So who's the coolest Civil War Commander?

[.Shane.]

What's wrong with quitting? They declared themselves free and independent, just like the United States did with England. If there was no procedure for secession (and there wasn't), how can you criticize the way they went about doing it?

Because they did not try and determine if there was a legal way. I'm not saying that, at the end of the day, they wouldn't have had the right to secede. I'm just saying that, rather than just quit, they should've worked w/ in the govt. There were many northerners, both sympathizers and abolitionists who would've supported the south leaving had they tried any number of things short of just quitting and then initiating the war.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Because they did not try and determine if there was a legal way. I'm not saying that, at the end of the day, they wouldn't have had the right to secede. I'm just saying that, rather than just quit, they should've worked w/ in the govt. There were many northerners, both sympathizers and abolitionists who would've supported the south leaving had they tried any number of things short of just quitting and then initiating the war.

Probably would have been cleaner and neater if they tried that, although the CSA did try and work things out with Congress (after they had already seceded and refused any compromises).

One point: although I think calling this the "War of Northern Aggression" is silly, it's also silly to think that solely the South initiated the war and the Union was only acting in defense. "Initiating the war" happened months after "quitting."

 

[.Shane.]

Probably would have been cleaner and neater if they tried that, although the CSA did try and work things out with Congress (after they had already seceded and refused any compromises).

Well, for instance, let's say that they tried to get Congress to pass a motion recognizing the right of succession, just as a symbolic gesture. Or, say, they tried to get it passed as a law and it failed or Lincoln vetoed it. Then, at least, they could say "we tried to work with you, we tried to respect the law", etc...

But they didn't.

One point: although I think calling this the "War of Northern Aggression" is silly, it's also silly to think that solely the South initiated the war and the Union was only acting in defense. "Initiating the war" happened months after "quitting."

I disagree. In that, your point assumes war was the inevitable outcome. I don't think was inevitable at that time. The south just got too impatient, they had too many "gung-ho" people looking for a fight and not enough cool heads. They should've let Lincoln resupply the fort and then continue to work world opinion and northern sympathizers. At a minimum, they should've made Lincoln draw first blood.

 

[.Shane.]

Oh, another thing I forgot until now.

You probably recall that the Supreme Court was pro-south, they certainly could've tried to let the SC resolve the issue. Again, another avenue they didn't want to bother with.

 

[Atlas14]

It was about slavery. It was only a matter of time before we got to this rubbish. Every single aspect of the southern cause was rooted in their dependence on slavery.

(and, no, I'm not a "Yankee" or a "Northerner", in fact my mom's side of the family has southern roots and I'm pretty sure parts of my dad's side do as well.)

Slavery was a factor, but not the sole cause of the war. The Southern politicians wanted to expand slavery and keep slavery, but your average southerner did not. Most southerners were relatively poor, white farmers with zero slaves whatsoever.

 

[.Shane.]

Slavery was a factor, but not the sole cause of the war. The Southern politicians wanted to expand slavery and keep slavery, but your average southerner did not. Most southerners were relatively poor, white farmers with zero slaves whatsoever.

lol. Wrong on one count, correct on the other.

Slavery was the defacto way of life, generally speaking in most all of the south. Sure, there were pockets of anti-slavery attitudes (West Virginia, parts of Texas, parts of Tennessee, for example), but slavery was the way of life. It permeated every aspect of society.

Apologists typically will tell you that only ~2-3% of southerners owned slaves. This is technically true. But teh de facto reality is that ~23% owned slaves. How do we account for these 2 disparate numbers? For one thing, typically men, not women, owned the slaves. Secondly, in family of, say, 6, the slaves were all technically owned by the father. So, you have 6 people who are really using/owning the slaves, though, on paper, just 1 person owns them.

Granted, there are exceptions, etc... but this is the main reason for the disparity.

Still, I was surprised by the 23% number. On the surface, it lends creedance to Atlas's argument. But, keep in mind what I mentioned earlier. Slave-owning is what the society aspired to. So, if you were one of these poor farmers, you didn't aspire to go to college, become educated and open up a business, you aspired to own slaves.

The Southern planter aristocracy worked hard at maintaining this structure. For example, public education was much rarer in the south. Higher education was solely the domain of the wealthy. Vocations in industry, entrenprenuership, etc.. were held in disdain as inappropriate for gentlemen. Hence, this message permeated the south.

Hence, northerners were often hired and brought in as the professional class in many parts of the south. They were the accountants (factors) and agents, they ran the shipping, etc....

So, the southern social structure was built on this model that promoted slave-owning as having the highest social good as an aspiration, while denigrating other professions.

Interestingly, this is largely why the south has so much disproportionate power relative to its small population (compared to the north). If you were the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th son of a plantation owner, you were expected to go into politics or the military as they were the other pursuits that were gentlemanly (quick, someone tell me why I didn't mention the 1st son? ). The south produced excellent and well-trained politicians and soldiers, and thus, were able to protect their interests for the first 80 years of nationhood, despite, being outnumbered, population wise.

So as time passed and the south could no longer compete in the House, they relied on the Senate to protect themselves. Hence the need to for an equal # of slave/free states. The Compromise of 1850 ended that balance, but they endured in the 1850s due to the "dough faced" northern Democratic sympathsizers (Pierce and Buchanan). So, when Lincoln won in 1860, they faced the fact that they could not control either legislative House or the executive branch. They still had the Supreme Court, but w/ the Repubs in control, losing the SC was only a matter of time.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Well, for instance, let's say that they tried to get Congress to pass a motion recognizing the right of succession, just as a symbolic gesture. Or, say, they tried to get it passed as a law and it failed or Lincoln vetoed it. Then, at least, they could say "we tried to work with you, we tried to respect the law", etc...

But they didn't.

True, but it's hard to fault them for what the American revolutionaries had done successfully with Britain.

I disagree. In that, your point assumes war was the inevitable outcome. I don't think was inevitable at that time. The south just got too impatient, they had too many "gung-ho" people looking for a fight and not enough cool heads. They should've let Lincoln resupply the fort and then continue to work world opinion and northern sympathizers. At a minimum, they should've made Lincoln draw first blood.

Allowing Lincoln to re-supply the fort would have gone against the idea of independence and secession. The Republic of South Carolina, and the the Confederate States of America, declared themselves independent and did not want American forts in their territory. While I agree that firing on Sumter was suicide, there was really no other way to assert independence, and Lincoln knew this. The South wasn't the only part of the continent looking for a fight.

You probably recall that the Supreme Court was pro-south, they certainly could've tried to let the SC resolve the issue. Again, another avenue they didn't want to bother with.

I do remember that, but I still think that holding the CSA to a higher standard than the USA's independence from Britain is asking a little too much. Using the old playbook seemed to make enough sense.

 

[.Shane.]

True, but it's hard to fault them for what the American revolutionaries had done successfully with Britain.

I do remember that, but I still think that holding the CSA to a higher standard than the USA's independence from Britain is asking a little too much. Using the old playbook seemed to make enough sense.

I put your first and last together as it makes more sense for my reply....

That said, I'll disagree again, what I espoused follows more of the FF's playbook. How so? Because the Continental Congress dialogued over several years w/ Parliament/King seeking to redress their issues. On several occassions prior to the DoI they sent formal documents or requests, etc... so, they may not have worked w/in Parliament, per se, but they put a lot of time and effort into diplomacy and negotiation. The south did neither.

Allowing Lincoln to re-supply the fort would have gone against the idea of independence and secession. The Republic of South Carolina, and the the Confederate States of America, declared themselves independent and did not want American forts in their territory. While I agree that firing on Sumter was suicide, there was really no other way to assert independence, and Lincoln knew this. The South wasn't the only part of the continent looking for a fight.

Lincoln surely was not looking for a fight. And, wise leaders, practical leaders are good at avoiding bloodshed and will always seek to do so.

See, here again, their impatience worked against them. Since there's no legal secession (or blocking of it), there's also no legal understanding of who would own what federal facilities, ordinance, etc.... So, its a gross oversimplification to say that the fort was defacto southern property. It would be an item of negotiation.

The South had a lack of good leadership at the top of the Confederacy. This is most likely due to the fact that the moderates and anti-secessionists (the "cooler heads") were not welcome and thus, those making policy had a built-in bias toward aggression as a means of solving the problem.

 

[Atlas14]

But, keep in mind what I mentioned earlier. Slave-owning is what the society aspired to. So, if you were one of these poor farmers, you didn't aspire to go to college, become educated and open up a business, you aspired to own slaves.

Aye sir, that is true! The main issues of the war revolved around states rights and the right to own slaves, but the issue of slavery for most people was mainly out of necessity. The way the economy of the South was, mostly only those who owned slaves truly prospered off of a plantation career. Many of the northern politicians were vicious and sought the complete destruction of the South because of their prosperity through slavery. In numerous cases, your average northern politician seeking to stop the spread of slavery was more racist than the slave owner he was fighting against. So the whole issue of condemning the southerners for holding slaves (which was the very small minority) while putting the North on a pedastool would be a bad move. Condeming the southerners as a whole for being potential slave owners and aspiring to own slaves while putting the North on a moral pedastool is just as faulty. Many Northerners would have owned slaves had the NE terrain been fit to accommodate large profitable plantations. And what happened after the war when the former slaves sought work in the Northern cities? The "moral" champions were found to be even more racist and bigoted than the southerners.

 

[.Shane.]

Aye sir, that is true! The main issues of the war revolved around states rights and the right to own slaves, but the issue of slavery for most people was mainly out of necessity.

Wrong. Slavery was front and center. Its no coincidence that the most adamant secessionists were in SC, which happened to be the state w/ the highest rate of slavery.

What you're not getting is that the genesis of the southern "states rights" movement is firmly rooted in direct and indirect consequences of slavery.

Many of the northern politicians were vicious and sought the complete destruction of the South because of their prosperity through slavery.

Now your prejudice is showing. Pre-war, northern politicians were no more "vicious" than southern ones.

The north was economically more prosperous already and had a better distribution of wealth. They had no reason to be economically jealous of the south.

In numerous cases, your average northern politician seeking to stop the spread of slavery was more racist than the slave owner he was fighting against.

No one is arguing the moral superiority of the north. I can see from your very one-sided depiction that you have either some strong misconceptions or prejudices. You are mixing things that have nothing to do with each other.

Most northern politicians did not want to kill slavery. Most of them wanted to ignore it due to its controversial nature. Even Lincoln simply wanted to contain it. Douglass, his main rival in the north was a proponent of "popular sovereignty".

 

[Irish Caesar]

Lincoln surely was not looking for a fight. And, wise leaders, practical leaders are good at avoiding bloodshed and will always seek to do so.

We'll never know what Lincoln was looking for, so I'm inclined to drop that one.

See, here again, their impatience worked against them. Since there's no legal secession (or blocking of it), there's also no legal understanding of who would own what federal facilities, ordinance, etc.... So, its a gross oversimplification to say that the fort was defacto southern property. It would be an item of negotiation.

This is true, but it goes back to the idea of the United States' power coming solely from the consent of the governed. As soon as South Carolina removes that consent, the USA has no legitimate power in South Carolina anymore.

I think I remember reading somewhere that CSA intended to compensate USA for the forts on Southern land, although I can't find it right now and can't comment.

The South had a lack of good leadership at the top of the Confederacy. This is most likely due to the fact that the moderates and anti-secessionists (the "cooler heads") were not welcome and thus, those making policy had a built-in bias toward aggression as a means of solving the problem.

Yep, anti-secessionists weren't welcome, so they elected one as president!

It is true, though, that CSA political leadership was rather poor; this was one of the reasons the war was un-winnable, although whether it was one of the reasons it started is a bit less clear.

 

[CaptainF]

I wonder what a Non-American would make of this debate?

Or better yet, the American Civil War in general?

 

[Atlas14]

Wrong. Slavery was front and center. Its no coincidence that the most adamant secessionists were in SC, which happened to be the state w/ the highest rate of slavery.

WRONG! Slavery was NOT front and center. That is revisionist history right there. Slavery perhaps was the front cause leading to events that sparked the first signs of actual conflict such as John Brown at Harpers Ferry, but to blatantly say slavery was front and center is just a historical joke. Sorry, but not a chance on that card.

What you're not getting is that the genesis of the southern "states rights" movement is firmly rooted in direct and indirect consequences of slavery.

As a factor, but please stop ignoring the other factors. Ever since the beginning the Northern states were trying to strangle the South economically. Jackson exemplefied it quite well placing the high tariffs on Southern goods to stifle their trade with Britain. States rights for teh South meant not wanting the North meddling in their affairs and manipulating their politics 24/7, which was happening.

Now your prejudice is showing. Pre-war, northern politicians were no more "vicious" than southern ones.

I never said they were more vicious I was pointing out that they were vicious. Now your prejudice is showing by accusing me of prejudice.

The north was economically more prosperous already and had a better distribution of wealth. They had no reason to be economically jealous of the south.

Are you kidding? They had every reason to be economically jealous of a regional rival. The rivalry extended long before the issue of slavery, so do not even play the "slavery" card.

No one is arguing the moral superiority of the north. I can see from your very one-sided depiction that you have either some strong misconceptions or prejudices. You are mixing things that have nothing to do with each other.

Those who are justifying Sherman's raping the South are not arguing moral superiority? Try again.

Most northern politicians did not want to kill slavery. Most of them wanted to ignore it due to its controversial nature. Even Lincoln simply wanted to contain it. Douglass, his main rival in the north was a proponent of "popular sovereignty

I never said they wanted to kill slavery, don't put words in my mouth please. I clearly said they wanted to stop the spread of slavery.

 

[.Shane.]

We'll never know what Lincoln was looking for, so I'm inclined to drop that one.

Lincoln was determined to keep the Union together. This is very clear. War, was not his preference, but he would not start it, this is for reasons of both political expediency and international relations.

This is true, but it goes back to the idea of the United States' power coming solely from the consent of the governed. As soon as South Carolina removes that consent, the USA has no legitimate power in South Carolina anymore.

Well, that's a little more ambiguous of a statement. The FF's "beef" more so was a lack of representation given the things Parliament was doing post the French-Indian War.

What very much changed the colonists from focusing on a Parliamentary argument in which they pledged fealty and devotion to the King, to a stance that was anti-monarchy and concentration of power was primarily the influence of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". If you read CS and then read the DoI (which followed CS by several months, almost a year) you see this radical shift in thinking and justification for their claims.

The parallel of South Carolina, which had representation, in fact, excellent representation due to a history of fine politicians, and was not under a monarch (they didn't even wait for Lincoln to take office to secede) a stretch, at best, IMO. Though, I'm less firm in this conviction than in others (such as the war being almost solely about slavery, which, no legit historian will refute).

I think I remember reading somewhere that CSA intended to compensate USA for the forts on Southern land, although I can't find it right now and can't comment.

That sounds vaguely familiar. But again, there was never any attempt to negotiate or an inkling to "wait and see" how Mr. Lincoln would govern, etc....

Yep, anti-secessionists weren't welcome, so they elected one as president!

Pity poor Sam Houston.

My point was that the leadership ranks were exclusive to the secessionist ranks, thus it precluded a lot of reasonable and moderate people who might of been able to help them negotiate their way out or at least bought time for international recognition or let the Union draw first blood, etc....

It is true, though, that CSA political leadership was rather poor; this was one of the reasons the war was un-winnable, although whether it was one of the reasons it started is a bit less clear.

Well, one of my favorite quotes is that the south "died of an idea". I thought it was attributable to a historian, but I've seen it cited as being said by Jeff Davis, etc... so, I'm not sure anymore. BUT, what it means is that the south was in a Catch-22. If you want to fight a war, you need a strong central government, with strong national leaders, and strong national powers, all of which stood in opposition to the southern mentality.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Well, that's a little more ambiguous of a statement. The FF's "beef" more so was a lack of representation given the things Parliament was doing post the French-Indian War.

What very much changed the colonists from focusing on a Parliamentary argument in which they pledged fealty and devotion to the King, to a stance that was anti-monarchy and concentration of power was primarily the influence of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". If you read CS and then read the DoI (which followed CS by several months, almost a year) you see this radical shift in thinking and justification for their claims.

The parallel of South Carolina, which had representation, in fact, excellent representation due to a history of fine politicians, and was not under a monarch (they didn't even wait for Lincoln to take office to secede) a stretch, at best, IMO. Though, I'm less firm in this conviction than in others (such as the war being almost solely about slavery, which, no legit historian will refute).

(a) FF?

(b) Yes, Common Sense had plenty to say about government; I believe Paine was the first (but certainly not the last!) to state "that government is best which governs least."

(c) The US-SC relationship was not the "abusive" Brit-US relationship, true. But based on the Declaration of Independence, South Carolina had the Right to abolish its US-government, as it no longer consented. I think Jefferson's view on government and independence is as fair as any, and twice as valid.

(d) The war almost solely on slavery is something no legitimate historian will dispute? Secession had plenty to do with slavery, but it certainly wasn't the USA's reason for fighting, and it wasn't the only factor in the CSA's leaving. You were doing so well, too, until you had to get that little dig in there.

Pity poor Sam Houston.

Funny, I was thinking Jefferson Davis.

Well, one of my favorite quotes is that the south "died of an idea". I thought it was attributable to a historian, but I've seen it cited as being said by Jeff Davis, etc... so, I'm not sure anymore. BUT, what it means is that the south was in a Catch-22. If you want to fight a war, you need a strong central government, with strong national leaders, and strong national powers, all of which stood in opposition to the southern mentality.

 

[.Shane.]

WRONG! Slavery was NOT front and center. That is revisionist history right there. Slavery perhaps was the front cause leading to events that sparked the first signs of actual conflict such as John Brown at Harpers Ferry, but to blatantly say slavery was front and center is just a historical joke. Sorry, but not a chance on that card.

Sorry, but you're just incorrect. The only people who argue this are apologist and "thesouthwillriseagain.com"-types. Foner, McPherson, Stampp, etc... no one makes the argument you suggest.

As a factor, but please stop ignoring the other factors. Ever since the beginning the Northern states were trying to strangle the South economically. Jackson exemplefied it quite well placing the high tariffs on Southern goods to stifle their trade with Britain. States rights for teh South meant not wanting the North meddling in their affairs and manipulating their politics 24/7, which was happening.

First off, the tariffs were lowered to low levels in the 1840s (Walker Tariff) and to the lowest point of alltime by the Tariff of 1857. So, in 1860, Tariffs were at an alltime low. Thus, there's no reason to crow.

Also, the tariff debate is, as I mentioned, an indirect effect of slavery. How so? The southern economy was completely dependent on imported manufactured goods because their economy was based on a cash-crop, slavery-based economy. The south quite purposely eschewed the development of native manufacturing. Thus, they wanted high tariffs as a cosequence of the economy that evolved from owning slaves.

See, it all circles back. Please give me another example.

I never said they were more vicious I was pointing out that they were vicious.

By not mentioning the south, you are making an inference that I needed to dispel. Or should we revisit the Sumner caning?

And, I'd disagree that "viciousness" defined northern politics. The democratic party was sympathetic to the South, in fact the prior 2 presidents to Lincoln were pro-south Northern Democrats. Additionally, the Northern Dem leader, Douglass was sympathetic. Not even all Republicans were abolitionist. Only a minority. Lincoln himself did not want to abolish slavery only prevent its spread.

Lastly, look at all the events of the 1850s that led to the Civil War. All the devisive events were slavery-driven:

1850 Compromise
Kansas-Nebraska Act/Bleeding Kansas
"Uncle Tom's Cabin"
Dred Scott case
Ostend Manifesto (Cuba, nice big fat slave state there)
John Brown
Sumner Caning incident

Are you kidding? They had every reason to be economically jealous of a regional rival. The rivalry extended long before the issue of slavery, so do not even play the "slavery" card.

I've actually given a lot of analysis. You've not really provided anything other than opinion. Please give me some analysis of this economic jealousy. Sorry, but the north was economically superior to the south by 1860. They had 10x the railroad, self-sufficient agriculture, large manufacturing base, large amounts of capital, excellent shipping, etc....

Those who are justifying Sherman's raping the South are not arguing moral superiority?

I'm not arguing for them, just myself.

 

[.Shane.]

(a) FF?

Founding Fathers. Sorry, shorthand.

(b) Yes, Common Sense had plenty to say about government; I believe Paine was the first (but certainly not the last!) to state "that government is best which governs least."

It had more than "plenty to say", it was probably the most important work in immediately influencing the Revolution. Its striking. Yes, that is his quote. Almost lost his head in France.

(c) The US-SC relationship was not the "abusive" Brit-US relationship, true. But based on the Declaration of Independence, South Carolina had the Right to abolish its US-government, as it no longer consented. I think Jefferson's view on government and independence is as fair as any, and twice as valid.

TBH, I don't see the Brit-US relationship as abusive.

That aside, the DoI is not a governing document. And, mind you, I love the DoI and actually wish that it had been appended to the Constitution in some way, then we might actually be willing to treat "all men" as equals today and not just those lucky enough to have citizenship.

Also, Jefferson and Madison penned the Virginia/Kentucky Resolutions as a response to the Alien-Sedition Acts and the logic presented in those also was used a lot by Southerners. But, these are not documents of governance either.

And, if you're gonna use Jefferson, be fair. Once he became president, he found his narrow constructionism to be quite... a hindrance... and he was quite willing to put it aside to, say, purchase Louisiana and make war on the Barbary Pirates, for 2 examples of several.

Don't get me wrong, if I was a secessionist in 1855, there was certainly a lot of history and documents that you could argue support a non-negotiable view of leaving the Union. I just disagree in that
A. there's a lot of support for the opposing argument
B. regardless of the legalities, the south made the whole thing worse by the course of action they took in 1860/61.

(d) The war almost solely on slavery is something no legitimate historian will dispute? Secession had plenty to do with slavery, but it certainly wasn't the USA's reason for fighting, and it wasn't the only factor in the CSA's leaving. You were doing so well, too, until you had to get that little dig in there.

See my prior comments in prior post. Mind you, I'm saying slavery in both the direct and indirect manner. The whole debate about tariffs, for example, which I elaborated on, is an indirect consequence of slavery. Take any so-called "non-slavery" issue and you'll see its rooted in slavery.

I'll do another. The whole concept of states rights is predicated on the notion that w/ out states rights the north would impose their will and remove slavery. Here's the funny thing about states rights. States only embrace it when their holy grail is in danger. For example New England/Federalists evolved from the Broad Construction party to the States rights party in the 1810s when the South ascended to power, and when we fought the War of 1812, which the Federalists did not support.

I should've cited this earlier, but if you read the Memminger's SC secession document, it almost wholly focuses on slavery and how it makes the south unique, distinct, etc....

I will admit to being behind on the current bibliography, so if you have any recent historiographies, let me know.

Funny, I was thinking Jefferson Davis.

I mention Houston because he wanted to stay loyal and they just about killed him.

 

[Atlas14]

Shane, I do not have the time to be correcting your historical fallacies, simply said, arguing that the Sherman was justified in doing what he did, is just plain wrong. That is what I am arguing. I do not have time to be sidetracked by your lame rhetoric.

Want evidence that the North had reasons to be economically jealous of their rivals long before slavery was even an issue to them? The North and South were rivals along the lines of territory gained from Britain after 1783. The issue of borders was a huge deal.

Your lovely Northerners made slavery the main issue, but that is not what your average southerner was fighting for. Nice try.

 

[.Shane.]

Shane, I do not have the time to be correcting your historical fallacies, simply said, arguing that the Sherman was justified in doing what he did, is just plain wrong. That is what I am arguing. I do not have time to be sidetracked by your lame rhetoric.

Getting ad hominem are we?

Where have I defended Sherman. You said the war was not about slavery. I say it is. I've given evidence. You've given opinions and, now, insults.

Your lovely Northerners made slavery the main issue, but that is not what your average southerner was fighting for.

Again, I've said nothing about "lovely northerners".

 

[Irish Caesar]

Founding Fathers. Sorry, shorthand.

Okay, all I could come up with was "freedom fighters," and that seemed a bit...unconventional?

It had more than "plenty to say", it was probably the most important work in immediately influencing the Revolution. Its striking. Yes, that is his quote. Almost lost his head in France.

Perhaps we should go back to publishing pamphlets. It got a lot done in the late 1700's...

TBH, I don't see the Brit-US relationship as abusive.

Nor do I, so I put quotation makrs around abusive. I do think it wasn't what it should have been, but perhaps that's because I'm not a fan of kings, especially British ones.

That aside, the DoI is not a governing document. And, mind you, I love the DoI and actually wish that it had been appended to the Constitution in some way, then we might actually be willing to treat "all men" as equals today and not just those lucky enough to have citizenship.

Also, Jefferson and Madison penned the Virginia/Kentucky Resolutions as a response to the Alien-Sedition Acts and the logic presented in those also was used a lot by Southerners. But, these are not documents of governance either.

Funny, I was thinking of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, but I figured that I wouldn't bring them up, as they weren't legally binding. I realize that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing, but it's so ingrained in the American essence, if you will, that it seems a lot more valid to quote the Declaration than most of the things that get through Congress.

And, if you're gonna use Jefferson, be fair. Once he became president, he found his narrow constructionism to be quite... a hindrance... and he was quite willing to put it aside to, say, purchase Louisiana and make war on the Barbary Pirates, for 2 examples of several.

I wouldn't say he was "quite willing to put it aside," he was rather concerned that purchasing Louisiana was the wrong thing to do, legal-wise. I don't see Jefferson going against some of his own convictions as proof that the convictions were wrong, though, even if I'm pleased with the end result.

See my prior comments in prior post. Mind you, I'm saying slavery in both the direct and indirect manner. The whole debate about tariffs, for example, which I elaborated on, is an indirect consequence of slavery. Take any so-called "non-slavery" issue and you'll see its rooted in slavery.

I would say that this is not in slavery, but geography. The North was well-suited to industry and manufacturing; the South, agriculture. The tariff issue is an indirect consequence of this difference in economy, it would have come about with or without slavery. Yes, it happens that the agricultural economy was supported by slavery, but there were farmers without slaves, and although I have no evidence to back this up, I think that the Southern economy would have looked pretty similar without slavery.

I'll do another. The whole concept of states rights is predicated on the notion that w/ out states rights the north would impose their will and remove slavery. Here's the funny thing about states rights. States only embrace it when their holy grail is in danger. For example New England/Federalists evolved from the Broad Construction party to the States rights party in the 1810s when the South ascended to power, and when we fought the War of 1812, which the Federalists did not support.

And I wouldn't have had a problem with New England's secession, either. They might have just done it, if the war didn't end before they could get out of Hartford.

I should've cited this earlier, but if you read the SC secession document, it almost wholly focuses on slavery and how it makes the south unique, distinct, etc....

I've read the declaration of secession for South Carolina (and a few others, too), they make a poor case. I think Mississippi's was the most horribly racist, something about white people not being able to do physical work and whatnot. I could argue that most of the country, North and South, tolerated slavery in 1860, although much of the North did not want it expanded any more. Whether this came from the goodness of their hearts (I doubt it) or the desire for Congressional power (probably more likely) I don't really know and can't judge. I won't make that argument now, though, as I just can't argue for slavery, no matter who supported it in the 1850's and why.

I will admit to being behind on the current bibliography, so if you have any recent historiographies, let me know.

I'm no expert, although I enjoy reading about the time period.

The most recent book I read on the subject was When in the Course of Human Events, by Charles Adams. It's well-documented, with a lot of material from the British presses, but I think it might be a bit too dismissive of the slavery issue.

I mention Houston because he wanted to stay loyal and they just about killed him.

Well, he got a gold star from John Kennedy; points for that?