Forum: Author Hangout

Slavery wasn't even an issue in The Civil War until the Emancipation Proclamation

And the Emancipation Proclamation led to the New York Draft Riots.

Let's just say that the version of Civil War history being promulgated today leaves out significant portions of history. Check out the "Tariff of Abomination" and the "Nullification Crisis", along with discussions of secession by Northern states...

Without the secession, there would have been no civil war. To say slavery wasn't an issue from the beginning is delusional.

As I keep saying, read about the 'Tariff of Abomination' and the 'Nullification Crisis'. The causes (yes, plural) of the Civil War extend FAR beyond slavery.

Oddly, the southern states didn't think being forced to sell to only one market (and one that wasn't willing to pay world market prices) was all that good of idea.
This (and the industrial/agricultural bases of the two regions) was the real source of conflict, which started long before the North took the first military action against the South.

Hence my references to the Tariff of Abomination and the Nullification Crisis (just two of the many reasons for the Civil War).

History is no longer being taught in schools.

The top of the steeple is an air cannon named "Smite the Wicked" that fires an endless supply of blessed rulers.

But the heavy weapon is the giant cross which is a rail gun that fires silver coated steel crosses with the end of the upright sharpened to a point.

What's their van like?

You think nuns enjoy cock au van?

AJ

I just like playing devil's advocate.

But my ex-wife didn't hire you for that job, she hired her sister for it.

I think your suggestion would have been stronger if you hadn't continued the post by adding to the 'discussion'.

I was hoping to end the discussion in this thread. I'm happy to continue in a specific thread, as long as Lazeez agrees as it can only get political if it goes further and that can cause some heartaches Lazeez doesn't need people bitching about.

Is that what they mean by flaming?

No as you didn't use any petrol and tweaking is a form of dance.

'tweaking' is being high on meth

oh, maybe it was a typo because I thought it was to be high on math.

There is some truth to this, but it's equally improper to pretend that succession was not the first and foremost cause of the Civil War, and that Slavery was first and foremost among the stated causes of succession by the seceding states.

One could equally say that the Civil War was caused by Lincoln invading the sovereign state of Virginia. There is nothing in the US Constitution which prevents a state from seceding.

The causes are many and complex, and slavery was one of them.

There is nothing in the US Constitution which prevents a state from seceding.

Sorry, but there is nothing in the US Constitution that allows the states to secede, and the US Constitution is an agreement between the people, not the states, unlike the previous state agreement documents that included the words 'Perpetual Union' in them.

Sorry, but there is nothing in the US Constitution that allows the states to secede, and the US Constitution is an agreement between the people, not the states, unlike the previous state agreement documents that included the words 'Perpetual Union' in them.

Given that the US Constitution is a document written to authorize a limited set of federal powers, there doesn't need to be. The thing is, there is, in the 9th and 10th Amendments, the authority of the people to secede, as there is no Federal power granted to prevent it.

The fact that the Constitution has been turned on its head doesn't change the facts.

Given that the US Constitution is a document written to authorize a limited set of federal powers, there doesn't need to be. The thing is, there is, in the 9th and 10th Amendments, the authority of the people to secede, as there is no Federal power granted to prevent it.

Funny you should mention this, a story I have in progress that I started back in 2019 on how you to allow for the legal secession from the USA union, but it can't be legally done simply by a state saying they're out, which is what was tried in the 1860s.

Funny you should mention this, a story I have in progress that I started back in 2019 on how you to allow for the legal secession from the USA union, but it can't be legally done simply by a state saying they're out, which is what was tried in the 1860s.

"Can't be legally done" - so, of course, the Courts simply ordered the seceding states to return, and they did. Or not.

The fact that an invasion was necessary tells me that they COULD secede. The remaining states in the union disagreed, and used military action to forcibly bring them back. The behavior of the courts/Congress in the matter was schizophrenic, at times acting as if they were not part of the union and at times acting as if they were, depending on the political needs of the moment.

The fact that an invasion was necessary tells me that they COULD secede.

The fighting started when state militia fired upon Fort Sumpter, then the federal government sent troops to deal with the armed rebellion. So there was no invasion.

So there was no invasion.

Tell Virginia. Fort Sumter would have been an anomaly without that.

Sending reinforcements could be seen as a provocation. Just ask the mayor of Portland (and some other big-city mayors). They're making the SAME complaints that South Carolina did, which is why I've pointed to Fort Sumter when discussing those current events...

It wasn't reinforcements, it was supplies, food particularly.

The fort was there as an active US military base before the secession. Virginia could have allowed the resupply of the garrison then negotiated for a peaceful turn over. They chose to attack the fort instead.

You're conflating South Carolina and Virginia. The Fort was in South Carolina and was being resupplied/reinforced.

Virginia was invaded by Union troops looking to force them back into the Union.

Why would you allow your enemy to resupply when you intend to take the ground they are standing on? I don't understand. You want then worrying about supplies AND the fact they are cut off. It makes them more willing to negotiate surrender. If they refuse to surrender a week or so of starvation makes then weak and easier to attack.

Could you please explain the wisdom of allowing them to resupply before negotiation? The idea is so foreign to my way of thinking that I don't understand it.

Could you please explain the wisdom of allowing them to resupply before negotiation? The idea is so foreign to my way of thinking that I don't understand it.

We've come to a point where facts no longer matter. All that matters is the belief that North==holy, South==evil, and anything which upsets that simplistic notion of the Civil War is rejected out of hand. E.g. the 'full stop' claims above about the purported 'sole cause' despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Because they just attacked, I conclude that they intended to go to war with the Union from the very beginning.

They attacked because the North chose provocation - sending supplies and potential reinforcements (e.g. Naval Militia, created from the ships' companies).

Not Virginia.

"Fort Sumter - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org

Above, the two were being conflated, and that's what I was correcting.

When I referred to an actual invasion, I meant Virginia. The resupply/reinforcement actions in Charleston were not the 'invasion' I was referring to (because it wasn't - the forces were already at Fort Sumter).

See, among others: Battle of Philippi, Battle of Big Bethel, and more importantly First Bull Run (Manassas).

Prior to Philippi, which was a Union invasion of Virginia, Sewell's Point and Aquia Creek, both in Virginia, were sites of naval gunfire or shelling of naval units.

Virginia was invaded by the Union Army and it wasn't just a resupply/reinforcement mission of a garrisoned harbor fort.

Sorry, but there is nothing in the US Constitution that allows the states to secede, and the US Constitution is an agreement between the people, not the states, unlike the previous state agreement documents that included the words 'Perpetual Union' in them.

Funny thing - all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government were reserved 'to the states, or the people'.

But is secession a power at all? The Constitution can be viewed as a contract between the peoples of the various states. By seceding unilaterally, a state is breaching that contract.

One can always breach a contract. In the US, at least, courts often use equity, not specific performance, to remedy breaches. This is especially true when the breach is performing anything more than a simple transfer of title or handover of property.

If I contract to sell you a house, and you turn over the funds as per the sales contract, the courts will order me to turn over title and possession of the property, assuming there hasn't been some intervening action which makes that difficult.

If I contract to build a wall for you, an fail, the most likely result in court is monetary damages, not the court ordering me to build the wall and supervising that activity. The more complex the contract, the more likely the result will be monetary damages, not specific performance.

Remember, too, the vast majority of federal power over the states comes through the threat of withholding funds from the state, not actual power to impose the law, rule, or regulation. (See, for example, the National Maximum Speed Limit law). Had the 17 Amendment not passed, that kind of power could never exist, as the states wouldn't have permitted those kinds of laws (or unfunded mandates based on other funded mandates) to pass.

This is history and judicial branch tuff, but it's darned close to politics.

Slavery was first and foremost among the stated causes of succession by the seceding states.

It would be much more factually accurate to say: "The fear of the end of slavery by Federal Law was the first and foremost concern of the states wanting to secede from the union." However, the existing Federal Laws at that time clearly stated the Federal government could not pass laws for or against slavery and stated that was an issue for the states to decide for themselves. However, due to the events of the Civil War those laws got repealed and changed late in the war or after it.