The CSA (Opinions)

[GhostWriter16]

I tend toward Lysander Spooner's opinion. States are justified in waging war to gain their freedom, just as slaves are justified in killing their masters if the can be free no other way. In either case however, it ought to be discouraged.


I would not want to invest the power to succeed in a state legislature. A plebiscite should be required.

Discouraged or not depends on the situation. In the US South, slaves who fought their masters were justified.

 

[Cutlass]

Saying "the CSA did not have the right to secede", after the fact, is pointless. Many people at the time, even in the North thought "legal secession" was possible, after all, the states approved the Constitution, not the other way around.

Texas v. White ruled that the CSA never seceded for the purposes of treasury bonds issued during the war. It said "all those bonds issued during the Civil War are junk and are worth nothing".

And additionally...



...sound familiar?

What made the Southern secession illegal whereas the 'secession' of the colonies from Great Britain was all fine and dandy?

If you make the assumption of the possibility of legal secession then you have to follow that with working within the existing legal framework to accomplish secession. Something the South couldn't be bothered to do.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

If you make the assumption of the possibility of legal secession then you have to follow that with working within the existing legal framework to accomplish secession. Something the South couldn't be bothered to do.

probably because it would have required reading.

 

[Godwynn]

The CSA (Opinions)

My opinion is that it sucked and I'm glad it was defeated.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yep my response

Moderator Action: Please read the rules stickied at the top of the forum. Please reply outside of quote boxes

 

[Antilogic]

I'm just raising the point what makes one example of breaking away different from another. Had the UK succeeded in putting the colonists, Americans would probably would have a complete 180 view on breaking away and the American Revolution. I guess it really is the victors who write history. (and I'm doing a bit of devil advocating...)

While that might be true in other cases, especially for time periods long past where we do not have all the information we would otherwise have access to in the modern era, I agree with you. However, we are talking about "recent" events in the scope of human history, and the level of information we have available to us is sufficient to make our own assessment.

I believe we can make this assessment on the basis of representation in the government. If you do not have a voice in the government (or, specifically, the ability to vote or run for office), then you are perfectly justified to revolt and form a government where you do have a voice. However, when your side is represented in all three branches of the government and you still don't get your way, you are just being a sore loser. My take in simple language: you don't always get your way in a democracy, and just because you think the other guy, when he gets into office, might do something to restrict but not necessarily eliminate the beloved institution of slavery... well, that doesn't give you the right to smash up the place.

Also, I highly suspect the "Lost Cause" types would still be around, just for a different war.

 

[kulade]

Hi!!! Hello again young Mr. Domination!!!

however, state's rights trump federal ones. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

Well that's cute, but not since the tenth amendment!!! States are delegated the rights to legislate on matters not previously legislative upon by the Federal Government; they have never been able to overrule them!!! Over the years... er, regressive states have often invoked the alleged legal power of what is called "nullification" to avoid practicing federal law, but this power has consistently been found to be unconstitutional in numerous court cases (Cooper v. Aaron, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, Ableman v. Booth)!!! This is a pretty important part of all federal republics; you know you really shouldn't try to say you know about things like this before taking even a high school civics class!!! Just because you can go on the internet and say inflammatory or blatantly incorrect things and illicit responses doesn't mean you know what you are talking about!!!

They seriously misinterpreted scripture to support slavery. As a whole they believed that was the black man's role. They were so wrong its sick but they didn't know it was wrong.

Southern Christians didn't believe blacks were inferior because of what was said in the Bible; they believed the Bible said the blacks were inferior because that's what they wanted it to say!!! Being an often ambiguous book and seemingly contradictory, many Biblical passages can be taken to be indictments of whatever the reader so wills!!! In fact, the Bible, being something that is very important to many Americans, is often used as a political rationale for public policies (like slavery) that are justifiable with the Bible!!!

Critical Thinking Homework: Think about one way in contemporary society that manipulative politicians goad Christians into voting for them with Biblical scripture!!!

 

[Miles Teg]

I bolded the part that I believe to be false.

And it's typically inane.

No matter how you cut it, the Union was the aggressors. The Union held bases in Confederate territory, which was, to them, an occupation. The Union sent troops to invade the Confederates.

Holding property inside another country is not an act of war. Even if the Confederacy had the right to secede (thy didn't), they certainly didn't have the right to demand federal property.

As for the deprivation of rights, the South didn't believe that. They seriously misinterpreted scripture to support slavery. As a whole they believed that was the black man's role. They were so wrong its sick but they didn't know it was wrong.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. Obviously, the Confederacy was founded to insure that the rights of some Americans would be remain completely repressed. They weren't quite cackling with glee at the thought, and they had their philosophical justifications, but none of that actually matters.

 

[Samson]

I hope this is not to off topic, but I would be interested to hear the opinion of people who beleive that the CSA did not have a right to secede, what do you think about other areas right to secede, for example Slovenia?

 

[Antilogic]

I hope this is not to off topic, but I would be interested to hear the opinion of people who beleive that the CSA did not have a right to secede, what do you think about other areas right to secede, for example Slovenia?

I think my comments are fairly clear: if you have representation and the ability to participate in a legislative body such as a Parliament or Congress, the ability to vote for the chief executive, rule of law applied decently well, etc. then secession is a no-no. For nations that share only part of these characteristics, such as the United Kingdom with an elected Parliament but a hereditary monarch, that's more borderline and I'd have to have more specific information. I have few quarrels with regions seceding from military dictatorships or other forms of autocratic government. I believe if you don't have representation in your government, you have the right to form one that does.

That general comment being said, I am not an expert on the Balkan area/Yugoslavia, especially in contemporary times, and would have to research the Slovene secession more before I give you a definitive answer.

 

[civ_king]

That's how it should be. Granted, I have no support for slavery, in fact I oppose it with every bone in my body, however, state's rights trump federal ones. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.



I bolded the part that I believe to be false.

No matter how you cut it, the Union was the aggressors. The Union held bases in Confederate territory, which was, to them, an occupation. The Union sent troops to invade the Confederates.

Granted, the aggression was justified, if not to bring the states back to the Union (Which I'm kinda on the fence on) then certainly to free the blacks who were slaves to them. However, it was still aggression. Our war on Afghanistan was an invasion of their territory. It was right, it was for defense, and it was to free the people, a good cause, but it was still aggression.

As for the deprivation of rights, the South didn't believe that. They seriously misinterpreted scripture to support slavery. As a whole they believed that was the black man's role. They were so wrong its sick but they didn't know it was wrong.

Actually the first act of aggression was Confederates firing on a defenseless ship...
If the California left the Union it could legitimately seize all military equipment?

 

[History_Buff]

I hope this is not to off topic, but I would be interested to hear the opinion of people who beleive that the CSA did not have a right to secede, what do you think about other areas right to secede, for example Slovenia?

I have to echo (rather exactly) the sentiment of AntiLogic. In order to secede from your current country, the secessionists must have been deliberately excluded from representation in government.

And I too don't know enough about the particulars of Slovenia.

 

[Cutlass]

I hope this is not to off topic, but I would be interested to hear the opinion of people who beleive that the CSA did not have a right to secede, what do you think about other areas right to secede, for example Slovenia?

The right of secession or not has to be bound together with the legitimacy of the government, and what the government says on the subject. In the US, a case can be made for secession, but it is a weak one and probably would not have held up to a serious challenge. But since it never has been challenged, and now likely never will be, we can't know if it will ever work.

Other nations have different situations. Like the American Colonies before independence, a situation where a region has no representation and no legal rights does have a legitimate right to self determination. Note the difference between the Colonies and the Confederacy: One had no representation, the other did.

When an empire falls apart, like the USSR or Yugoslavia, then that may or may not be a particularly ugly secession. And it could take some time before the borders are really stabilized. But they have a right to it. Something like Czechoslovakia managed a peaceful dissolution. And that's fine, when people can peacefully decide they'd be better off apart.

Other cases, I tend to lean away from secessions, but not entirely. If one region simply cannot live in peace and does not have equal rights of another, then it may be acceptable. But it should be looked at on a case by case basis depending on local circumstances.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I hope this is not to off topic, but I would be interested to hear the opinion of people who beleive that the CSA did not have a right to secede, what do you think about other areas right to secede, for example Slovenia?

The formalisation of negro slavery on an automatic purely hereditary basis was fundamentally anomalous in the context of the various arguments:

(i) Magna Carter, english common law, english civil war, Glorious Revolution, habeas corpus,
(ii) the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence
(iii) most reputable Christian thinking
(iv) 19th century rights of man and ethical thinking in rest of world (less Brazil); and
(v) theories of economic efficiencyl


It is worth noting how slavery came into being.

(1) Virus and bacteria devasted the native American population.

(2) The white colonists wanted to be masters or independents, not servants.

(3) In the 13 colonies and early USA, there was always more land than labour.

(4) So any indentured labourer who was any good would set up a farm for himself.

(5) The 13 colonies and early USA therefore had an acute labour shortage.

(6) Forced labour was historically accepted as appropriate for felons and prisoners of war (arising from wars of nation states), being correctly regarded as much more compassionate than mutilation or summary execution. Therefore it made sense for colonial (the pre US land owners) to accept European prisoners as a labour source.

(7) But the problem for the landowners were that that there were simply not enough
European prisoners, they had no incentive to work without a promise of release and could run away, move to a different colony and start their own farm.

(8) So people (mainly european) went to Africa to trade for African felons/prisoners.

(9) But demand exceeded the natural supply so wars undertaken to secure prisoners.

(10) The world decided the cross Atlantic slave trade was illegal (i.e. innocent Africans were being unlawfully enslaved and suffering horribly) and blocked it.

(11) But slaves died, so without replenishment from Africa a shortage would occur.

(12) The US slave owners therefore encouraged the breeding of slaves.

(13) Now the children born of slaves could not be really be regarded as either felons or prisoners of war, i.e. the original moral argument of (6) could not be used.

(14) Therefore the argument that the negroes were an inferior race was developed.
This was to cover up for the fact that the slave owners had become de fact criminals, falsely imprisoning, raping, torturing and murdering those who had done no wrong.

(15) Southern whites started to believe their own propaganda.

(16) The slaveowners (being wealthy and powerful) were able to get their own way,
(i.e. ensure state law was rewritten, and the US supreme court supported them.

(17) However the slaveowners realised that unless they could extend slavery to the new US states, they would lose the argument by ultimately being outvoted.

(18) Their campaign to extend slavery to new US states became stalled.

(19) Now the slave owners could have decided to quietly convert the slaves into an indentured servant class with limited rights and then free them and pay them a pittance. This would likely have been more profitable than slavery. However they had become mentally prisoners of their own propaganda.

(20) So the CSA was created to sustain such criminality.

(21) The concept of states rights was very much developed anhd expounded upon to get the non slave owning whites to fight to defend the CSA, together with a few other arguments that if the negoes were freed they would take the whites jobs.

(22) The non slave owning southern whites were stupid and fell for this nonsense.

(23) The secessation was therefore an ancillary act undertaken for a criminal purpose.

(24) The secessation was therefore illegal.



Slovenia had the right to secede because it was
specifically mentioned in the Yugoslav constitution.

 

[Colonel]

Secession is illegal, the Texas constitution which says they can secede is by definition unconstitutional. The Federal government holds supremacy so if the Fed decides that state X can resign from the union then they can, otherwise they can not. The whole point that the Constitution was written is because the Articles of Confederation lacked a sufficiently powerful federal government. Last point in this case Might makes Right! The South lost and in so doing settled the question of the legality of secession!

 

[Bugfatty300]

Actually the first act of aggression was Confederates firing on a defenseless ship...
If the California left the Union it could legitimately seize all military equipment?

However the the big shooting war didn't start until Union troops invaded Virginia. Fort Sumter is really just another a good example of a small skirmish being a convenient excuse to start full scale war (a time honored American practice). Of course the southern states were well on there way out and nothing short of full scale war was going to bring them back anyway so actually Fort Sumter seems kind of irrelevant in the greater sense of the war.

 

[Ashurdan]

Saying "the CSA did not have the right to secede", after the fact, is pointless. Many people at the time, even in the North thought "legal secession" was possible, after all, the states approved the Constitution, not the other way around.

Texas v. White ruled that the CSA never seceded for the purposes of treasury bonds issued during the war. It said "all those bonds issued during the Civil War are junk and are worth nothing".

And additionally...



...sound familiar?

What made the Southern secession illegal whereas the 'secession' of the colonies from Great Britain was all fine and dandy?

So I guess you just skimmed the decision? Read it again the bonds in question were US government bonds not CSA. And if you didn't even read the decision then why are we even talking?

I almost feel like I should just quote the whole decision but that would take a lot of space... The Cheif Justice, Salmon Chase wrote:

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States"

For a quick overview of the case:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

 

[Miles Teg]

However the the big shooting war didn't start until Union troops invaded Virginia. Fort Sumter is really just another a good example of a small skirmish being a convenient excuse to start full scale war (a time honored American practice). Of course the southern states were well on there way out and nothing short of full scale war was going to bring them back anyway so actually Fort Sumter seems kind of irrelevant in the greater sense of the war.

Actually, there was no "convenient excuse". Secession and Treason are and were illegal, and the Union army marched south to put down a rebellion. Ft. Sumter was just proof positive that the South had no intention of settling the matter peaceably.

 

[Antilogic]

Actually, there was no "convenient excuse". Secession and Treason are and were illegal, and the Union army marched south to put down a rebellion. Ft. Sumter was just proof positive that the South had no intention of settling the matter peaceably.

I was about to post an analogy of the cops being guilty of murder when a hostage situation goes bad, but you've summed it up perfectly.

 

[RebelYeller]

First off, its generaly considered to do a large rebuttal post with inline arguments.


Since when was Florida a soverign state? For an entity to be considered a formal nation it has to have soverignity. For all its independance, Florida still said it was part of the CSA with Jefferson Davis as its president. If you acknowledge someone as having authority over you, or at least being able to speak for you, then you are not a soverign nation.

Davis didn't have authority over us because we could leave whenever we wanted to. Davis was just a convienent way to organize the states for some common purpose like say keeping northern folk from trespassin.

The North didn't have Andersonville.

The south didn't have Camp Douglas

The North generaly treated the POWs better.

Yeah well you yanks blocked off our trading so it was hard to get the POWs stuff. Seems you yanks brought this upon yourselves.

So you feel it is right for a nation to exist where its whole reason for independance is so it cany deny fellow humans their God given rights? However you try to frame it as states rights, slavery was still the core issue. States rights would have been far less of an issue if the south had not possesed slaves.

Well you see we found these Bible verses that seemed to justify the slavery. A mistaken impression yes but at the time it seemed like a right impression so you know.......

How so? The states entered into the Union to become a country. I don't get what you are driving at here.

I do

Hey, you guys revolted even when Lincoln had taken no formal actions against you. The south was prompted to revolt by fear of a possibility, not fear of a reality.

Ah but you admit that there was a possiblity!

No matter how you frame it, the person who attacked first is almost always the agressor. The south didn't have to attack the forts. While Lincoln still would have fought the south if they seceeded, he would have been the agressor.

If other people believe how we frame it then it doesn't matter who attacks first.

Do we care? Even though states were near independant in the CSA they still acknowledged Jefferson Davis as their leader and the CSA as the 'global representative'. The CSA attacked Fort Sumpter, hence Florida did to. It doesn't matter how you try and frame it. Florida was a member of the CSA, and the CSA attacked Fort Sumpter.

If you accepted how I framed it it would have mattered.

How so? A nation where one of its core reasons for seceeding was so they could deny humans their God-Given rights is not one I like to see. Especialy when the method of chosing slaves is based solely on their skin color than any intellectual or other characteristics.

I agree

The south lost, slavery is gone and the CSA is gone. Accept it.

Oh I'm accepting it, I do that everytime.

EDIT: Mangxema, could you spoiler that pic, it is a bit creepy.

You see we can come to some kind of agreement on this issue.