The War Between The States Discussions

Discussion in 'Civil War' started by Zonie, Jul 19, 2019.

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum by donating:

  1. Sep 11, 2019 #1421

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    119
    Location:
    Yohogania
    Cherry picking documents can lead to dangerous assumptions. The Declaration was based on European enlightenment thought, and during the Revolution, the same ideas were used and incorporated into what became the Articles of Confederation. The "Articles" were modified and strengthened in 1787/89 because of inherent weaknesses discovered partly in the inability of Congress to wage war between 1776-178(1/3), and then problems dealing with Shay's Rebellion that highlighted the inability of the government to deal with civil unrest/insurrection/rebellion.

    The Constitution was not meant to completely replace the Articles as it was meant as a way to strengthen the government's ability to perform in a functional manner. A stronger central government was inherent within the convention delegates discussions, and that was the intent when sent to the states for ratification.

    This means, you shouldn't stop with the Declaration because American political thought continued to change and develop over time, and has still continued to do so long past 1789.
     
    Carbon 6 likes this.
  2. Sep 11, 2019 #1422

    arcticap

    arcticap

    arcticap

    54 Cal.

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,162
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    Central Connecticut

    The reason is because secession isn't a kid's game, it's about the real world where just causes pre-empt unjust causes.
    It's about when divine providence helped colonies defeat a world power against the odds to become a new self-governing nation.
    The colonies united took a solomn oath to form a nation of laws which did not allow for secession any more than a person can divorce their own family blood relatives.
    Once related by blood, how can someone change it?
    Blood is thicker than water.

    Another reason is because like the slave holders who failed to voluntarily recognize the inalienable rights of all men, and who held slaves against their will solely based on might, those same slave owners did not let their slaves go free just because they merely asked politely.
    Yet those same slave owners ask the Union to let their states go free, and a sympathizer thinks that for some reason the nation needs to?

    If a slave wants freedom they must be willing to flee, fight and die for it just like both the northerners and the southerners did together to defeat the British.
    The French did not sacrifice their soldiers to form 2 countries.
    No, all of the colonies benefited from their involvement and asked for the help of divine providence to accomplish that task.
    May as well pee on George Washington's grave, or the graves of all of the AWI war heroes to break up that which divine providence had created and united in the course of American manifest destiny.
    It was not in the cards of fate that the Confederacy would be part of it or benefit from it.
    I thought that it would be understood after 2 threads and all of these pages of circular arguments and rhetorical questions, that justice is the American way, but it wasn't the way of the Confederacy.
    The devil comes in the many details that never seem to sink in.
    There are just causes and unjust causes.
    The south was free to lose it's cause because might makes right, and right makes might.
    The south deserve all of the credit for bringing an end to slavery by taking the path of rebellion.
    But the end of slavery and new civil rights for blacks was just about all that the rebellion accomplished.
    No one is skimming over anything unless you stopped reading.
    One can lead a horse to water many times but one cannot make it drink.
    Why didn't slave owners want to let their slaves go free just for asking?.
    What was right for southerners one day became wrong the next day simply because they chose to follow self-serving tyrants and left the safety and security of a sacred Union that was united by blood.
    Freedom isn't free, for southerners or the slaves.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  3. Sep 11, 2019 #1423

    Zonie

    Zonie

    Zonie

    Moderator Staff Member MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Messages:
    28,726
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Because despite what a few forum members say about Lincolns desire for peace, peace was the last thing Lincoln and his advisers wanted.

    They wanted to prevent the break up of the Union at all costs. Even if it would cost the nation 750,000 dead Americans (which it did).
    To their line of thinking, no cost was too great.
     
    Eutycus likes this.
  4. Sep 11, 2019 #1424

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    True, restoring the Union was the first priority.
    What can I say, The north wasn't willing to let America die.
    And the south was just as willing to sacrifice lives,
    For slavery.
     
  5. Sep 11, 2019 #1425

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,122
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Who judges if it’s a ‘right cause’ besides the men standing in line?
    How was southern cause in 1861 different maintaining slavery is different then the nine colonies that had slavery in ‘76. And were largely upset over failure to let the colonist invest trans Appalachian lands you know take lands away from Indians.
    I don’t know how to sound the depths of Divine Providence so i’ll Leave out the questions about that.
    Are you thinking Lee, Armistead,Taylor,Henry sons and grand sons of the hero’s of the revolution didn’t know what it met?
    So your answer to my question is ‘I don’t think their cause was just so they didn’t deserve to have freedom’
    I’m sure there were a lot of people it England who didn’t think the cause of the colonies were just. I’m sure there was more then one French aristocratic starring in to a bloody basket who thought ‘maybe supporting a populist revolution against the crown was a bad idea.
    Maybe the best opinion of just cause is the men who gave their all for it, not history nerds a century and a half later
     
  6. Sep 11, 2019 #1426

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,122
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Property rights, legally held purchased and inherited property.
    And one of the few jobs of the government is to protect property.
     
  7. Sep 11, 2019 #1427

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    Can you show me in the constitution where it says that people are property, or even slaves ?
    The "property" you speak of does not exist.
     
  8. Sep 11, 2019 #1428

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,122
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Location:
    Republic mo
    It doesn’t mention land or clothing or horses or houses.
    It certainly acknowledges the existence of slavery with the 3/5 clause. This was not applied to immigrants or minority children.
    So although the constitution doesn’t mention slavery it recognizes some people are held that don’t get full representation in the house.
     
  9. Sep 11, 2019 #1429

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    In 1862 Mississippi officials notified Confederate leaders that they could send no more men to fight in the army because they were needed to control the slaves at home.

    The Achilles heel of slavery.
     
  10. Sep 11, 2019 #1430

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    What does this "property" clause mention?

    I feel another Myth about to be broken. :D
     
  11. Sep 11, 2019 #1431

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,122
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Wow is the fifth amendment a myth, it’s in my copy of the constitution.
    Life liberty and property.
    It’s in your copy too isn’t it?
     
  12. Sep 11, 2019 #1432

    arcticap

    arcticap

    arcticap

    54 Cal.

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,162
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    Central Connecticut

    The founding fathers espoused divine providence all of the time.
    That's code for God, as in "one nation under God" and "In God We Trust".
    It's also tangental to the notion that "We the people" in a republic that's a representative democracy hold the supreme power through democratic elections where they speak their will and are able to use their best judgement to freely exercise the will of divine providence, or their interpretation of what could be described as divine providence.
    Even if some people think that votes are only based on people's own self-interest, the founders still believed that the will of the majority would best reflect the will of divine providence at any given point in time.
    Divine Providence is not about what you or I think, it's about what divine providence wants to accomplish through the work of individuals and leaders throughout history.
    It's a lot like determining the national interest and what actions divine providence would like a nation to follow or take in order to affect history according to its design.
    In some respects the history of mankind is the history of divine providence exercising its will.
    Does divine providence make mistakes?
    We don't really know since that's the mystery of life.
    But we can always learn from the lessons that history has taught us.

    The notion of justice comes from a higher plane than the simple study of historical facts.
    Surely as a well read student of history this should come as no surprise.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  13. Sep 11, 2019 #1433

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    Oh, your'e talking about the 5th amendment.
    OK! Game on.
    How did the North violate the 5th amendment?
    Because, I don't see any requirement obligating the government to protect anything, it just says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    If slaves were considered "property" then they were most definitely private property. Otherwise the government would have complete control in the matter.
     
  14. Sep 11, 2019 #1434

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Cannon MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,324
    Likes Received:
    798
    I keep bringing up the Northern Slave States because you keep deliberately ignoring there still were Slaves held in the North before, during and after the UnCivil War. While it is true there were many more slaves held in the South in 1860, over 451,000 Slaves held in Northern States (including the counties that would make up WEST Virginia) were nothing to sneeze at.
    http://www.civildiscourse-historyblog.com/blog/2017/1/3/when-did-slavery-really-end-in-the-north

    Gus
     
  15. Sep 11, 2019 #1435

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,122
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Read a little before that, the no person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law part. And we have already established the fact that the constitution recognizes people that are not represented in congress that were in indentured service
    This instance the word property appears but it’s also a persons right to be secure in their possession in fourth amendment and secure against invasion and use of property in the third.
     
  16. Sep 11, 2019 #1436

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    But the South didn't recognize that "due process".
    They seceded and took up arms.
     
  17. Sep 11, 2019 #1437

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    That was argued in the Prigg v. Pennsylvania case against the fugitive slave act.
    The court said;
    “in a free state every man is prima facie a free man who is at large. If so, he comes under that class called ‘people’; and the right of ‘the people’ to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures is guaranteed in the Constitution. Ay! But he is a slave, say the opponents of this doctrine. But that is not admitted. The very question at issue is slave or free. Now so long as he is not proved a slave, he is presumed free, and, therefore, if you seize him, it is a violation of this constitutional privilege”.
     
  18. Sep 11, 2019 #1438

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    Where do you see the word "invasion" in the fourth amendment.
    are you reading the Confederate constitution again.
    Silly boy.
     
  19. Sep 11, 2019 #1439

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    Here's a fun fact for you, below are the years between independence and abolition of slavery for each country.

    Haiti: 0
    Costa Rica: 3
    El Salvador: 3
    Guatemala: 3
    Honduras: 3
    Chile: 5
    Bolivia: 6
    Uruguay: 8
    Nicaragua: 17
    Mexico: 19
    Paraguay: 29
    Colombia: 41
    Venezuela: 43
    Argentina: 45
    Brazil: 66

    USA: 87
     
  20. Sep 11, 2019 #1440

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,122
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Location:
    Republic mo
    What due process? They withdrew when a president was elected who’s stated goal was to disenfranchise the south.
    No law had been passed, the south desolved its relationship with the north.
     

Share This Page

arrow_white