Did the South have a right to secede?

[Seleucas]

Actually, with the Trent Affair, they did almost come to war, and the British did actively support Southern blockade running (for the cotton.) The Union was also a threat to their goals in the Western Hemisphere, with their being next to Canada and the Monroe Doctrine, and while the working class was in support of the North, the same could not be said of the rest of their society.

The Trent Affair was the closet they came as it was seen as an insult to British honor, also the British supported the Monroe Doctrine as it screwed over the Spanish and French will they were able to keep their colonies.

But the Trent Affair came up because of Britain entertaining the CSA's suggestions that they be recognized; if they had not wanted to hear of it at all, they would not have taken the diplomats to begin with. And while the Monroe Doctrine would not have been problematic while the US was still, in effect, unable to enforce it, they certainly did not want the US to be able to gain the strength to do so, like what would happen with Great Britain's dealing with Venezuela decades later.

[Dusk_Kittens]

No, it's a fallacy to claim that a question of Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, or any other branch of Philosophy can be settled by resorting to violence. Might does NOT make right.

It doesn't? I always thought it did (you know, since it follows directly from "an unenforceable right does not exist"). Or is might not making right supposed to be one of those self-evident things that totally frees you from needing to actually support your claim?

I really must express my gratitude to you for so honestly admitting the pro-Federalist position, rather than engaging in sophistry in an effort to pretend to claiming lofty "moral" high ground, as pro-Federalists often do in these discussions. You actually concede that the pro-Federalist position, in this particular, at least, is based on an ideal that is so far from ethical praiseworthiness as to render the entirety of the Federalist position over the War for Southern Independence moot. You admit that Federalists resorted to force in order to impose their order on the Confederacy. Where is that much-lauded ideal, so basic to the very existence of the USA itself, that "government exists by consent of the governed"? Oh, I guess that ideal only has merit if the governed can throw off the yoke of oppression by means of force, and otherwise, any government is wholly justified in whatever excesses it seeks to pursue. Thanks again for admitting that the Federalist position, far from being ethically noble, is naught but bullying.

Maybe you missed the memo, but the Laws of Logic are absolute, and Logic and Mathematics are the only pure sciences. A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy. An ideal is true or false on its own merits, and not because someone who espouses an ideal beats the hell out of someone else who rejects the ideal. How far back your notion that might makes right would set the human condition, if any micro-brained, muscular thug, alone or with his gang, could determine the truth or falsity of a given proposition by fisticuffs. I suppose if this thug and his gang were to go around bullying bespectacled Mathematics professors, it would then become true that 2+2=8, simply because the gang asserts such a claim to be true and is able to "enforce" that belief by might.

But if you want to attack the Verifiability Criterion (and it is worthy of attack, to be sure, but it's not the basis of the Laws of Logic), maybe you want to explain your assertion "an unenforceable right does not exist"? I mean, after all, you have given no support for that claim.

[Seleucas]

It doesn't? I always thought it did (you know, since it follows directly from "an unenforceable right does not exist"). Or is might not making right supposed to be one of those self-evident things that totally frees you from needing to actually support your claim?

I really must express my gratitude to you for so honestly admitting the pro-Federalist position, rather than engaging in sophistry in an effort to pretend to claiming lofty "moral" high ground, as pro-Federalists often do in these discussions. You actually concede that the pro-Federalist position, in this particular, at least, is based on an ideal that is so far from ethical praiseworthiness as to render the entirety of the Federalist position over the War for Southern Independence moot. You admit that Federalists resorted to force in order to impose their order on the Confederacy. Where is that much-lauded ideal, so basic to the very existence of the USA itself, that "government exists by consent of the governed"? Oh, I guess that ideal only has merit if the governed can throw off the yoke of oppression by means of force, and otherwise, any government is wholly justified in whatever excesses it seeks to pursue. Thanks again for admitting that the Federalist position, far from being ethically noble, is naught but bullying.

Maybe you missed the memo, but the Laws of Logic are absolute, and Logic and Mathematics are the only pure sciences. A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy. An ideal is true or false on its own merits, and not because someone who espouses an ideal beats the hell out of someone else who rejects the ideal. How far back your notion that might makes right would set the human condition, if any micro-brained, muscular thug, alone or with his gang, could determine the truth or falsity of a given proposition by fisticuffs. I suppose if this thug and his gang were to go around bullying bespectacled Mathematics professors, it would then become true that 2+2=8, simply because the gang asserts such a claim to be true and is able to "enforce" that belief by might.

But if you want to attack the Verifiability Criterion (and it is worthy of attack, to be sure, but it's not the basis of the Laws of Logic), maybe you want to explain your assertion "an unenforceable right does not exist"? I mean, after all, you have given no support for that claim.

On a related note, why do the 'might makes right' crowd debate in the first place? Clearly, argumentation is not the way to determine whether something is right or not, so wouldn't it make more sense to just go around and beat people up and otherwise coerce them into obedience rather than use debate, something that they have implicitly rejected?

[Dusk_Kittens]

I really must express my gratitude to you for so honestly admitting the pro-Federalist position, rather than engaging in sophistry in an effort to pretend to claiming lofty "moral" high ground, as pro-Federalists often do in these discussions. You actually concede that the pro-Federalist position, in this particular, at least, is based on an ideal that is so far from ethical praiseworthiness as to render the entirety of the Federalist position over the War for Southern Independence moot. You admit that Federalists resorted to force in order to impose their order on the Confederacy. Where is that much-lauded ideal, so basic to the very existence of the USA itself, that "government exists by consent of the governed"? Oh, I guess that ideal only has merit if the governed can throw off the yoke of oppression by means of force, and otherwise, any government is wholly justified in whatever excesses it seeks to pursue. Thanks again for admitting that the Federalist position, far from being ethically noble, is naught but bullying.

Maybe you missed the memo, but the Laws of Logic are absolute, and Logic and Mathematics are the only pure sciences. A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy. An ideal is true or false on its own merits, and not because someone who espouses an ideal beats the hell out of someone else who rejects the ideal. How far back your notion that might makes right would set the human condition, if any micro-brained, muscular thug, alone or with his gang, could determine the truth or falsity of a given proposition by fisticuffs. I suppose if this thug and his gang were to go around bullying bespectacled Mathematics professors, it would then become true that 2+2=8, simply because the gang asserts such a claim to be true and is able to "enforce" that belief by might.

But if you want to attack the Verifiability Criterion (and it is worthy of attack, to be sure, but it's not the basis of the Laws of Logic), maybe you want to explain your assertion "an unenforceable right does not exist"? I mean, after all, you have given no support for that claim.

On a related note, why do the 'might makes right' crowd debate in the first place? Clearly, argumentation is not the way to determine whether something is right or not, so wouldn't it make more sense to just go around and beat people up and otherwise coerce them into obedience rather than use debate, something that they have implicitly rejected?

Indeed. I believe the phrase "self-referential incoherence" applies in that case.

[The UK in Exile]

The Trent Affair was the closet they came as it was seen as an insult to British honor, also the British supported the Monroe Doctrine as it screwed over the Spanish and French will they were able to keep their colonies.

But the Trent Affair came up because of Britain entertaining the CSA's suggestions that they be recognized; if they had not wanted to hear of it at all, they would not have taken the diplomats to begin with. And while the Monroe Doctrine would not have been problematic while the US was still, in effect, unable to enforce it, they certainly did not want the US to be able to gain the strength to do so, like what would happen with Great Britain's dealing with Venezuela decades later.

britain entertained the CSA ambassadors to assert the UK's rights as neutrals in the conflict. due to the US trying to get all the benefits of a state of war and none of the drawbacks. if the CSA had done something major like captured DC then britain might have recognized them but thats as far as it would have gone.

[Anti-Obamaland]

While practicing slavery no, simply for the fact that if they want to have slaves they deserved to BE slaves to a federal government.

Without slavery, maybe. Depends on why they are leaving the union. Generally though, I think we need MORE unity not less.

Slavery was only a side issue. The issues of leaving the union revolved around state's rights. I can see what side of the War of Northern Aggression you fall on...

[Farnhamia]

While practicing slavery no, simply for the fact that if they want to have slaves they deserved to BE slaves to a federal government.

Without slavery, maybe. Depends on why they are leaving the union. Generally though, I think we need MORE unity not less.

Slavery was only a side issue. The issues of leaving the union revolved around state's rights. I can see what side of the War of Northern Aggression you fall on...

The only right the Confederacy was fighting for was the right to own humans as property. The South Carolina declaration mentions nothing else as vehemently as slavery.

They had the right to try to secede. They failed.

[Distruzio]

While practicing slavery no, simply for the fact that if they want to have slaves they deserved to BE slaves to a federal government.

Without slavery, maybe. Depends on why they are leaving the union. Generally though, I think we need MORE unity not less.

Slavery was only a side issue. The issues of leaving the union revolved around state's rights. I can see what side of the War of Northern Aggression you fall on...

Slavery was an issue of primacy, but it was not the only issue at hand. Do not discount it's role in the reason for war so idly. Moreover, the war was a War for Southern Independence. The North may have invaded, but the South initiated hostilities due to Davis and his warmongering allies in the Confederate and South Carolinian gov't.

[Distruzio]

The only right the Confederacy was fighting for was the right to own humans as property.

Not even close to fact. The Confederacy, qua Confederacy, fought to defend its territorial integrity. The Confederacy, qua Southern Slave owners, fought to defend their property.

The South Carolina declaration mentions nothing else as vehemently as slavery.

True. But South Carolina was not the Confederacy. Remember, the Confederacy was a confederation, not a federation. Therefore the whole was merely the sum of it's parts, but not the parts themselves. Where the Union operates along parallel gov'ts of National and state levels one subordinate to the other, the Confederacy operated along a multiplicity of gov't levels along Federal (not national), and various state levels each in competition with one another.

They had the right to try to secede. They failed.

I'm pleased that you admit as much.

[United Casio]

Of course they had a right to secede, if they felt that their corrupted needs were not being met within union they had a right to secede.

[Farnhamia]

The only right the Confederacy was fighting for was the right to own humans as property.

Not even close to fact. The Confederacy, qua Confederacy, fought to defend its territorial integrity. The Confederacy, qua Southern Slave owners, fought to defend their property.

The South Carolina declaration mentions nothing else as vehemently as slavery.

True. But South Carolina was not the Confederacy. Remember, the Confederacy was a confederation, not a federation. Therefore the whole was merely the sum of it's parts, but not the parts themselves. Where the Union operates along parallel gov'ts of National and state levels one subordinate to the other, the Confederacy operated along a multiplicity of gov't levels along Federal (not national), and various state levels each in competition with one another.

They had the right to try to secede. They failed.

I'm pleased that you admit as much.

Don't be that pleased. The leaders of the Confederacy were still traitors and incompetent ones, as well.

[The Island]

It doesn't? I always thought it did (you know, since it follows directly from "an unenforceable right does not exist"). Or is might not making right supposed to be one of those self-evident things that totally frees you from needing to actually support your claim?

I really must express my gratitude to you for so honestly admitting the pro-Federalist position, rather than engaging in sophistry in an effort to pretend to claiming lofty "moral" high ground, as pro-Federalists often do in these discussions. You actually concede that the pro-Federalist position, in this particular, at least, is based on an ideal that is so far from ethical praiseworthiness as to render the entirety of the Federalist position over the War for Southern Independence moot. You admit that Federalists resorted to force in order to impose their order on the Confederacy. Where is that much-lauded ideal, so basic to the very existence of the USA itself, that "government exists by consent of the governed"? Oh, I guess that ideal only has merit if the governed can throw off the yoke of oppression by means of force, and otherwise, any government is wholly justified in whatever excesses it seeks to pursue. Thanks again for admitting that the Federalist position, far from being ethically noble, is naught but bullying.

Maybe you missed the memo, but the Laws of Logic are absolute, and Logic and Mathematics are the only pure sciences. A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy. An ideal is true or false on its own merits, and not because someone who espouses an ideal beats the hell out of someone else who rejects the ideal. How far back your notion that might makes right would set the human condition, if any micro-brained, muscular thug, alone or with his gang, could determine the truth or falsity of a given proposition by fisticuffs. I suppose if this thug and his gang were to go around bullying bespectacled Mathematics professors, it would then become true that 2+2=8, simply because the gang asserts such a claim to be true and is able to "enforce" that belief by might.

But if you want to attack the Verifiability Criterion (and it is worthy of attack, to be sure, but it's not the basis of the Laws of Logic), maybe you want to explain your assertion "an unenforceable right does not exist"? I mean, after all, you have given no support for that claim.

I'm curious. Since you are, in fact, claiming the ethical high-ground, can you please explain upon what you base your ethical framework. You failed to address Senestrum's point that you've made a claim and failed to support it. Supposing Senestrum (or anyone else) does claim that "might makes right" is more ethical. On what basis do you claim that your ethical framework is more "right" than theirs? You mention logic, but logic has nothing to do with ethics. You cannot logically derive a system of ethics. Moreover, the history of civilization is one of groups of people banding together to protect themselves from stronger neighbors. If everyone simply understood that logic dicated might does not make right, why have so many people used their might to impose their wills on others?

[Genivaria]

As I've previously said. Rights are determined by the one with the better Generals, soldiers, and weapons.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Slavery was only a side issue. The issues of leaving the union revolved around state's rights. I can see what side of the War of Northern Aggression you fall on...

The only right the Confederacy was fighting for was the right to own humans as property. The South Carolina declaration mentions nothing else as vehemently as slavery.

They had the right to try to secede. They failed.

Oh, please. This assertion about slavery being the only issue that SC was concerned with is the same thing you attempted in the past. Read the Declaration of Secession of South Carolina. Read it. Pay close attention. The objection is couched in terms of slavery, because it was in the matter of slavery that the Constitution was being violated by certain non-slaveholding states, and the Declaration of Secession makes this crystal clear to anyone who will examine it without 100+ years of pro-Federalist propaganda acting as a filter. "Oh, but the complaints have to do with nothing except slaves." On the contrary, South Carolina laid out a very lucid argument concerning their view of the Constitution as compact, as compact violated (and how it was violated, which, again, is the only thing you seem to be noticing -- and without acknowledging that it -- the Constitution -- was in fact being violated), and as compact nullified.

Now, before you start quoting the document selectively, I'll link it here for everyone to read:
South Carolina's Declaration of Secession.

And before you still assert that slavery is the only issue in the document, read it. It complains of the Constitution being violated -- in the matter of slavery, yes, but THE CONSTITUTION WAS BEING VIOLATED, REGARDLESS OF HOW. You all want to pretend that the Constitution did not condone slavery, or that it would never have required the states which had themselves abolished slavery to return fugitive slaves to their "owners," but you are incorrect, as I have already shown over and over and over again by reference to the third paragraph in Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States of America.

"Oh, but the issue was slavery!" I'm sorry your puritan knickers have gotten into a twist over this, but SLAVERY WAS LEGAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION -- and, more to the point, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED ALL STATES AND INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS TO RESTORE A RUNAWAY SLAVE TO HIS/HER "OWNER" (yes it did, link in previous paragraph; see Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). Even more relevant to the question of the motives of SC in declaring secession is THE HISTORICAL FACT THAT INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS AND STATE GOVERNMENTS WERE REFUSING TO OBEY THE CONSTITUTION IN THIS MATTER.

"But still, it was slavery!" Right, and I suppose that's why South Carolina threatened previously to secede over another matter entirely, which had absolutely nothing to do with slavery? Because they certainly did threaten to secede over the Tariffs that benefitted the industrialized northern states and discriminated against the agrarian southern states, before selecting this violation of Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Constitution as a clear indication that the Constitution was violated, and as implying that it would continue to be violated at will, and therefore, not worth the paper it was written on. I refer you to the Tariff of Abominations, which led to South Carolina declaring that the tariff in question was null and void (nullified) within its state boundaries (see Nullification Crisis). This was later replaced by a tariff that was more fair toward the South (the Tariff of 1857), only to be replaced by yet another pro-Northern and anti-Southern tariff in 1861, a month before South Carolina's Declaration of Secession.

Only a moron or a brainwashed sheep would be unable to see the pattern. South Carolina wanted to secede, and would use any justification they could find in order to do so; the people of South Carolina were dissatisfied with the Federal Democratic Republic which the Constitution established; they preferred a confederation, that is, a decentralized government, without the latest fads being imposed on the states by a strong central government, without a strong central government enacting legislation that was of benefit to one section of the nation and harmful to another section of the nation, with political figures closer to home and therefore (it was hoped) more answerable to their constituents. When the Federal Government threatened the use of force over the Nullification Crisis, South Carolina had to relent, but don't doubt for a moment that the people of South Carolina saw this threat as another example of the abuse of federal power, and that they continued to seek a means to justify withdrawal from the Federal Union.

A supposedly pro-Abolitionist President was elected. He hadn't taken office yet.

Then the Morill Tariff was enacted, to add insult to injury (and yes, stop kidding yourself, Abolition of Slavery would have been a huge economic injury -- to that tiny six percent of Southerners who "owned" so much as a single slave, after, I should not have to add, allowing Northerners to profit from the slave trade). Legal scholars and political figures in South Carolina seized upon the various legislative acts of some of the non-slaveholding states which attempted to disregard Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, as well as the existence of various seditious organizations established for the purpose of subverting the Constitution (and stop kidding yourself, harboring fugitive slaves was subversion of the Constitution, because of Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 -- it was the ethical thing to do, yes, but it was also unconstitutional), and used that as the basis of their argument that the Constitution was nullified, not by South Carolina, but by those states which were subverting it, and that it was therefore no longer binding on South Carolina, that they were no longer behooved to acknowledge it, that they were no longer subject to it or the federal government it had established, and that they were going their own way. No violence was explicit or implicit in the document. It would be later, after repeated warnings to the Federal government to cease and desist, that the attack on Fort Sumter would take place, and (like the sinking of a British ship in British waters -- a ship illegally carrying military ammunition to Great Britain during a time of war, after repeated warnings from the Imperial German Embassy that the Imperial German Navy had begun unrestricted submarine warfare against Great Britain and her allies -- which happened to carry a few American citizens as tourists), this attack was exploited as an excuse to go to war with the South. Indeed, I don't think I would be amiss in asserting that the US Federal Government was looking for any excuse to conquer the American Breadbasket and subdue it to the position of slave to the industrialized North.

Would you like to try again? Because that BS about slavery being the only issue (or indeed, an issue at all, except in terms of how the actually relevant issues were manifested) won't fly.

[Dusk_Kittens]

I really must express my gratitude to you for so honestly admitting the pro-Federalist position, rather than engaging in sophistry in an effort to pretend to claiming lofty "moral" high ground, as pro-Federalists often do in these discussions. You actually concede that the pro-Federalist position, in this particular, at least, is based on an ideal that is so far from ethical praiseworthiness as to render the entirety of the Federalist position over the War for Southern Independence moot. You admit that Federalists resorted to force in order to impose their order on the Confederacy. Where is that much-lauded ideal, so basic to the very existence of the USA itself, that "government exists by consent of the governed"? Oh, I guess that ideal only has merit if the governed can throw off the yoke of oppression by means of force, and otherwise, any government is wholly justified in whatever excesses it seeks to pursue. Thanks again for admitting that the Federalist position, far from being ethically noble, is naught but bullying.

Maybe you missed the memo, but the Laws of Logic are absolute, and Logic and Mathematics are the only pure sciences. A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy. An ideal is true or false on its own merits, and not because someone who espouses an ideal beats the hell out of someone else who rejects the ideal. How far back your notion that might makes right would set the human condition, if any micro-brained, muscular thug, alone or with his gang, could determine the truth or falsity of a given proposition by fisticuffs. I suppose if this thug and his gang were to go around bullying bespectacled Mathematics professors, it would then become true that 2+2=8, simply because the gang asserts such a claim to be true and is able to "enforce" that belief by might.

But if you want to attack the Verifiability Criterion (and it is worthy of attack, to be sure, but it's not the basis of the Laws of Logic), maybe you want to explain your assertion "an unenforceable right does not exist"? I mean, after all, you have given no support for that claim.

I'm curious. Since you are, in fact, claiming the ethical high-ground, can you please explain upon what you base your ethical framework. You failed to address Senestrum's point that you've made a claim and failed to support it. Supposing Senestrum (or anyone else) does claim that "might makes right" is more ethical. On what basis do you claim that your ethical framework is more "right" than theirs? You mention logic, but logic has nothing to do with ethics. You cannot logically derive a system of ethics. Moreover, the history of civilization is one of groups of people banding together to protect themselves from stronger neighbors. If everyone simply understood that logic dicated might does not make right, why have so many people used their might to impose their wills on others?

Guess what? Ethics is also a branch of Philosophy, and therefore, subject to Logical considerations.

[Farnhamia]

The only right the Confederacy was fighting for was the right to own humans as property. The South Carolina declaration mentions nothing else as vehemently as slavery.

They had the right to try to secede. They failed.

Oh, please. This assertion about slavery being the only issue that SC was concerned with is the same thing you attempted in the past. Read the Declaration of Secession of South Carolina. Read it. Pay close attention. The objection is couched in terms of slavery, because it was in the matter of slavery that the Constitution was being violated by certain non-slaveholding states, and the Declaration of Secession makes this crystal clear to anyone who will examine it without 100+ years of pro-Federalist propaganda acting as a filter. "Oh, but the complaints have to do with nothing except slaves." On the contrary, South Carolina laid out a very lucid argument concerning their view of the Constitution as compact, as compact violated (and how it was violated, which, again, is the only thing you seem to be noticing -- and without acknowledging that it -- the Constitution -- was in fact being violated), and as compact nullified.

Now, before you start quoting the document selectively, I'll link it here for everyone to read:
South Carolina's Declaration of Secession.

And before you still assert that slavery is the only issue in the document, read it. It complains of the Constitution being violated -- in the matter of slavery, yes, but THE CONSTITUTION WAS BEING VIOLATED, REGARDLESS OF HOW. You all want to pretend that the Constitution did not condone slavery, or that it would never have required the states which had themselves abolished slavery to return fugitive slaves to their "owners," but you are incorrect, as I have already shown over and over and over again by reference to the third paragraph in Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States of America.

"Oh, but the issue was slavery!" I'm sorry your puritan knickers have gotten into a twist over this, but SLAVERY WAS LEGAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION -- and, more to the point, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED ALL STATES AND INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS TO RESTORE A RUNAWAY SLAVE TO HIS/HER "OWNER" (yes it did, link in previous paragraph; see Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). Even more relevant to the question of the motives of SC in declaring secession is THE HISTORICAL FACT THAT INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS AND STATE GOVERNMENTS WERE REFUSING TO OBEY THE CONSTITUTION IN THIS MATTER.

"But still, it was slavery!" Right, and I suppose that's why South Carolina threatened previously to secede over another matter entirely, which had absolutely nothing to do with slavery? Because they certainly did threaten to secede over the Tariffs that benefitted the industrialized northern states and discriminated against the agrarian southern states, before selecting this violation of Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Constitution as a clear indication that the Constitution was violated, and as implying that it would continue to be violated at will, and therefore, not worth the paper it was written on. I refer you to the Tariff of Abominations, which led to South Carolina declaring that the tariff in question was null and void (nullified) within its state boundaries (see Nullification Crisis). This was later replaced by a tariff that was more fair toward the South (the Tariff of 1857), only to be replaced by yet another pro-Northern and anti-Southern tariff in 1861, a month before South Carolina's Declaration of Secession.

Only a moron or a brainwashed sheep would be unable to see the pattern. South Carolina wanted to secede, and would use any justification they could find in order to do so; the people of South Carolina were dissatisfied with the Federal Democratic Republic which the Constitution established; they preferred a confederation, that is, a decentralized government, without the latest fads being imposed on the states by a strong central government, without a strong central government enacting legislation that was of benefit to one section of the nation and harmful to another section of the nation, with political figures closer to home and therefore (it was hoped) more answerable to their constituents. When the Federal Government threatened the use of force over the Nullification Crisis, South Carolina had to relent, but don't doubt for a moment that the people of South Carolina saw this threat as another example of the abuse of federal power, and that they continued to seek a means to justify withdrawal from the Federal Union.

A supposedly pro-Abolitionist President was elected. He hadn't taken office yet.

Then the Morill Tariff was enacted, to add insult to injury (and yes, stop kidding yourself, Abolition of Slavery would have been a huge economic injury -- to that tiny six percent of Southerners who "owned" so much as a single slave, after, I should not have to add, allowing Northerners to profit from the slave trade). Legal scholars and political figures in South Carolina seized upon the various legislative acts of some of the non-slaveholding states which attempted to disregard Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, as well as the existence of various seditious organizations established for the purpose of subverting the Constitution (and stop kidding yourself, harboring fugitive slaves was subversion of the Constitution, because of Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 -- it was the ethical thing to do, yes, but it was also unconstitutional), and used that as the basis of their argument that the Constitution was nullified, not by South Carolina, but by those states which were subverting it, and that it was therefore no longer binding on South Carolina, that they were no longer behooved to acknowledge it, that they were no longer subject to it or the federal government it had established, and that they were going their own way. No violence was explicit or implicit in the document. It would be later, after repeated warnings to the Federal government to cease and desist, that the attack on Fort Sumter would take place, and (like the sinking of a British ship in British waters -- a ship illegally carrying military ammunition to Great Britain during a time of war, after repeated warnings from the Imperial German Embassy that the Imperial German Navy had begun unrestricted submarine warfare against Great Britain and her allies -- which happened to carry a few American citizens as tourists), this attack was exploited as an excuse to go to war with the South. Indeed, I don't think I would be amiss in asserting that the US Federal Government was looking for any excuse to conquer the American Breadbasket and subdue it to the position of slave to the industrialized North.

Would you like to try again? Because that BS about slavery being the only issue (or indeed, an issue at all, except in terms of how the actually relevant issues were manifested) won't fly.

The Morrill Tariffs were never enacted before secession. The bill was bottled up in the Senate Finance Committee, which was chaired by Robert Hunter of Virginia. Hunter kept the bill off the floor of the Senate during the second session of the 36th Congress, which started in December of 1860. And what happened next? Seven Southern states "seceded," taking their Senators with them. The Democrats lost control of the Senate, Hunter lost the chair of the Finance Committee, and the bill passed. So the yahoo, trigger-happy secessionists shot themselves in the foot.

And here's why the Southerners should have just been patient.

[Keronians]

Are we talking about a legal right, or a moral right?

[Farnhamia]

Are we talking about a legal right, or a moral right?

Yes.

[Levena]

The United States is a federal republic, not a confederacy. The central government respects the rights of states and individuals, but still has the most power. A state has no right to secede unless the citizens of that state agree to it, and the move is agreed to by the federal government. The South did not have the right.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Oh, please. This assertion about slavery being the only issue that SC was concerned with is the same thing you attempted in the past. Read the Declaration of Secession of South Carolina. Read it. Pay close attention. The objection is couched in terms of slavery, because it was in the matter of slavery that the Constitution was being violated by certain non-slaveholding states, and the Declaration of Secession makes this crystal clear to anyone who will examine it without 100+ years of pro-Federalist propaganda acting as a filter. "Oh, but the complaints have to do with nothing except slaves." On the contrary, South Carolina laid out a very lucid argument concerning their view of the Constitution as compact, as compact violated (and how it was violated, which, again, is the only thing you seem to be noticing -- and without acknowledging that it -- the Constitution -- was in fact being violated), and as compact nullified.

Now, before you start quoting the document selectively, I'll link it here for everyone to read:
South Carolina's Declaration of Secession.

And before you still assert that slavery is the only issue in the document, read it. It complains of the Constitution being violated -- in the matter of slavery, yes, but THE CONSTITUTION WAS BEING VIOLATED, REGARDLESS OF HOW. You all want to pretend that the Constitution did not condone slavery, or that it would never have required the states which had themselves abolished slavery to return fugitive slaves to their "owners," but you are incorrect, as I have already shown over and over and over again by reference to the third paragraph in Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States of America.

"Oh, but the issue was slavery!" I'm sorry your puritan knickers have gotten into a twist over this, but SLAVERY WAS LEGAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION -- and, more to the point, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED ALL STATES AND INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS TO RESTORE A RUNAWAY SLAVE TO HIS/HER "OWNER" (yes it did, link in previous paragraph; see Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). Even more relevant to the question of the motives of SC in declaring secession is THE HISTORICAL FACT THAT INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS AND STATE GOVERNMENTS WERE REFUSING TO OBEY THE CONSTITUTION IN THIS MATTER.

"But still, it was slavery!" Right, and I suppose that's why South Carolina threatened previously to secede over another matter entirely, which had absolutely nothing to do with slavery? Because they certainly did threaten to secede over the Tariffs that benefitted the industrialized northern states and discriminated against the agrarian southern states, before selecting this violation of Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Constitution as a clear indication that the Constitution was violated, and as implying that it would continue to be violated at will, and therefore, not worth the paper it was written on. I refer you to the Tariff of Abominations, which led to South Carolina declaring that the tariff in question was null and void (nullified) within its state boundaries (see Nullification Crisis). This was later replaced by a tariff that was more fair toward the South (the Tariff of 1857), only to be replaced by yet another pro-Northern and anti-Southern tariff in 1861, a month before South Carolina's Declaration of Secession.

Only a moron or a brainwashed sheep would be unable to see the pattern. South Carolina wanted to secede, and would use any justification they could find in order to do so; the people of South Carolina were dissatisfied with the Federal Democratic Republic which the Constitution established; they preferred a confederation, that is, a decentralized government, without the latest fads being imposed on the states by a strong central government, without a strong central government enacting legislation that was of benefit to one section of the nation and harmful to another section of the nation, with political figures closer to home and therefore (it was hoped) more answerable to their constituents. When the Federal Government threatened the use of force over the Nullification Crisis, South Carolina had to relent, but don't doubt for a moment that the people of South Carolina saw this threat as another example of the abuse of federal power, and that they continued to seek a means to justify withdrawal from the Federal Union.

A supposedly pro-Abolitionist President was elected. He hadn't taken office yet.

Then the Morill Tariff was enacted, to add insult to injury (and yes, stop kidding yourself, Abolition of Slavery would have been a huge economic injury -- to that tiny six percent of Southerners who "owned" so much as a single slave, after, I should not have to add, allowing Northerners to profit from the slave trade). Legal scholars and political figures in South Carolina seized upon the various legislative acts of some of the non-slaveholding states which attempted to disregard Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, as well as the existence of various seditious organizations established for the purpose of subverting the Constitution (and stop kidding yourself, harboring fugitive slaves was subversion of the Constitution, because of Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 -- it was the ethical thing to do, yes, but it was also unconstitutional), and used that as the basis of their argument that the Constitution was nullified, not by South Carolina, but by those states which were subverting it, and that it was therefore no longer binding on South Carolina, that they were no longer behooved to acknowledge it, that they were no longer subject to it or the federal government it had established, and that they were going their own way. No violence was explicit or implicit in the document. It would be later, after repeated warnings to the Federal government to cease and desist, that the attack on Fort Sumter would take place, and (like the sinking of a British ship in British waters -- a ship illegally carrying military ammunition to Great Britain during a time of war, after repeated warnings from the Imperial German Embassy that the Imperial German Navy had begun unrestricted submarine warfare against Great Britain and her allies -- which happened to carry a few American citizens as tourists), this attack was exploited as an excuse to go to war with the South. Indeed, I don't think I would be amiss in asserting that the US Federal Government was looking for any excuse to conquer the American Breadbasket and subdue it to the position of slave to the industrialized North.

Would you like to try again? Because that BS about slavery being the only issue (or indeed, an issue at all, except in terms of how the actually relevant issues were manifested) won't fly.

The Morrill Tariffs were never enacted before secession. The bill was bottled up in the Senate Finance Committee, which was chaired by Robert Hunter of Virginia. Hunter kept the bill off the floor of the Senate during the second session of the 36th Congress, which started in December of 1860. And what happened next? Seven Southern states "seceded," taking their Senators with them. The Democrats lost control of the Senate, Hunter lost the chair of the Finance Committee, and the bill passed. So the yahoo, trigger-happy secessionists shot themselves in the foot.

And here's why the Southerners should have just been patient.

Ah, yes, hide the bit that shows your previous contention is false in a spoiler. How about an admission that you were in error?

The Morill Tariff was approved in February of 1861, and became law on 2 March of the same year. South Carolina's Declaration of Secession is dated 26 April 1861. Yes, some states (including SC) had seceded, de facto, prior to the first de jure declaration of secession, but it was only after the Morill Tariff became law that secession was de jure.

One of the great complaints against Republicans has always been that they favor big business, and this was as true in 1860 as it is today. One has but to consult the legislative record of the first term of Republicans in the House of Representatives and the House of the Senate to see this. One of those policies favoring big business was, and is, high tariffs. This would benefit the industrialized North and harm the agrarian South because it meant that the South could not import less expensive goods from abroad without having to pay tariff fees which made those imported goods even more expensive than the same goods if bought from the North. With Republicans having overwhelmingly won the Northern seats in both Houses of Congress, the subsequent activity of the legislature was already capable of prediction.

Rather than waste the next six years in congressional debates over the Republican agenda (of which only a small part concerned the Abolition of Slavery), the South opted to go their own way. But the North would not have this; not content with making laws for themselves, they pursued a course of imperialism in order to impose their legal agenda on the South as well.

As for the post by Alien Space Bats, y'all continually hold this up as if it settles once and for all any question of what the war were about and whether or not the South were legally justified in seceding, but y'all never seem to make mention of the fact that The Southron Nation answered that post thoroughly, and that ASB never posted a rejoinder.

Further, in his post, ASB disingenuously quotes Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, emphasizing the bit about perpetual union while glossing over the requirement, also in Article XIII, of unanimity in order to alter the Articles (much less do away with them and replace them with a Constitution), and omits any reference to Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which affirms the "sovereignty, freedom, and independence" of each state.

Moreover, in his attempts to show that the Confederacy did not allow the repeal of slavery, he has glossed over the fact that the said provision in the Constitution of the CSA applied only to the Confederate Congress, and not the the individual States of the Confederacy themselves (which is entirely consistent with a confederate ideal of government, that the confederate government cannot do things which the states that make up the confederacy can do individually. Indeed, he states as much by quoting the Confederate Constitution, while in the same breath denying that the individual states within the Confederacy could do so. Virginia made the importation of slaves from outside the United States illegal in 1778. That law was still the law of Virginia under the Confederacy.

In addition, he wholly ignores the Morill Tariff, as if it never happened, even going so far as to claim:

The tariff issue was, by 1860, essentially a non-issue. The last attempt to impose a protectionist tariff on the country (with the Black Tariff of 1842) had ended in failure back in 1846, and since then tariffs had been lowered even further (in 1857). At the time of the Rebellion, tariffs were lower than they had ever been since the turn of the century, and the political concensus was that tariffs should be set at the revenue-maximizing level, rather than at some arbitrarily higher, "protective" rate. Ironically, the Rebellion forced the 37th Congress to enact much higher tariffs to pay for the war the South forced upon the country.

But on the contrary, "the last attempt to impose a protectionist tariff on the country" was indeed in 1860, in the form of the Morill Tariff.

What a tapestry of lies, half-truths, and "sheer bullshit" (his own term) he wove in that post which y'all so stubbornly hold up as "the final word" on these questions, all the while y'all completely ignore the fact that his post was answered and refuted, and that he never returned to the thread to reply.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Are we talking about a legal right, or a moral right?

Yes.

Either way, the answer to the question of this topic is still "Yes."

Legal right:
Yes.

Moral right:
Gee, does Party A to a contract with Party B have a moral right to terminate that contract when Party B is not abiding by the terms of the contract, or is Party A morally required to remain party to the contract no matter how Party B violates the contract?

[Vestr-Norig]

Yes they had. And the US government should have let them, too, in exhange of putting an end to slavery.

[Farnhamia]

The Morrill Tariffs were never enacted before secession. The bill was bottled up in the Senate Finance Committee, which was chaired by Robert Hunter of Virginia. Hunter kept the bill off the floor of the Senate during the second session of the 36th Congress, which started in December of 1860. And what happened next? Seven Southern states "seceded," taking their Senators with them. The Democrats lost control of the Senate, Hunter lost the chair of the Finance Committee, and the bill passed. So the yahoo, trigger-happy secessionists shot themselves in the foot.

And here's why the Southerners should have just been patient.

Ah, yes, hide the bit that shows your previous contention is false in a spoiler. How about an admission that you were in error?

The Morill Tariff was approved in February of 1861, and became law on 2 March of the same year. South Carolina's Declaration of Secession is dated 26 April 1861. Yes, some states (including SC) had seceded, de facto, prior to the first de jure declaration of secession, but it was only after the Morill Tariff became law that secession was de jure.

One of the great complaints against Republicans has always been that they favor big business, and this was as true in 1860 as it is today. One has but to consult the legislative record of the first term of Republicans in the House of Representatives and the House of the Senate to see this. One of those policies favoring big business was, and is, high tariffs. This would benefit the industrialized North and harm the agrarian South because it meant that the South could not import less expensive goods from abroad without having to pay tariff fees which made those imported goods even more expensive than the same goods if bought from the North. With Republicans having overwhelmingly won the Northern seats in both Houses of Congress, the subsequent activity of the legislature was already capable of prediction.

Rather than waste the next six years in congressional debates over the Republican agenda (of which only a small part concerned the Abolition of Slavery), the South opted to go their own way. But the North would not have this; not content with making laws for themselves, they pursued a course of imperialism in order to impose their legal agenda on the South as well.

As for the post by Alien Space Bats, y'all continually hold this up as if it settles once and for all any question of what the war were about and whether or not the South were legally justified in seceding, but y'all never seem to make mention of the fact that The Southron Nation answered that post thoroughly, and that ASB never posted a rejoinder.

Further, in his post, ASB disingenuously quotes Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, emphasizing the bit about perpetual union while glossing over the requirement, also in Article XIII, of unanimity in order to alter the Articles (much less do away with them and replace them with a Constitution), and omits any reference to Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which affirms the "sovereignty, freedom, and independence" of each state.

Moreover, in his attempts to show that the Confederacy did not allow the repeal of slavery, he has glossed over the fact that the said provision in the Constitution of the CSA applied only to the Confederate Congress, and not the the individual States of the Confederacy themselves (which is entirely consistent with a confederate ideal of government, that the confederate government cannot do things which the states that make up the confederacy can do individually. Indeed, he states as much by quoting the Confederate Constitution, while in the same breath denying that the individual states within the Confederacy could do so. Virginia made the importation of slaves from outside the United States illegal in 1778. That law was still the law of Virginia under the Confederacy.

In addition, he wholly ignores the Morill Tariff, as if it never happened, even going so far as to claim:

The tariff issue was, by 1860, essentially a non-issue. The last attempt to impose a protectionist tariff on the country (with the Black Tariff of 1842) had ended in failure back in 1846, and since then tariffs had been lowered even further (in 1857). At the time of the Rebellion, tariffs were lower than they had ever been since the turn of the century, and the political concensus was that tariffs should be set at the revenue-maximizing level, rather than at some arbitrarily higher, "protective" rate. Ironically, the Rebellion forced the 37th Congress to enact much higher tariffs to pay for the war the South forced upon the country.

But on the contrary, "the last attempt to impose a protectionist tariff on the country" was indeed in 1860, in the form of the Morill Tariff.

What a tapestry of lies, half-truths, and "sheer bullshit" (his own term) he wove in that post which y'all so stubbornly hold up as "the final word" on these questions, all the while y'all completely ignore the fact that his post was answered and refuted, and that he never returned to the thread to reply.

In error? No, I don't think so. I just didn't feel like dealing with the Neo-Confederate sludge you posted, but simply to point out that the Morrill Tariffs were not enacted prior to secession. The Senate was firmly in the hands of the Democrats and I doubt they would ever have been enacted, at least not without some concessions to the South. The US up to 1860 was run on a system, a game, if you will. The South decided they didn't like the way the game was going and like petulant children, tried to stalk off in a huff. The thing is, a nation isn't a group of children playing together. And given that the coming innings would probably have given them the game, trying to leave was the stupidest thing they could have done.

But you won't change your mind no matter what I say, so let's not waste each other's time, shall we?

[F1-Insanity]

The Morrill Tariffs were never enacted before secession. The bill was bottled up in the Senate Finance Committee, which was chaired by Robert Hunter of Virginia. Hunter kept the bill off the floor of the Senate during the second session of the 36th Congress, which started in December of 1860. And what happened next? Seven Southern states "seceded," taking their Senators with them. The Democrats lost control of the Senate, Hunter lost the chair of the Finance Committee, and the bill passed. So the yahoo, trigger-happy secessionists shot themselves in the foot.

And here's why the Southerners should have just been patient.

Ah, yes, hide the bit that shows your previous contention is false in a spoiler. How about an admission that you were in error?

The Morill Tariff was approved in February of 1861, and became law on 2 March of the same year. South Carolina's Declaration of Secession is dated 26 April 1861. Yes, some states (including SC) had seceded, de facto, prior to the first de jure declaration of secession, but it was only after the Morill Tariff became law that secession was de jure.

One of the great complaints against Republicans has always been that they favor big business, and this was as true in 1860 as it is today. One has but to consult the legislative record of the first term of Republicans in the House of Representatives and the House of the Senate to see this. One of those policies favoring big business was, and is, high tariffs. This would benefit the industrialized North and harm the agrarian South because it meant that the South could not import less expensive goods from abroad without having to pay tariff fees which made those imported goods even more expensive than the same goods if bought from the North. With Republicans having overwhelmingly won the Northern seats in both Houses of Congress, the subsequent activity of the legislature was already capable of prediction.

Rather than waste the next six years in congressional debates over the Republican agenda (of which only a small part concerned the Abolition of Slavery), the South opted to go their own way. But the North would not have this; not content with making laws for themselves, they pursued a course of imperialism in order to impose their legal agenda on the South as well.

As for the post by Alien Space Bats, y'all continually hold this up as if it settles once and for all any question of what the war were about and whether or not the South were legally justified in seceding, but y'all never seem to make mention of the fact that The Southron Nation answered that post thoroughly, and that ASB never posted a rejoinder.

Further, in his post, ASB disingenuously quotes Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, emphasizing the bit about perpetual union while glossing over the requirement, also in Article XIII, of unanimity in order to alter the Articles (much less do away with them and replace them with a Constitution), and omits any reference to Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which affirms the "sovereignty, freedom, and independence" of each state.

Moreover, in his attempts to show that the Confederacy did not allow the repeal of slavery, he has glossed over the fact that the said provision in the Constitution of the CSA applied only to the Confederate Congress, and not the the individual States of the Confederacy themselves (which is entirely consistent with a confederate ideal of government, that the confederate government cannot do things which the states that make up the confederacy can do individually. Indeed, he states as much by quoting the Confederate Constitution, while in the same breath denying that the individual states within the Confederacy could do so. Virginia made the importation of slaves from outside the United States illegal in 1778. That law was still the law of Virginia under the Confederacy.

In addition, he wholly ignores the Morill Tariff, as if it never happened, even going so far as to claim:

The tariff issue was, by 1860, essentially a non-issue. The last attempt to impose a protectionist tariff on the country (with the Black Tariff of 1842) had ended in failure back in 1846, and since then tariffs had been lowered even further (in 1857). At the time of the Rebellion, tariffs were lower than they had ever been since the turn of the century, and the political concensus was that tariffs should be set at the revenue-maximizing level, rather than at some arbitrarily higher, "protective" rate. Ironically, the Rebellion forced the 37th Congress to enact much higher tariffs to pay for the war the South forced upon the country.

But on the contrary, "the last attempt to impose a protectionist tariff on the country" was indeed in 1860, in the form of the Morill Tariff.

What a tapestry of lies, half-truths, and "sheer bullshit" (his own term) he wove in that post which y'all so stubbornly hold up as "the final word" on these questions, all the while y'all completely ignore the fact that his post was answered and refuted, and that he never returned to the thread to reply.

Unilateral secession was and is totally and utterly illegal. Seizing federal property is theft. Opening fire on federal troops is a declaration of war.

And whats more, for nearly all of the 30 years before the outbreak of hostilities, Southerners and their sympathizers controlled the Senate (all of the time), the House (most of the time) and the Supreme Court (all of the time). And as long as able to effectively dominate the agenda, they pushed through measure after measure which benefitted them and tried to get away with a heckuva lot more. Attemps were already underway in lower courts to get a case up to the supreme court where they might get antislavery laws in the north ruled unconstitutional. Reading about it, I'll never understand why they felt the need to 'secede' not too long before the first such case was expected in the SCOTUS. Is there a lot of doubt, that Taney's southern controlled/friendly court, which came up with 'Dred Scott' (quite possibly the most vile court ruling ever produced) would indeed have done so?

Speaking of encroaching on states' rights, and persistent southern meddling with northern states affairs:

H.B. Adams: Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision — all triumphs of the slave power — did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.

And as soon as they lost control of the federal machinery... hissy fit they threw. You see, its no problem that they tell you that you cannot have antislavery laws, but doncha go and turn around and tell them they shouldn't have slavery... its their 'states right' to force it upon your state, doncha know?

The right side won.

[Kalysk]

They had a right to try.

Too bad they obviously didn't think it through very well.