The Fifty First State

[Sonereal]

While secession might be treason, those driven to separation must feel in turn betrayed by the federal government.

Even when most of the reason was because they really really really wanted slaves?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

 

[NickyJ]

You do realise that the harshness of slavery was not limited to the beatings (which were mass enough to come as historic evidence for observing from outisde the USA). It is also in consideration of the facts.

That goes hand-in-hand with what Ghost said before:

It was big plantation owners that really abued them. [slaves]

Slavery was not the only factor but it did dominate. Sectionalism could relate with slavery as a influence on ecomonics. The state right issue came with desires of some to bring their slaves with them to the north... something that would be questionable. By 1810, 75 percent of all blacks in the North were free. In the south the same could not be said.

Another major influence in the states seceding was that the North would purchase Southern cotton at low prices, and then sell them for higher profits elsewhere, as well as bar the South from selling their cotton to foreign nations.

To underestimate slavery's impact on the American Civil War would be a mistake.

By no means am I saying that it didn't play a major role in the Civil War. But as I said before, there were other factors that played roles in it too, and they are often whitewashed over with slavery.

How does that in any way negate anything I wrote - other than because you say it does?

Yes, it does. You tried to minimize the fact that slavery existed in the North, and say it was almost nonexistent. It was existent, pretty much negates your point.

Since you seem so fond of the smileys now that you've moved past crazy fonts, here's a couple for you:

Ah, you were being sarcastic. Never mind then, glad to see you agree with me!

 

[Traitorfish]

Historic observations states that few slaves were whipped or beaten...

If you think that in any way takes away from the fundamental and absolute abhorrence of slavery, you've got something wrong with you.

 

[Ailedhoo]

That goes hand-in-hand with what Ghost said before:

What goes big tends to also occure small, at least in form of influence.

Another major influence in the states seceding was that the North would purchase Southern cotton at low prices, and then sell them for higher profits elsewhere, as well as bar the South from selling their cotton to foreign nations.

Well its more complicated. It was a issue of protectionism and free trade, with the North trying to protect their industry due to the Brit's ecomonic dominion over the globe. We Brits can be to put to blame here for our industrialisation (and our use of Egypt for cottern) had made it difficult for the USA to export.

No matter what happens we Brits screw things till they squick.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yep, that is more complicated. Amazing the factors that played into the shooting war. But the low hanging fruit is just... so... tasty... wait, what were we talking about?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yes, it does. You tried to minimize the fact that slavery existed in the North, and say it was almost nonexistent. It was existent, pretty much negates your point.

Oooh negate. I'm glad I'm adding to your vocabulary.

But no, you didn't negate my point. You've missed the nuance and the context entirely and deliberately to tell us all how slavery wasn't all that bad.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Yep, that is more complicated. Amazing the factors that played into the shooting war. But the low hanging fruit is just... so... tasty... wait, what were we talking about?

What is going to be the 51st state or at least the title of this thread...

Wait... is this thread about the idea of a 51st member of the USA or the American Civil War?

May Confucius lead us to a solution to the confussion!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I really would like to discuss Puerto Rico if anyone's interested...

 

[Farm Boy]

I think Canada will get to qualify as more than one state. Our hat gets more than 2 senators!

 

[Ailedhoo]

I think Canada will get to qualify as more than one state. Our hat gets more than 2 senators!

The USA would make a good part of Canada...

 

[NickyJ]

If you think that in any way takes away from the fundamental and absolute abhorrence of slavery, you've got something wrong with you.

Glad to see you don't think I have anything wrong with me, since I never said it did take away from it. As I've stated time and again, slavery is completely evil.

What goes big tends to also occure small, at least in form of influence.

Maybe, but so far, it's only been shown to be in a few plantations from whats been discussed in this topic. Far from being a majority of the slaves.

Well its more complicated. It was a issue of protectionism and free trade, with the North trying to protect their industry due to the Brit's ecomonic dominion over the globe. We Brits can be to put to blame here for our industrialisation (and our use of Egypt for cottern) had made it difficult for the USA to export.

No matter what happens we Brits screw things till they squick.

Very true, but that didn't lessen the anger the South felt towards the North for that protectionism.

QUOTE=hobbsyoyo;11786195]Oooh negate. I'm glad I'm adding to your vocabulary.[/QUOTE]
Your lack of any other words in your vocabulary forced me into using it on penalty of you making more assumptions.

But no, you didn't negate my point. You've missed the nuance and the context entirely and deliberately to tell us all how slavery wasn't all that bad.

Aaaaand it appears the word has suddenly fallen out of your vocabulary again. Oh, well....

I think Canada will get to qualify as more than one state. Our hat gets more than 2 senators!

I'm not so sure the U.S. would want Canada. Remove Canucks fans from there, and we'd take it in a heartbeat.

 

[Traitorfish]

Glad to see you don't think I have anything wrong with me, since I never said it did take away from it. As I've stated time and again, slavery is completely evil.

So then why defend its apologists?

 

[NickyJ]

So then why defend its apologists?

In that case, why state facts if we don't like them? Why not just shove them under a rug and pretend they don't exist?

Again, slavery is absolutely disgusting and evil, but ignoring facts isn't going to change anything.

 

[Traitorfish]

In that case, why state facts?

Why state facts while failing to recognise their context? We can only assume that those who do are engaged in some misdirection or are simply stupid, and I suppose it's up to you if you want to think of those you defend as liars or idiots.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In that case, why state facts if we don't like them? Why not just shove them under a rug and pretend they don't exist?

Again, slavery is absolutely disgusting and evil, but ignoring facts isn't going to change anything.

But you painted such a rosy picture of it and the CSA "patriots" that any reasonable person would find it hard to believe you now.

 

[NickyJ]

All I'm doing is stating facts. I'm not saying it strengthens or lessens the fact that slavery was evil. Learning the truth is hardly "misdirection" or stupid.

But you painted such a rosy picture of it and the CSA "patriots" that any reasonable person would find it hard to believe you now.

Anyone who views it as a rosy picture has....... "issues".

 

[hobbsyoyo]

All I'm doing is stating facts. I'm not saying it strengthens or lessens the fact that slavery was evil. Learning the truth is hardly "misdirection" or stupid.

There's so much truth to the goodly motives of confederate traitors and the friendly o'erseers.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why state facts while failing to recognise their context? We can only assume that those who do are engaged in some misdirection or are simply stupid, and I suppose it's up to you if you want to think of those you defend as liars or idiots.

A simplification based on context? Are you feeling ok TF? I'm actually a little concerned.

 

[NickyJ]

There's so much truth to the goodly motives of confederate traitors and the friendly o'erseers.

You think the overseers were friendly?

 

[Traitorfish]

All I'm doing is stating facts. I'm not saying it strengthens or lessens the fact that slavery was evil. Learning the truth is hardly "misdirection" or stupid.

The truth is that slavery means owning another human being, wholly and completely, and so represents an unqualified abhorrence. Whether you need to beat them to maintain that reality- and let's be very clear, the amount of violence deployed in these relationships is at its root matter of necessity, not sentimental disposition- is a fact so irrelevant to this judgement that introducing it could only be suspicious. We may as well point out that the inmates of the Nazi death camps were provided with latrines rather than having to crap in the corner, because, hey, it's just facts, right?