever say that he went to war for financial reasons. You’re simply projecting your own suspicions onto him with this assumption.[/quote]

He did however repeatedly and specifically state that he did not care about slavery, one way or the other.

[/quote]

Not correct, he abhorred slavery but he put preserving the union above his desire to end slavery.

Slavery was THE core issue of the Civil War. The southern states succeeded because they knew the end of slavery was coming and they would be at a huge economic disadvantage without slavery.

The legality of secession and Lincoln’s response are debatable but the facts are not. [/quote]

Actually, Orion is correct, somewhat. Lincoln did say that he would just as soon preserve slavery if it meant preserving the Union. He also at one point advocated a separation of the races. But these things that he said disregard the timeline in which he said them. Most of the language he used tha supports Orion’s argument was between 1858 and 1861-62. By 1862, Lincoln had come to understand that the only way to realize his primary goal (preserving the Union) would be to end slavery. He abhorred slavery once he came to this realization because he understood that the institution of slavery was THE issue keeping the nation divided.

25

The constitution builds on the DOI. And it is the DOI that gave birth to it.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Besides if it is the constitution that was the end all be all contract of the government, slavery was protected.

The notion that the constitution invalidates the right of a people to dissolve political bonds is dumb.

26

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The real reason Lincoln stopped the south from seceding was purely financial. The Union stood to lose a lot of tax revenue if the south seceded. It was never about ending slavery but rather about retaining power in Washington.

Every person or group of persons should have the right to secede from any level of government that they wish.[/quote]

Well, I would believe you except for one thing: not once in any speech Lincoln ever made or in any letter he ever wrote did he ever say that he went to war for financial reasons. You’re simply projecting your own suspicions onto him with this assumption.[/quote]

He did however repeatedly and specifically state that he did not care about slavery, one way or the other.

[/quote]

Not correct, he abhorred slavery but he put preserving the union above his desire to end slavery.

Slavery was THE core issue of the Civil War. The southern states succeeded because they knew the end of slavery was coming and they would be at a huge economic disadvantage without slavery.

The legality of secession and Lincoln’s response are debatable but the facts are not. [/quote]

Actually, Orion is correct, somewhat. Lincoln did say that he would just as soon preserve slavery if it meant preserving the Union. He also at one point advocated a separation of the races. But these things that he said disregard the timeline in which he said them. Most of the language he used tha supports Orion’s argument was between 1858 and 1861-62. By 1862, Lincoln had come to understand that the only way to realize his primary goal (preserving the Union) would be to end slavery. He abhorred slavery once he came to this realization because he understood that the institution of slavery was THE issue keeping the nation divided. [/quote]

The issue that divided the country was economic base. Period. Slavery is a part of that, but only a part.

27

[quote]CubanMeat32 wrote:
“Not everyone is on board with this program, of course. The N.A.A.C.P., for one, plans to protest some of these events, saying that celebrating secession is tantamount to celebrating slavery.”

This is from the article, I agree with this, it is pretty difficult to acknowledge the secession without thinking about the slavery piece, nearly impossible, at least for me. [/quote]

Exactly. The bottom line is that the South seceded to preserve slavery, and then couched this attempt in terms of “states’ rights”. Secession was hardly some magnanimous movement; it was nothing more than an abandonment of the rest of the country in order to preserve slavery. So is it “right” to celebrate secession? I think not.

And this celebration isn’t even really about Southern pride, either. Most people in the South did not want to fight this war in the first place. It was a rich man’s war fought by the poor in order to preserve their abominable source of revenue: slave labor. The truth is that most S’erners did not own slaves nor did they care to see a war fought in order to preserve this horrific institution. Beyond that, once things became destitute in the South due to a severe scarcity of basic food products, many S’erners who had bought their way out of the war snatched up huge amounts of commodities such as tobacco, coffee, flour, meat, etc and then stockpiled it until they could charge inexorbitant prices when their fellow S’erners had nowhere else to get these things. Hardly Southern pride. I’m not saying Southern pride today is a fallacy; it most certainly isn’t and S’erners have very reason to be proud of where they are from, but to say that this celebration of secession is an extension of Southern pride from the Civil War era is simply ignorant.

28

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The real reason Lincoln stopped the south from seceding was purely financial. The Union stood to lose a lot of tax revenue if the south seceded. It was never about ending slavery but rather about retaining power in Washington.

Every person or group of persons should have the right to secede from any level of government that they wish.[/quote]

Well, I would believe you except for one thing: not once in any speech Lincoln ever made or in any letter he ever wrote did he ever say that he went to war for financial reasons. You’re simply projecting your own suspicions onto him with this assumption.[/quote]

He did however repeatedly and specifically state that he did not care about slavery, one way or the other.

[/quote]

Not correct, he abhorred slavery but he put preserving the union above his desire to end slavery.

Slavery was THE core issue of the Civil War. The southern states succeeded because they knew the end of slavery was coming and they would be at a huge economic disadvantage without slavery.

The legality of secession and Lincoln’s response are debatable but the facts are not. [/quote]

Actually, Orion is correct, somewhat. Lincoln did say that he would just as soon preserve slavery if it meant preserving the Union. He also at one point advocated a separation of the races. But these things that he said disregard the timeline in which he said them. Most of the language he used tha supports Orion’s argument was between 1858 and 1861-62. By 1862, Lincoln had come to understand that the only way to realize his primary goal (preserving the Union) would be to end slavery. He abhorred slavery once he came to this realization because he understood that the institution of slavery was THE issue keeping the nation divided. [/quote]

He is incorrect. Before the election Lincoln wrote and spoke of ending slavery. He thought it was an atrocity. Yes he wanted to separate the races and he thought bringing African slaves over was a horrible mistake.

He did not want to emancipate the slaves directly because it would have destroyed the Union.

He wanted to block slavery from the Territories and isolate it in the South. He hoped it could end within 20 years without war.

His first priority was keeping the country together but don’t let anyone tell you he did not care about slavery.

29

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The constitution builds on the DOI. And it is the DOI that gave birth to it.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Besides if it is the constitution that was the end all be all contract of the government, slavery was protected.

The notion that the constitution invalidates the right of a people to dissolve political bonds is dumb.[/quote]

To say that the South was justified in their actions because ending slavery was a threat to their unalienable rights is correct. But only if you concede that this right was of more importance than the North’s right to end slavery, an institution that also was a threat to the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness to those slaves. So whose unalienable rights were more important? The right to not be enslaved or the “right” to choose from state to state to preserve slavery?

Beyond that, the South did NOT make any attempt whatsoever to alter or abolish the federal govt, nor did they form a new govt that replaced this govt. They simply left. I mean come on. What’s more important here? Preserving personal freedom and liberty or preserving the “right” to make money at the expense of an entire race of enslaved people? You can apply the Constitution to both sides of this equation, but when to do so puts the sides in conflict with each other, do you err on the side of ending slavery or preserving an economical system that depends on slavery?

30

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…not once in any speech Lincoln ever made or in any letter he ever wrote did he ever say that he went to war for financial reasons.[/quote]

Governments fight wars for financial/economic reasons. It has always been this way and always be. The only debate is whether Lincoln did so to help out Northern industry or, as Lifticus pointed out, to keep the tax revenue coming in from the Southern States.

And it doesn’t matter if Lincoln ever mentioned it or not. What’s good for the State is good for big business. It’s simply how the system works.

31

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

Is it not slavery to make one race superior to the other while blocking the voice of the “inferior” and denying many god given rights?

It can not be said that Lincoln (and almost all whites of the day) were at heart against slavery. Some just wanted a nicer form of it.

I have no problem condemning the horrible wrongness of slavery in the south. I just have a problem with people thinking the state and people of the north were that much different.

32

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The constitution builds on the DOI. And it is the DOI that gave birth to it.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Besides if it is the constitution that was the end all be all contract of the government, slavery was protected.

The notion that the constitution invalidates the right of a people to dissolve political bonds is dumb.[/quote]

To say that the South was justified in their actions because ending slavery was a threat to their unalienable rights is correct. But only if you concede that this right was of more importance than the North’s right to end slavery, an institution that also was a threat to the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness to those slaves. So whose unalienable rights were more important? The right to not be enslaved or the “right” to choose from state to state to preserve slavery?

Beyond that, the South did NOT make any attempt whatsoever to alter or abolish the federal govt, nor did they form a new govt that replaced this govt. They simply left. I mean come on. What’s more important here? Preserving personal freedom and liberty or preserving the “right” to make money at the expense of an entire race of enslaved people? You can apply the Constitution to both sides of this equation, but when to do so puts the sides in conflict with each other, do you err on the side of ending slavery or preserving an economical system that depends on slavery?[/quote]

I never claimed they were justified.

And your argument only holds water if slavery is indeed the only cause.

And yes they tried to alter the government (Lincoln was elected without a single southern electoral vote). and they did attempt to abolish the fed (session from the union is exactly that). And lastly the did set up a replacement government, I’m not sure how you missed that one.

Another component for Licoln focusing on slavery was to diminish international support for the CSA.

33

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The real reason Lincoln stopped the south from seceding was purely financial. The Union stood to lose a lot of tax revenue if the south seceded. It was never about ending slavery but rather about retaining power in Washington.

Every person or group of persons should have the right to secede from any level of government that they wish.[/quote]

Well, I would believe you except for one thing: not once in any speech Lincoln ever made or in any letter he ever wrote did he ever say that he went to war for financial reasons. You’re simply projecting your own suspicions onto him with this assumption.[/quote]

So because a sociopathic politician is not honest about his motives I am wrong…? Illogical.[/quote]

I would have been willing to discuss this issue in an intelligent manner with you, but after you referred to Lincoln as a sociopath I see no reason to lend you any creedence anymore. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that Lincoln was a sociopath, just like there is nothing in the historical record to even suggest that Lincoln was primarily motivated by economic means.

[/quote]
The dude was responsible for the murder of over half-a-million Americans (most of whom were not even slave owners). How can you not consider him at least a little sociopathic unless you yourself are also a sociopath?

Besides that, if nothing else, he like most politicians do, suffered from delusions of grandeur which is most definitely a trait of sociopaths. None of this, however, changes the fact that slavery was not the main concern of preserving the union. It was a scapegoat issue for him.

34

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The real reason Lincoln stopped the south from seceding was purely financial. The Union stood to lose a lot of tax revenue if the south seceded. It was never about ending slavery but rather about retaining power in Washington.

Every person or group of persons should have the right to secede from any level of government that they wish.[/quote]

Well, I would believe you except for one thing: not once in any speech Lincoln ever made or in any letter he ever wrote did he ever say that he went to war for financial reasons. You’re simply projecting your own suspicions onto him with this assumption.[/quote]

He did however repeatedly and specifically state that he did not care about slavery, one way or the other.

[/quote]

Not correct, he abhorred slavery but he put preserving the union above his desire to end slavery.

Slavery was THE core issue of the Civil War. The southern states succeeded because they knew the end of slavery was coming and they would be at a huge economic disadvantage without slavery.

The legality of secession and Lincoln’s response are debatable but the facts are not. [/quote]

Actually, Orion is correct, somewhat. Lincoln did say that he would just as soon preserve slavery if it meant preserving the Union. He also at one point advocated a separation of the races. But these things that he said disregard the timeline in which he said them. Most of the language he used tha supports Orion’s argument was between 1858 and 1861-62. By 1862, Lincoln had come to understand that the only way to realize his primary goal (preserving the Union) would be to end slavery. He abhorred slavery once he came to this realization because he understood that the institution of slavery was THE issue keeping the nation divided. [/quote]

He is incorrect. Before the election Lincoln wrote and spoke of ending slavery. He thought it was an atrocity. Yes he wanted to separate the races and he thought bringing African slaves over was a horrible mistake.

He did not want to emancipate the slaves directly because it would have destroyed the Union.

He wanted to block slavery from the Territories and isolate it in the South. He hoped it could end within 20 years without war.

His first priority was keeping the country together but don’t let anyone tell you he did not care about slavery.
[/quote]

You’re right, he certainly did care about ending slavery. I think we’re quibbling over semantics here. My point is that he did say at one point that he would just as soon preserve it if to do so would preserve the Union.

I think I’m going to bump this thread because it seems that I’m simply repeating myself over and over again. The really good shit starts around the second or third page.

35

And to suggest that economics does not play into political decisions shows your naivety. If you don’t understand this you don’t understand anything.

36

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The real reason Lincoln stopped the south from seceding was purely financial. The Union stood to lose a lot of tax revenue if the south seceded. It was never about ending slavery but rather about retaining power in Washington.

Every person or group of persons should have the right to secede from any level of government that they wish.[/quote]

Well, I would believe you except for one thing: not once in any speech Lincoln ever made or in any letter he ever wrote did he ever say that he went to war for financial reasons. You’re simply projecting your own suspicions onto him with this assumption.[/quote]

So because a sociopathic politician is not honest about his motives I am wrong…? Illogical.[/quote]

I would have been willing to discuss this issue in an intelligent manner with you, but after you referred to Lincoln as a sociopath I see no reason to lend you any creedence anymore. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that Lincoln was a sociopath, just like there is nothing in the historical record to even suggest that Lincoln was primarily motivated by economic means.

[/quote]
The dude was responsible for the murder of over half-a-million Americans (most of whom were not even slave owners). How can you not consider him at least a little sociopathic unless you yourself are also a sociopath?

Besides that, if nothing else, he like most politicians do, suffered from delusions of grandeur which is most definitely a trait of sociopaths. None of this, however, changes the fact that slavery was not the main concern of preserving the union. It was a scapegoat issue for him.[/quote]

So by your line of logic Obama, Bush, Nixon, LBJ, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR and so on were also sociopaths? Who’s not holding water now?

37

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And to suggest that economics does not play into political decisions shows your naivety. If you don’t understand this you don’t understand anything.[/quote]

I never said that it wasn’t an issue; it was not the main issue and the main issue for Lincoln was preserving the Union. This issue was much larger to him than any other issue. He ran, and was elected based on, a platform that placed first and foremost the ending of slavery in order to maintain the Union at the top of his priority list.

In this day and age it may seem hard to fathom, but Lincoln was an EXTREMELY principled man and preserving the Union was the utmost principle he stood for as President of the United States. Aside from that, the South was quickly becoming a smaller and smaller source of revenue for the country as a whole.

38

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The real reason Lincoln stopped the south from seceding was purely financial. The Union stood to lose a lot of tax revenue if the south seceded. It was never about ending slavery but rather about retaining power in Washington.

Every person or group of persons should have the right to secede from any level of government that they wish.[/quote]

Well, I would believe you except for one thing: not once in any speech Lincoln ever made or in any letter he ever wrote did he ever say that he went to war for financial reasons. You’re simply projecting your own suspicions onto him with this assumption.[/quote]

So because a sociopathic politician is not honest about his motives I am wrong…? Illogical.[/quote]

I would have been willing to discuss this issue in an intelligent manner with you, but after you referred to Lincoln as a sociopath I see no reason to lend you any creedence anymore. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that Lincoln was a sociopath, just like there is nothing in the historical record to even suggest that Lincoln was primarily motivated by economic means.

[/quote]
The dude was responsible for the murder of over half-a-million Americans (most of whom were not even slave owners). How can you not consider him at least a little sociopathic unless you yourself are also a sociopath?

Besides that, if nothing else, he like most politicians do, suffered from delusions of grandeur which is most definitely a trait of sociopaths. None of this, however, changes the fact that slavery was not the main concern of preserving the union. It was a scapegoat issue for him.[/quote]

So by your line of logic Obama, Bush, Nixon, LBJ, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR and so on were also sociopaths? Who’s not holding water now?[/quote]

maybe not Eisenhower and Truman, but the rest pretty much, yes.

39

When did it become so fashionable to twist history into the most extreme interpretations possible?

40

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
So by your line of logic Obama, Bush, Nixon, LBJ, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR and so on were also sociopaths? Who’s not holding water now?[/quote]

They all think they are entitled to lead us and tell us how to live our lives. That’s why they seek political appointment in the first place. There are a few exceptions to this rule.

One has to be sociopathic in order make overarching decisions and not feel any regard for the outcome. They never care about the long term consequences of the individuals who are affected by their actions because they always win even when they lose. (I cannot think of one job provided by the free market where if one were to be fired from that job he or she would continue to be paid benefits for the rest of his or her life).