Greatest American? (All Over on Page Eight)

[Storm Raven]

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another . . .

Yes, that is a great sentiment. However, the circumstances surrounding the separation of the American colonies from the United Kingdom were so different from the circumstances surrounding the South's attempted secession from the Union, that that language simply does not apply. At the most basic level, the colonies were denied a voice in their own government, which the South had a full voice in theirs (in point of fact, the South had long had a completely disproportionately large voice in their government).

The root cause of the Civil War was that the South had a temper tantrum when they got outvoted and feared (without much basis) that their odious practice of holding slaves would be taken from them. You can dress it up in pretty language, but that's the true core of the matter.

 

[Storm Raven]

Lincoln did not free a single slave in the United States. Lincoln's goal was "to preserve the Union."

And yet he put forward the Empancipation Proclamation. Granted, it only applied to slaves held in States that were in rebellion at the time it was issued, but once you let that genie out of the bottle, it's not going back in.

Given that Lincoln freed every slave in the majority of slave holding states, and was assassinated by a bitter-ender before he could push peacetime legislation to finish the job, asserting that he "didn't free a single slave in the United States" is pretty silly.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Given that secession was an illegal act to begin with, they didn't have much of a case.

The states voted to join the United States. They also voted to leave the United States.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Yes, it does. And in the context of the start of the Civil War, it is meaningless. Because the Southern states would have (had they not seceeded), kept all of the rights guaranteed to it under the Constitution, which is the instrument of protection for such minorities.

So, did the states secede, or not? And these rights you speak of, do they include the right to vote against amendments to the Constitution?

 

[Gentlegamer]

Calhoun was full of crap. Plain and simple. His argument was merely a justificiation for preserving slavery clothed in pretty language.

Have you read the Disquisition on Government or the Discourse on Government?

Is taxing one section of the country for the betterment of another a just use of the Constitution?

 

[Gentlegamer]

And yet he put forward the Empancipation Proclamation. Granted, it only applied to slaves held in States that were in rebellion at the time it was issued, but once you let that genie out of the bottle, it's not going back in.

Those states were not in the United States; he had no jurisdiction. There were no states in "rebellion."

Given that Lincoln freed every slave in the majority of slave holding states, and was assassinated by a bitter-ender before he could push peacetime legislation to finish the job, asserting that he "didn't free a single slave in the United States" is pretty silly.

And where in the Constitution is the president given authority to make a class of property illegal?

 

[billd91]

At the beginning of the republic, there were no powerful elites (not in the way you mean) . . .

This is very much untrue. There were massively concentrated land elites of the day, including George Washington. Contrast him and most of the other men at the Continental Congress or in the early days of the federal government with the underclass of laborers and servants who had no land at all and tell me the early republic had no powerful elites.
The War of Independence is often looked at as a tax revolt against a distant government, driven and led by the wealthy who wanted control of their own economy and foreign trade.

So, were there powerful elites? Oh, very much so. One major difference between early American elites and their British counterparts is the way the Americans set up a fundamental law in documentary form, with structured methods of adjusting it, that encapsulated the promise of progressive freedom even if it didn't deliver to everyone when it was adopted.

 

[Esteban]

Right, the poor farmer with no slaves can really spare the time to run for elected office...

Or he could have fought to preserve the Union and end slavery. A large number of southern volunteers fought for the Union. Enough that each Confederate state was represented in the UNION Army with a regiment of volunteers. Also, their were whole counties in the South that rejected the idea of secession and were hostile to representatives of the Confederate government.

Point being that there were at least a few Southerners who believed that either:

1. The Union was worth preserving.
2. Slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished.

Either way, this seems call into question the idea that a typical Southerner was just defending their property and homeland from hostile aggressors. Some in the South saw secession for what it was - an attempt to promote and defend a way of life that was based on the outmoded and morally indefensible institution of slavery.

-Esteban

 

[TanisFrey]

"In their eyes" doesn't work though. Because members of parliament (at least for the Commons) stood for particular districts. The American colonies (and all the other colonies) had no districts, and no members representing them. The analogy you are trying to make is a popular one, but one that is fatally flawed and carries no weight when subjected to any kind of analysis.

Only if they could have changed the Constitution, which requires ratification by 3/4 of the States. And they were far from that stage. Besides, if they had not thrown a hissy fit over Lincoln's election, the South probably could have evolved a political compromise that would have abolished slavery later, and compensated those who owned them, or something like that.

The only issue that this was "brewing over" of any consequence was slavery. Trying to frame the debate as a states' rights debate does a disservice to the concept of states' rights. In any event, the nature of a federal republican (small "r") political system is that, in some case, via the political process, the majority can determine how the country should be run. The South was willing to partake of the benefits of such a system (participating in elections, sending representatives to the Federal government, and so on), but unwilling to accept the other elements.

The South, for all that it is romanticized, was basically a big baby having a temper tantrum because it got outvoted.

Unfortently some sudo goverment agencies like the Bank of America (under charter from the federal govement to be the federal reserve bank of the time) vastly favored giving loans to the north for railroads, cannals, and factories over the south. Over 2/3 of loans and $ went north. The south did want to put up a railroad system like the north but got only a few token lines instead.

Lincoln did not free a single slave in the United States. Lincoln's goal was "to preserve the Union."

Licoln can be quoted at the beginging of his term of office the to preserver the Union he would not free a single slave. He would free them if he could but preserving the Union was the 1# issue.

 

[MonsterMash]

The colonies could not vote for any member of Parliament. We were a colony, no seats for us. Even Scotland and Irland had some Parliament seats but they were European nations conquered by England.

Incorrect about Scotland - England and Scotland joined together voluntarily under James I/VI in 1603 with this finally settled under the Act of Union in 1707. Wales and Ireland were conquered and particularly the Irish do have a right to deprecate the behaviour of English rulers (especially Oliver Cromwell )

I'll stay out of any ACW discussion though it is a period of history that I'm interested in as it does seem to inflame passions over there in the States.

With the American Revolution I do remember the slogan of 'No taxation without representation' and wonder what effect adding parliamentary constituencies for the thirteen colonies to Westminster would have had? At least some of the support would have been diluted, but a system more akin to the present Commonwealth with local taxation and rule.