Did the South have a right to secede?

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. Federalist versus Anti-Federalist?

"Federalist propaganda"?

The fucking Constitution was written (with input from the Anti-Federalists) and ratified over their objections. The "conditions" placed on some ratifications never had any legal meaning whatsoever. The primary effect (which mollified the vast majority of Anti-Federalists) was the introduction and ratification of the Bill of Rights. Regardless, that battle was well over some 70 years later at the time of secession.

Given that the raison d'etre of the Anti-Federalists was opposition to the Constitution, I again ask the question -- what is the point of arguing you whether the Confederate States had a legal right to secede under the Constitution? If you are against the Constitution anyway, the matter is moot.

And stop claiming the Confederates were Anti-Federalists. That is simply untrue. Cf, e.g., Jefferson Davis' "Eulogy on the Life and Character of Andrew Jackson," Vicksburg, Mississippi, June 28, 1845 ("[President Jackson believed:] 'The Union, it must be preserved.' Long live that maxim, and may our Union ever be preserved by justice conciliation and brotherhood, without a spot, without a stain of blood that flowed in civil war."). In fact, the Confederacy adopted a Constitution nearly identical to the one opposed by the Anti-Federalists (with the exception of giving less power to the states on the question of slavery).

2. The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union is just ONE of the several Declarations of Secession. It happens to conveniently be the one least obvious in a "well, I want my slaves and I want power, so I'm going home" attitude and it giving trumped-up excuses for secession. To quote Distruzio: "South Carolina was not the Confederacy."

It being 2:21am here, I am going back to bed and will respond to the rest of your nonsense later.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Okay, find an economist who says it, as I don't consider some Neo-Confederate Austrian nut as a credible source.

/notafish

Nor do I see how insight into economics gives someone a better insight into a historical account then a historian.

The "account" in question is the effect a tariff would have on the economy of the South. A historian would not know how to interpret the data. An economist would.

Oh yeah, this would be a political issue not economics as we are talking about secession not the economic effects of tariffs.

Not with this particular discussion. The nature of the thread itself is the "right" of secession. You have tried the legal argument and were beaten into a corner by DK and myself until TCT gave you breathing room. I'm out of my depth (I'm a layman with a casual interest in the topic) when delving so deep into the Philosophy of Law so I'll leave that discussion to TCT and DK.

Then you tried to argue about the philosophical right of secession in terms of constitutional legal theory, and have since abandoned that view (as has TCT and everyone else save GnI) when asked to follow simple logic.

But within the context of these discussion, you have misrepresented, misinterpreted, and outright ignored on several occasions any information presented by myself and other anti-federalists in this and other threads. You ask for proof that slavery was not the root cause, we present it. You continue to try to paint the statement that "slavery was not the cause of the war" as a statement that "the War had nothing to do with slavery." You know full well the two statements are not the same. It's intellectually dishonest, Rev.

The South might not have liked the tariff, but in the entire scope of the thing it was highly irrelevant to why they seceded.

This is what we call "backpedalling."

It had failed to go anywhere. A bill that cannot pass is not a threat.

Had the GOP not won the Presidential election, or the previous congressional election with the Tariff as a centerpiece, I would agree with you. Especially since the GOP didn't pose a political threat whatsoever prior to 1850. But since it catapulted on the scene of national politics as a party for protectionism and sectionalism in such a spectacular (and popular, evidently) fashion... I yet fail to see how the Tariff is "irrelevant" to the discussion of secession. This is as stupid as saying the War had nothing to do with slavery.

If you want to throw out buzzwords such as tariffs are economic warfare, I am going to assume they are coming from an ideological framework.

Hence the eyebrow. I make no qualms about where my loyalties lie. Firmly against the Union and against the constitution. I was surprised that you felt the need to question it.

Better then you as I understand that an act that was passed in 1861 was not law in 1857, you referred to tariffs being raised in 1857 something that did not happen.

I did not refer to Tariffs being raised in 1857. I referred to a higher Tariff first being discussed in 1857.

Additionally, any bill introduced in 1857 would not be up in 1861 as there would have been a new congress. Thus, even if the act was first introduced in 1857 that clearly demonstrates the lack of the threat imposed by the bill saying how they were able to kill it only a few years earlier.

Learn2sentencemake, mkay?

edit: Personally, I going to try to step back from this thread as it is getting to aggravating and I don't want to risk going off on a flamefest. Additionally, the much more elegant and graceful debaters of Alien Space Bats, Farnhamia, The Cat Tribes, etc have already demonstrated the lack of right or justification for the Southern secession. Thus, making further debate not needed in my opinion.

It never was. I like ASB's perspective and I find myself nearly willing to accept that the War was actually the North reacting to decades of Southern usurpation of Northern States rights the moment the North found itself in a position to do so. Farn and TCT, as much as I enjoy their conversation, present arguments I've seen and refuted before. TCT is the only one that gets close to responding with emotion I would worry was too aggressive. That being said, you should really reconsider how devoted you are to these disagreements between us. I find no offense in the sincere doubt that ASB, Farn, and TCT give these discussions much thought when their eyes are not on the thread. I know I don't.

1. When exactly did I "abandon" the "philosophical right of secession in terms of constitutional legal theory"?

2. You do a find job of trying to play both sides by saying slavery was a cause of the Civil War, but not the cause -- and then doing your best to obfuscate the degree to which slavery was the primary cause (something you have admitted already.) Given that denying that slavery was the primary issue is (in your words) "stupid," perhaps you should discuss the issue with Dusk Kittens -- who has expressed just that view.

[Distruzio]

In fact, the Confederacy adopted a Constitution nearly identical to the one opposed by the Anti-Federalists (with the exception of giving less power to the states on the question of slavery).

Bullshit. Shear utter unadulterated bullshit. It was similar, that much is true, but to assert that the Confederate Constitution gave the states less power concerning slavery reveals that you've never actually read the document for yourself. You've only ever read someone else's assertion of what the document said. I'll quote myself when ASB made the same erroneous argument. I not only showed that he too had never read it, but I elaborated on how far the southern states took the anti-federalist position with the adoption of the Confederate Constitution.

And never mind the fact that nobody did more than Southerners to bring this about, relentlessly turning as they did towards the Congress and the Supreme Court to impose their will on the North for the very purpose you have unwittingly admitted again and again in this debate: To further the health and well-being of African slavery.

Far from unwittingly, I readily admit that the South used its dominance of the presidency and congress for the decades leading up to the war in ways that would secure the dominance of Slavery, I find it difficult to imagine a Southern congress ever passing the 14th amendment. I am not making excuses for the actions of the south. I am making clear that despite southern flaws, the black slaves had the best opportunity to avoid the civil rights era fiasco in a free south.... I was taught this by a black confederate HK Edgerton.

Which brings me to your absurd claim that the Confederate Constitution "permitted individual States to abolish slavery." In truth, it did nothing of the sort.

To begin with, Congress was expressly forbidden from passing any law that might limit slavery:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed (by Congress)

- Article I, Section 2, Clause 4, Confederate Constitution

No such explicit prohibition existed in the U.S. Constitution as of 1860; it was the decision of the Taney Court in Dredd Scott v. Sandford that took away the right of the United States Congress to ban slavery on Fifth Amendment grounds. Since that same Fifth Amendment language was included within the Confederate Constitution (via Article I, Section 9, Clause 16)...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

- Article I, Section 9, Clause 16, Confederate Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

- Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

... It is extraordinarily sophomoric to argue that Confederate jurists, all of whom ascribed to the same legal theories that produced the Taney Court's Dredd Scott decision, would have somehow decided that the Section IX, Clause 16's "due process" rights would be less protective of slaveowners property than was the case with a U.S. Constitutional amendment whose wording was exactly the same.

Oh? Have you forgotten that the Confederate constitution also said:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

No constitutional scholar of any rational mind would ever construe this to mean that the several southern states ever ceded their legislative capacity to the Confederate Congress. The constitution continues:

All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in a Congress of the Confederate States

to be compared with:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States

The confederate constitution specifically acknowledges that any authority the confederate gov't maintains is expressly delegated to it by the many states. Which, again, not even a constitutional scholar could deny implies that the states may rescind any such authority.

Likewise, the Confederate Constitution contained the pretty much the same wording that stood behind the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850, which you have already condemned elsewhere as "subsidies of slavery":

No slave or other person held to service or labor in any state or territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor: but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.

- Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, Confederate Constitution

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

- Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution

Indeed, superimposition of the two clauses combined with lexical analysis reveals that the Confederate Constitution's "Fugitive Slave Clause" was even stronger than it's U.S. counterpart:

No slave or other person held to service or labor in any state or territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor: but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due. (emphasis to show differences - ASB)

Except for the replacement of the word "one" with "any" in the first part of the clause ("any state" thereby replacing "one State"), all of the differences are additions to the Confederate Constitution vis-a-vis the U.S. Constitution, and the effect is to implement as Constitutional law the effects of virtually all of the Taney Court's pro-slavery rulings, especially in so far as any possibility of slaves becoming free by virtue of fleeing or being carried into other States might be concerned.

Which makes the assertion that the Confederate Constitution was somehow more liberal than the U.S. Constitution nothing less than sheer bullshit. Contained within this clause are not only the seeds for a Fugitive Slave Law that would apply throughout the Confederacy (even in any State that might ban attempt to ban slavery), just as was the case with the U.S. Constitution, but every aspect of the Taney Court's rulings in Dredd Scott and - had it gotten around to the matter -

Except that the federal Confederate gov't was forbidden from passing legislation concerning the issue of slavery period. Fugitive Slave laws are inapplicable.

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

To condemn Lincoln and the Republicans for "wanting slavery" when, in fact, the South was clearly willing to fight to maintain it, has got to be a record of sorts when it comes to pretzel logic.

Really, then? I am surprised that someone of your intelligence fails to see the very concerning issue here. The southern economy was entirely dependent upon slavery, the northern was not. In order to preserve the union, Lincoln was willing to legitimate everything the much hated Taney court decided upon by making it unconstitutional for slavery to be abolished. There are several issues here. First and foremost, the fact that Lincoln sought to satisfy the hot heads in the south who railed against a federal usurpation of southern self determination by using federal power to ensure southern economic stagnation (maintain slavery constitutionally). He was ensuring that the economy would stagnate and eventually fail by presuming that the federal Union gov't had a say in the state economies at all with this amendment. Tack this outrageous presumption on top of his promise to prevent the expansion of slavery and we get two effects; (1) federal intervention into state level economy, and (2) federal usurpation of state sovereignty.

With the south gone, the north was free of the damning bugaboo, slavery. Lincoln made it clear time and again that he was not interested in abolishing the institution. You had better believe he deserves to sit on the pyre along with the slave owners for his willingness to voluntarily render black men slaves forever by the stroke of a non-slavery side pen. At least the south was noble enough, although misguided, to fight to maintain something that they depended upon.

Allowing Constitutional amendments to only be initiated by the States, while allowing such amendments to become law with ratification by only 2/3 of the States (as opposed to 3/4 of them) doesn't seem an especially great innovation, considering that the U.S. Constitution requires a 3/4 majority whether an amendment has passed through Congress or not. What this means (in practical terms) is that the language of amendments gets hammered out in Congress first, rather than risking having multiple States advance slightly different versions of the same amendment, a certain prescription for chaos.

You see chaos, I, along with the confederates, see state sovereignty.

The line-item veto gives Presidents the power to punish individual legislators and/or undo key compromises after they have passed through Congress. While conservatives salivate at the idea of a President being able to snip out individual appropriations at will, imagine how some recent Presidents might have used that power in the last few decades, and you might start to get an notion of just how monumentally bad an idea such a veto might be.

I have imagined and it is a beautiful thing. {I should elaborate that what I imagine is what actually happened. The Confederate gov't bickered between the various branches and the state gov'ts. To my anti-federalist pro-anarchist sensibilities, this situation is altogether more profitable for the sovereign individual.}

The Confederate constitution was indeed much much more progressive than the Union constitution, both in relation to slavery and in relation to other political concerns.

The preamble all but deleted any reference to collective interests, presumably because it ostensibly intended to be a country focused more on state independence. The CSA does not promise to form a "perfect union" nor does it aspire to provide for the "common defense" or promote the "general welfare." No more nonsense regarding a "general welfare" clause leading to incredibly ridiculous legislation like the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the Great Society, TARP, etc etc.

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

The Confederate constitution gave state legislatures the power to impeach federally-appointed state court judges and other federally-appointed state officials. Thus giving the states more authority over their presiding federal judges, which in turn clarifies distinctions between federal and state judicial authority.

(5) The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.

Under the Confederate system Cabinet Secretaries could be summoned to answer questions on the floor of either the House or Senate. Today, congress may only request the presence of secretaries.

(1) The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the Confederate States. They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the Confederate States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the Confederate States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. But Congress may, by law, grant to the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments a seat upon the floor of either House, with the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his department.

The Confederate constitution eliminated trade protectionism by making clear that tariffs would not be imposed on foreign goods for the sole purpose of protecting local industry. It also prohibited government subsidies that were often used to offset the costs of managing certain uncompetitive industries.

(1) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

It banned corporate bailouts.

(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

It forced fiscal responsibility on the legislative branch by making clear that the Confederate COngress could only appropriate funds as a direct result of the president, to pay for congressional expenses, and to pay down the national debt.

(9) Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.

Clause 10 of that same article clarifies that once a bill is passed, the price of it cannot be increased. Which means that congress gets a one shot attempt at spending tax dollars. Otherwise, they'd need a new bill.

All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

My personal favorite clause required that all legislation before congress actually deal with a single issue. Pork became unconstitutional.

Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

Congress was prohibited from regulating waterways dividing states.

(3) No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, except on seagoing vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof.

Overall, it wasn't a radically different document, but it was a more progressive move towards individual liberty.

[Distruzio]

1. When exactly did I "abandon" the "philosophical right of secession in terms of constitutional legal theory"?

When you failed to address the question here.

2. You do a find job of trying to play both sides by saying slavery was a cause of the Civil War, but not the cause -- and then doing your best to obfuscate the degree to which slavery was the primary cause (something you have admitted already.) Given that denying that slavery was the primary issue is (in your words) "stupid," perhaps you should discuss the issue with Dusk Kittens -- who has expressed just that view.

Don't be ridiculous. Read my exact words for a moment, TCT.

You continue to try to paint the statement that "slavery was not the cause of the war" as a statement that "the War had nothing to do with slavery." You know full well the two statements are not the same.

DK and I are of like mind on the issue. Slavery was a primary cause. This fact neither invalidates the tariff or other causes nor does it present any information of any more value than the way to dispose of a used diaper.

What we deny is that the South fought to maintain domination over a people for the sake of white supremacy. The southern states sought to maintain their economic viability, which was utterly dependent upon the institution of slavery and was under threat by Lincoln and the GOP asserting the desire to stop the spread of slavery (despite Constitutional law) and choke their economy off. The 6% (at most) of slave holding southerners knew that coerced labor was being outcompeted by free labor in the north and in Virginia.

They did what was logical at the time, argued for the Union gov't to bail them out, which it did, time and again.

When a party rose to power threatening to cut them off from bailouts, increase the taxes they must pay, and refuse to allow them to increase their slave holdings in order to compensate for the increased inefficiency of their profession, they sought to flee the Union.

Earning a living off of slaves =/= white supremacy

You should be interested that these same men that argued for Union bailouts were prevented from securing bailouts from the Confederate gov't forever as I explained above. Which only makes sense considering the lengths to which the Confederate founders sought to hamper the ability of the Confederate gov't to expropriate the monied population. It was a document abandoning much of the problems associated with a democratic form of gov't in favor of a more aristocratic gov't.

More importantly, the Confederacy fought to maintain it's territorial integrity against an invader. The Confederacy was forbidden from intervening in the institution the southern states sought to maintain.

[Dusk_Kittens]

1. When exactly did I "abandon" the "philosophical right of secession in terms of constitutional legal theory"?

When you failed to address the question here.

2. You do a find job of trying to play both sides by saying slavery was a cause of the Civil War, but not the cause -- and then doing your best to obfuscate the degree to which slavery was the primary cause (something you have admitted already.) Given that denying that slavery was the primary issue is (in your words) "stupid," perhaps you should discuss the issue with Dusk Kittens -- who has expressed just that view.

Don't be ridiculous. Read my exact words for a moment, TCT.

You continue to try to paint the statement that "slavery was not the cause of the war" as a statement that "the War had nothing to do with slavery." You know full well the two statements are not the same.

DK and I are of like mind on the issue. Slavery was a primary cause. This fact neither invalidates the tariff or other causes nor does it present any information of any more value than the way to dispose of a used diaper.

What we deny is that the South fought to maintain domination over a people for the sake of white supremacy. The southern states sought to maintain their economic viability, which was utterly dependent upon the institution of slavery and was under threat by Lincoln and the GOP asserting the desire to stop the spread of slavery (despite Constitutional law) and choke their economy off. The 6% (at most) of slave holding southerners knew that coerced labor was being outcompeted by free labor in the north and in Virginia.

They did what was logical at the time, argued for the Union gov't to bail them out, which it did, time and again.

When a party rose to power threatening to cut them off from bailouts, increase the taxes they must pay, and refuse to allow them to increase their slave holdings in order to compensate for the increased inefficiency of their profession, they sought to flee the Union.

Earning a living off of slaves =/= white supremacy

You should be interested that these same men that argued for Union bailouts were prevented from securing bailouts from the Confederate gov't forever as I explained above. Which only makes sense considering the lengths to which the Confederate founders sought to hamper the ability of the Confederate gov't to expropriate the monied population. It was a document abandoning much of the problems associated with a democratic form of gov't in favor of a more aristocratic gov't.

More importantly, the Confederacy fought to maintain it's territorial integrity against an invader. The Confederacy was forbidden from intervening in the institution the southern states sought to maintain.

First of all, TCT has again misrepresented what was said in asserting that you said that denying that slavery was the primary issue is stupid, which is not what you said at all.

Second, Distruzio, you and I are not exactly on the same page as regards the causes of the War. While I agree that the institution of slavery was not, for most people, an issue of white supremacy (but it certainly was for some, and such language was certainly used in official documents in order to appeal to that element), I disagree that the question of the continued legality slavery in itself was a primary cause for secession or the war (but I'm also not sure that what you're saying, is that it was the question of slavery in itself).

My position is that the question of the continued legality of slavery in itself was not only not "the" primary cause of the war, but was not even "a" primary cause, either, except for a small percentage of those involved (namely, the 6% of Southern slaveholders and those they managed to convince of the need to maintain slavery, and the zealots of the abolitionist movement). That the question had an effect on the primary causes of the war is obvious; South Carolina's Declaration of Secession states that the primary cause was violation of the Constitution by Northern states -- and no matter what form that would have taken, the issue of violation of the Constitution would still have been South Carolina's stated "primary cause," because such an act rendered the entire Constitution null and void -- but that violation of the Constitution by Northern states involved the question of the continued legality of slavery. Obviously, then, slavery was a factor (or rather, its continued legality was), but of less relevance than (in no certain order of relevance): 1. the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist disagreements, 2. sectionalism and polarization (and these related to many issues and not merely one, just as they do today), 3. the victory of the Republican Party (which was sectionalist in favor of the North, and which was in favor of big business and thus the industrialized North, and which favored high tariffs due to its favor for big business, and which also included abolitionists within its ranks), 4. (really part of 3, but also a separate issue) the threat of tariffs, which would have been good for the North and bad for the South, 5. the fact that the North had profited (and were in fact still profiting) from the institution of slavery at the expense of the South and then started doing anything they could to interfere with that institution in the South, including by harboring fugitive slaves (which is incidentally about slavery, but is actually this ethical and ecomomic issue (an analogy to make it plain):

Maxtopia and Fartopia are two regions within a nation named Topia. The people of Maxtopia import automobiles and sell them to people in Fartopia, who then use the automobiles in a number of ways that pertain to their livelihood. Some people in Maxtopia and some in Fartopia steal those automobiles from the rightful owners (by "rightful," the analogy will be somewhat weak on ethical grounds, but only because the ownership of other people is unethical, but the analogy will not be weak on legal grounds, and the legal grounds are what we are primarily concerned with in this thread), because they do not approve of automobile ownership (let us say that they have an ethical objection, namely, that automobiles contribute to global warming and are destroying our ecosystem), and transport the stolen automobiles to Maxtopia. When the rightful owners attempt to reclaim their automobiles, the state governments and people of Maxtopia refuse to return them, in spite of the fact that the Magna Carta of Topia insists that such an act must be done. Not only that, but the people of Maxtopia begin to agitate for the ownership of automobiles to be made illegal, without any suggestion of compensation to the people of Fartopia if it should become illegal for them to own automobiles, nor do they offer any alternative to the people of Fartopia by which to allow them to continue to earn their livelihood other than saying that the people of Fartopia should hire rickshaw pullers and invest in horses and oxen and various types of wagon, cart, and carriage.

If this were the scenario, none of you would imagine that the Fartopians were not being unjustly put upon by the very region which had gotten rich off the sale of automobiles (even though automobiles really do contribute to global warming and really are destroying our ecosystem, and so the use of them really is an ethical issue). No, instead, you would advocate for development of eco-friendly methods of transportation, and you would be right to do so. Even this, however, would put those 6% of Fartopians who owned automobiles at some economic disadvantage, for they have invested in their automobiles, and those automobiles are still useful and not in need of being replaced yet (from a position of functionality), and so have no desire to trash perfectly functional automobiles which cost them thousands of dollars, only to replace them with new and "improved" ecomobiles which will cost even more. In other words (another analogy, in case you still don't get it), it would be like selling CDs and CD players to people after having stopped production of records and phonographs (and any other form of music and music player), until everyone relied on CDs for their enjoyment of music, and then suddenly declaring that ownership of CDs is illegal and that CDs will now be replaced by ZDs, such that everyone who owns CDs must, if they wish to continue to enjoy music, not only now "free" their CDs, which have cost them thousands of dollars, but also must go out and buy the new ZDs and ZD players. Meanwhile, the people who sold the CDs and now are selling ZDs would not only be unmolested for profiting from the previous sale of CDs (that is, they themselves would not be penalized for an action that was not, at the time of the action, illegal, and nor would they be required to compensate the people who had purchased CDs), but would continue to make profit by selling the new ZDs and ZD players.

So yes, the question of the continued legality of slavery was a factor involved in the causes, but was not in itself a cause, other than for those few who were directly involved in the institution and those abolitionists who were too short-sighted to see the economic impact of their goals on the South (because, of course, it would be ludicrous to deny that there were some who favored secession or who fought for either side and were motivated by the issue; some undoubtedly were; I simply maintain that the number of such persons was quite small compared to the number of persons with motives other than the question of the continued legality of slavery, and so deny that it was a primary cause for secession or the war). And yes, it would have effected the South across the board, and not simply the 6% who were slaveholders, not because the economy of the South was entirely dependent on the institution (because there were areas in the South where slavery was of little relevance), but because it would have had an adverse economic effect on the slaveholders themselves (they being those who would be likely to subsequently hire workers in order to continue their business, although their expenses in hiring "free" laborers would be less than their expenses in maintaining slaves, but this does not deny that they would have experienced a financial loss when their slaves became free), but also on the former slaves (who prior to emancipation were fed, clothed, housed, provided with medical treatment, etc, by the slaveholders, but who would now have to compete in a job market not only with other former slaves but also with other laborers), and on other segments of the workforce who would now be competing with former slaves for jobs. Some nomadic behavior would ensue, spreading the problem of an enlarged workforce to other areas in the South -- and also in the North (which was one of the reasons former slaves were disappointed when they attempted to migrate to northern states, but so was the general tendency to racism in the North, because those who imagine that racist views were, or are, exclusive to the South are moronic in such an imagining -- and actually, most people in the South today get along quite well, regardless of skin color and/or ethnicity, until/unless carpetbaggers come and stir things up, which is usually simply the old adage of "divide and conquer," in that the poor, no matter what superficial differences exist between them, have much more in common than any of them do with the wealthy) -- where slavery had not been a major factor in the past. Meanwhile, with the Republicans in office, the entire country would have been saddled with policies designed to further enrich the already wealthy and hinder the poor and middle class from improving their station (Republicans generally favor a "hard money" economy, that is, low inflation and high interest rates, which results in higher unemployment as well as the enrichment of lenders and the further poverty of borrowers). The whole abolitionist agenda was not well thought out. This is all too often the case with any agenda based on a supposed "moral" imperative.

If none of the pro-Federalists understand this, then they are beyond hope.

[The Black Forrest]

If none of the pro-Federalists understand this, then they are all beyond hope.

Nice.

Either everybody accepts your argument or they are beyond hope.

[Dusk_Kittens]

If none of the pro-Federalists understand this, then they are all beyond hope.

Nice.

Either everybody accepts your argument or they are beyond hope.

No, rather, if someone is so blinded by Federalist propaganda as to be unable to see the economic reality of the situation at the time and the economic implications of the Abolitionist agenda as it stood at the time (and I suspect that it would have been modified and mollified if secession and the war had not occurred, but that's only a hypothesis, and the immediate future would not have been very promising for such modification and mollification even without secession and the war), then continued attempts to explain, elucidate, and document here will only serve to enlarge the thread and not accomplish anything of merit.

As far as the question of causes, there is some room for interpretation, but those who insist that THE cause was the institution of slavery itself, or rather, the question of its continued legality, are either being disingenuous or engaging in doublethink, and the only way to get through to them is to hit them over the head with facts and sound argumentation till they either see the reality or at least relent (which is a highly unlikely scenario, for multiple reasons) -- or (in the case of those engaging in doublethink) something like the deprogramming of cult members. The latter is not something that is possible, due to practical considerations, and even if it were, this forum would not be the environment in which to undertake such a task.

[The Cat-Tribe]

In fact, the Confederacy adopted a Constitution nearly identical to the one opposed by the Anti-Federalists (with the exception of giving less power to the states on the question of slavery).

Bullshit. Shear utter unadulterated bullshit. It was similar, that much is true, but to assert that the Confederate Constitution gave the states less power concerning slavery reveals that you've never actually read the document for yourself. You've only ever read someone else's assertion of what the document said. I'll quote myself when ASB made the same erroneous argument. I not only showed that he too had never read it, but I elaborated on how far the southern states took the anti-federalist position with the adoption of the Confederate Constitution.


**snipped drivel**

Odd. You yourself said almost exactly the same thing that (when I say it) you call "shear utter unadulterated bullshit." The following is divided into two quotes only to avoid the clipping off of the original quote:

Then why did the constitution of the CSA look almost exactly like that of the USA? Why did the constitution of the CSA force all new member states to be slave states? That doesn't sound like states rights.

Because they saw slavery as a natural thing? I dunno.

All new Confederate States were required to be slave states b/c the drafters of the Confederate constitution wanted to avoid the issues that plagued the United States from the get go - economic regional competition. The North was a mercantilist region that emphasized more stringent protectionist tariffs. These tariffs harmed the agrarian southern regional economy. Therefore, in order to avoid any sectional strife within the new nation, all states were required to be slave and, by implication, agrarian. This also served to appease the aristocratic southerners concern that their way of life would be threatened in a new nation much as it was threatened in the old. Slavery was the foundation for the southern economy, it's true. So why wouldn't the southern drafters do whatever they could to protect their livelihoods? This in no way makes them evil men, it makes them pragmatic.

They thought the slave was a natural position. Most understood that it was an undesirable economic foundation, but saw no alternative as yet to move past it. To assent to gov't intervention would destroy the economy (which is precisely what happened when the war was ended). To allow Lincoln to box them in, as he intended, by halting the spread of slavery, their economy would stagnate and they would see their fortunes looted further. The only answer was secession. The only answer was a constitution that required all states to be slave and forbade the national gov't from interfering with the institution. Which would, by implication, also mean the economy at large.

Lest you now backtrack. Here are the most relevant portions of the Constitution of the Confederate States:

• Article I, Sec. 9 (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
  
  
• Article IV, Sec. 2 (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
  
  
• Article IV, Sec. 2 (3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.
  
  
• Article IV, Sec. 3 (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

As for the rest of your arguments, I can't be bothered at this time. Your interpretations of the Confederate Constitution are generally as feeble as those of the U.S. Constitution.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. When exactly did I "abandon" the "philosophical right of secession in terms of constitutional legal theory"?

When you failed to address the question here.

You've failed to respond to several of my posts, but my failure to respond to one post of yours that raised the same issue I did respond to raised by DK is "abandoning" the field?

[Seleucas]

DK and Distruzio, sorry but I am going to have to disagree with you both as far as the disruption that abolishing slavery would have caused in the South being a point in favor of Southern secession. Though repealing socialism would disrupt certain economies, it would be so that said economies would be able to restructure in a more efficient manner; so, too, would abolishing slavery allow for the South to recoordinate so as to take advantage of the benefits of free labor.

That being said, I still maintain that the North should not have attempted to re-integrate the South into the Union. Better that the South would thwart the North's attempts at mercantilism while the South would be deprived of protection of slavery through fugitive slave laws and the assistance of the Federal army in the case of slave uprisings.

[The Cat-Tribe]

None of this is relevant to the legality of secession, but there seems to be some misconception that I am arguing anyone from a Confederate State, who fought for the Confederacy, etc., is some malign creature from Mordor that seceded from the Union purely out of a desire to oppress African-Americans for fun. Of course that is ridiculous.

As I have explained previously at length (e.g., link) (and Distruzio occasionally concedes) the driving factor behind secession and the formation of the Confederacy was the preservation and desire to expand the institution of slavery. Of course, this was motivated largely by economics. It was nonetheless an evil cause. That does NOT make my many Confederate ancestors (or almost any Confederates) evil per se (although they may or may not have been evil individuals in their own right).

Also, I am not blind to the many ethical failings (and racism) of the North and President Lincoln.

It is mind-boggling inane, however, to insist that the institution of race-based slavery was not intertwined with (if not wholly dependent upon) racial supremacy. A brief set of the copious evidence of what should be unquestionable:

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights*; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. . . . Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Message of Jefferson Davis to the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America, April 29, 1861:

In the meantime, under the mild and genial climate of the Southern States and the increasing care and attention for the well-being and comfort of the laboring class, dictated alike by interest and humanity, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South . . . With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced.

Stephen F. Hale, Letter of S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama to the State of Kentucky, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky, December 27, 1860:

Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions --- nothing less than an open declaration of war --- for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans. Especially is this true in the cotton-growing States, where, in many localities, the slave outnumbers the white population ten to one.

If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern States. The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate --- all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the country.

Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed?

Speech of Georgia Comissioner Henry Benning to the Virginia Secession Convention, February 18, 1861:

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. . . . Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand that? It is not a supposable case. Although not half so numerous, we may readily assume that war will break out everywhere like hidden fire from the earth, and it is probable that the white race, being superior in every respect, may push the other back. They will then call upon the authorities at Washington, to aid them in putting down servile insurrection, and they will send a standing armv down upon us, and the volunteers and Wide-Awakes will come in thousands, and we will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth; and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination. That is the fate which Abolition will bring upon the white race.

But that is not all of the Abolition war. We will be completely exterminated, and the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back into a wilderness and become another Africa or St. Domingo.

William L. Harris, Mississippi Commissioner to the State of Georgia's Address to the Georgia General Assembly, December 17, 1860:

Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality. . . . Mississippi is firmly convinced that there is but one alternative:

This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, without slavery, or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free negroes either, to molest us.

If we take the former, then submission to negro equality is our fate. if the latter, then secession is inevitable --- each State for itself and by itself, but with a view to the immediate formation of a Southern Confederacy, under our present Constitution, by such of the slave-holding States as shall agree in their conventions to unite with us.

Speech of Commissioner John Preston of South Carolina to the Virginia Secession Convention, February 19, 1861:

African slavery cannot exist at the North. The South cannot exist without African slavery. [Applause.] None but an equal race can labor at the North; none but a subject race will labor at the South.

Governor John J. Pettus, Message to the Legislature of Mississippi, November 26, 1860:

If we falter now, we and our sons must pay the penalty in future years, of bloody, if not fruitless efforts to retrieve the fallen fortunes of the State, which, if finally unsuccessful must leave our fair land blighted -- cursed with Black Republican politics and free negro morals, to become a cess-pool of vice, crime and infamy.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Beyond your complete and total mischaracterization of the legal, political, and historical issues and context of the secession of the Confederate States and the Civil War, your claims of expertise are most amusing.

I accept at face value that you have an advanced degree in Philosophy. It is true that Political Philosophy and Philosophy of Law (aka Jurisprudence) are areas of philosophy. (I have studied both extensively.) But this no more makes you an expert in law or politics than the existence of Philosophy of Science makes you a qualified microbiologist or nuclear physicist!

I will agree, however, that the appeal to force is not a compelling argument.

I have not claimed to any expertise in law (at least, not American law) or politics.

However, perhaps you would like to read up on how Logic was initially codified by Aristotle: he developed Syllogistic Logic (aka Aristotelian Logic) after witnessing legal arguments in the Athenian law courts.

Legal arguments which are illogical will fall, eventually, because Logic is all about correct and incorrect inference forms. If a judge presumes his/her verdict in a case before the evidence is even presented, he/she is biased (which is one way of being illogical), and should, due to that bias, excuse him/herself from the case. If a judge presumes an opinion and then produces evidence in support of that opinion, he/she is biased, and should, due to that bias, excuse him/herself from the case, which I have suggested is what the Supreme Court was admitting in Texas vs. White et al. by declaring that they would not consider the question in depth of whether or not state secession is constitutional.

Nevertheless, in order to come to a verdict in the case at hand, they had to touch on the issue, and in so doing, exposed their bias (and as I have asked previously, "how can a person even pretend to imagine that, in the year 1866, anyone on the Supreme Court could possibly be anything other than pro-Federalist?") in presuming a conclusion without considering all available evidence, and then going on to supply evidence that was consistent with their presumed conclusion. Had they given full consideration to the question, they would have examined the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and any other relevant material, in depth, PRIOR to coming to a conclusion.

That they did not do so should be obvious to anyone who looks at the matter dispassionately, but since this sort of clinical disinterest is too much to expect of most, I have laid bare merely a small number of the omissions in their "argument" in my post here.

I suggest you read it again, and try to do so dispassionately, with clinical disinterest (that is, remove your fucking ego from the consideration of what I have presented; the argument is not about you, nor your capacities, nor is it about me or my capacities, in spite of the fact that both of us have presented arguments in favor of opposing sides, so by all means, you can cease and desist with the efforts to twist my words and insult me).

You are either being extremely disingenuous or are incredibly ignorant about how the U.S. judiciary works. Of course a court forms a decision before it writes an opinion. An opinion is not a stream of consciousness attempt to work out a solution to some issue. After briefing, oral arguments, deliberations amongst the judges, etc., the majority drafts an opinion explaining the rulings it is making. (Usually these go through several drafts.) Not every little detail or iota of potentially relevant material is described. In fact, courts usually strive (often unsuccessfully) to deal with issues as concisely as reasonable. So, yes, Chief Justice Chase and the other Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court had made up their minds about the legality of secession before they wrote the opinion in Texas v. White (and the copious other cases I cited). That is the fucking point. Also, presuming they did not "consider all the evidence" merely because they did not discuss the issue "at length" or mention every tid-bit you think they should have is complete nonsense.

Moreover, for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in 1869 to be neither an Anti-Federalist nor anti-Constitution is hardly "bias" that would preclude them from service in general or ruling on the legality of secession. Your own question ( "how can a person even pretend to imagine that, in the year 1866, anyone on the Supreme Court could possibly be anything other than pro-Federalist?") provides the obvious answer that expecting a SCOTUS Justice in 1866 to be Anti-Federalist is absurd!!

[Distruzio]

When you failed to address the question here.

You've failed to respond to several of my posts, but my failure to respond to one post of yours that raised the same issue I did respond to raised by DK is "abandoning" the field?

Which of your posts have I failed to respond to?

[Distruzio]

Odd. You yourself said almost exactly the same thing that (when I say it) you call "shear utter unadulterated bullshit." The following is divided into two quotes only to avoid the clipping off of the original quote:

<snip>

As for the rest of your arguments, I can't be bothered at this time. Your interpretations of the Confederate Constitution are generally as feeble as those of the U.S. Constitution.

Requiring that all states joining the Confederacy be open to slavery is not denying power to the states on the matter of slavery. On the contrary, it is denying power to the Confederate gov't over slavery.

There is no backtracking necessary b/c I stand by my statements thus far made. You are simply presuming that b/c I say black is not red, that I mean black therefore must be blue. I am saying black is black. Not red, not blue.

The South was rejecting mercantilism. What states were mercantilist? The non-Slave Northern States. The agrarian South was making it crystal clear to the world at large that they were unwilling to subject themselves to a mercantilist Empire that they couldn't control. They had previously made concessions with the North in joining the Union under the Constitution and found that, despite more or less Southern domination of the Executive and the Legislative branches of Federal gov't, and despite SCOTUS defense of the Southern interpretation of the Constitution, the North had accumulated enough authority to fundamentally change the nature of the Union from a compact to a contract, from a Republic to a Democracy, from a confederation of equal states to a federation of expropriated states.

This was the at the core of the Secessions. Slavery, the Tariffs, religion, all of it were convenient excuses Politicians used to further the goals of their constituents. In the North, those constituents were the big business interests in the Railway, the Telegraph, and Banking Industries (as evidenced by the election of a lobbyist to President by the North). In the South, those constituents were the Plantation owners, the agrarians, and the Shipping merchants (as evidenced by the abolition of Tariffs, lobbyists, and corporate bailouts in the South by the Confederate Constitution despite Virginian and Louisianan assurances to their populations that Confederates would protect the steel and sugar industries).

No matter how much you and the other federalists foam at the mouth, the institution of Slavery had nothing to do whatsoever with the South's right to secede. They had that right. It yet remains their right. They merely lost the war to fulfill that right.

[Distruzio]

DK and Distruzio, sorry but I am going to have to disagree with you both as far as the disruption that abolishing slavery would have caused in the South being a point in favor of Southern secession. Though repealing socialism would disrupt certain economies, it would be so that said economies would be able to restructure in a more efficient manner; so, too, would abolishing slavery allow for the South to recoordinate so as to take advantage of the benefits of free labor.

Quite true. Please note that we aren't saying that the South should have done what it did. Only that it was right in doing it. Moreover, we both have, on various occasions, admitted that Slavery was inefficient compared to free labor and that King Cotton was being out competed by foreign producers. The South would have, assuming she retained political freedom from the Union, had to reorganize her economy in order to survive economically.

DK and I are saying that this reorientation should have happened at the behest of those most directly affected by the disruption of the institution. The Slaves and the Slave Owners, both.

That being said, I still maintain that the North should not have attempted to re-integrate the South into the Union. Better that the South would thwart the North's attempts at mercantilism while the South would be deprived of protection of slavery through fugitive slave laws and the assistance of the Federal army in the case of slave uprisings.

Each of which were abolished by the Confederate Constitution.

[Revolutopia]

Quite true. Please note that we aren't saying that the South should have done what it did. Only that it was right in doing it. Moreover, we both have, on various occasions, admitted that Slavery was inefficient compared to free labor and that King Cotton was being out competed by foreign producers. The South would have, assuming she retained political freedom from the Union, had to reorganize her economy in order to survive economically.

Not trying to start an arguement, but more just bringing up an interesting point. Simply, according to research by Chicago School Economists Robert William Fogel(Nobel winner in 1993) and Stanley L. Engerman the assumption that slavery was economically unprofitable is false. Particularly, they go in detail about this issue in their book Time on the Cross. I am in the midst of reading the book for a class, so I thought it would be interesting to mention.

[Distruzio]

Not trying to start an arguement, but more just bringing up an interesting point. Simply, according to research by Chicago School Economists Robert William Fogel(Nobel winner in 1993) and Stanley L. Engerman the assumption that slavery was economically unprofitable is false. Particularly, they go in detail about this issue in their book Time on the Cross. I am in the midst of reading the book for a class, so I thought it would be interesting to mention.

Read this instead.

I'll quote myself from January:

Traditionally the interpretation of slavery was built on the work of historians like Ulrich Phillips, Negro Slavery: A Survey of the Supply, Employment, and Control of Negro Labor as Determined by the Plantation Regime; Charles Randall, The Natual Limits of Slavery Expansion; and Eugene Genocese, The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South, and their students.

According to these men, and many many others, slavery was far from a vibrant economic institution before the war. It had, by 1859, reached the limit of speculation, viable agricultural land, and political support and was destined to stagnate until its inevitable collapse and certain extinction. When considering this view it is easy to see why the southern planter class was so volatile when Lincoln won the election. He was the first fully sectional president, having received no votes from the southern states. Why was he so unpopular? Because Lincoln swore an oath publicly to limit the expansion of slavery. If slavery was boxed in by a proactive executive who would not sign any legislation the congress sent him. Surely the southern economy was doomed! They seceded in an act of desperation in order to avoid the destruction of their economic world - the world Lincoln did destroy with his invasion. It was common knowledge that the only reason for slavery's continued existence in the south was due to federal subsidization of the institution through the fugitive slave laws and other legal mechanisms put in place by the United States gov't. The south was on slippery economic ground and they knew it.

It was not until 1974 with the publishing of Fogel and Engermans Time on the Cross that the history of that institution was overthrown. You see, the view that the war was fought over slavery is a new phenomena. That is why you usually see older men professing wild eyed that the war had nothing to do with that institution. They were raised on a different history lesson. A more accurate history lesson. One that views history as a science to be investigated dispassionately.

Why don't you read this paper by economist Mark Thorton, http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/R72_2.PDF. But, incase you'd like more evidence, why not examine The Work of Animals and Slaves by Ludwig von Mises; A Note on the Economics of Slavery, by Murray Rothbard; and Thomas Sowell's Markets and MInorities. And before you begin frothing that these men are obviously white supremacists, you should know that Rothbard is a Jew and Sowell is black. I take my position on the institution of slavery directly from those men.

These men, along with dozens of other actual economists and historians, show slavery to be uneconomical. It was given the image o viability via gov't fiat and intervention, much like our modern day healthcare industry, banking industry, auto industry, and post office. Gov't propped up the slave owners much like it props up modern day corporations with the same pathetic excuses that these businessmen bore simply "too large an effect on the economy to let fail." The traditional view of slavery shows us that it was through gov't manipulations of the Slavery industry that there was a bubble in the slave prices during the 1850's. Our generation understands most succinctly what happens to economic bubbles don't we?

Need I remind you of 2008?

[Revolutopia]

Not trying to start an arguement, but more just bringing up an interesting point. Simply, according to research by Chicago School Economists Robert William Fogel(Nobel winner in 1993) and Stanley L. Engerman the assumption that slavery was economically unprofitable is false. Particularly, they go in detail about this issue in their book Time on the Cross. I am in the midst of reading the book for a class, so I thought it would be interesting to mention.

I'll quote myself from January:

Why don't you read this paper by economist Mark Thorton, http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/R72_2.PDF. But, incase you'd like more evidence, why not examine The Work of Animals and Slaves by Ludwig von Mises; A Note on the Economics of Slavery, by Murray Rothbard; and Thomas Sowell's Markets and MInorities. And before you begin frothing that these men are obviously white supremacists, you should know that Rothbard is a Jew and Sowell is black. I take my position on the institution of slavery directly from those men.

Sorry, I do not trust those source simply as they come from the Austrian School where their research is weakened by their lack of emphasis on both empirical models and statistics. Instead, they use a much more weak system of "self-evident" axioms and praxeology thus leaving their entire system open to biases. Moreover, at least for Mises his thesis would have been written before Fogel and Engerman thus he would not have had the access to their proofs.

Moreover, I trust Fogel and Engerman because their work is actually filled with statistics and other empirical models thus much more objective and reliant then just the writings of individuals who rely on more philosophical means. Additionally, how since the writing of their book repeated research on the topic by other economic historians and cliometricians has strongly support their work. With in fact the groundbreaking framework used by Fogel in his research as a Economic Historian led to him being rewarded a Nobel and they both received the Bancroft prize for this book in particular.

[Distruzio]

Read the edit, I provided a source with the empirical evidence you'd like to see.

[Revolutopia]

Read the edit, I provided a source with the empirical evidence you'd like to see.

I am just reading Time on the Cross for class on the different methodologies of historical research, not really for the intended purpose of fun. So sorry I do not really have the time to pick up another book on the issue and read it just for a internet discussion or even leisure because of different priorities before it. I just brought up Fogel's book, because I was just reading it and I thought it would be interesting to add to the conversation.

edit: Also again I don't consider Austrian economists objective on the issue of taxes or federal governance, additionally after a brief search of reviews there seems to be some criticisms related to the rigor of their research and argument.

[Dusk_Kittens]

It is mind-boggling inane, however, to insist that the institution of race-based slavery was not intertwined with (if not wholly dependent upon) racial supremacy. A brief set of the copious evidence of what should be unquestionable:

(snipped select quotations from various sources)

Please. I have already addressed this, even once quite recently:

I agree that the institution of slavery was not, for most people, an issue of white supremacy (but it certainly was for some, and such language was certainly used in official documents in order to appeal to that element)

Now you're attempting to claim that the entire institution of slavery was race-based? If that were not ludicrous enough (and it most certainly IS ludicrous, for the simple fact of an "O" statement, "some S are not P," that is, there were slaves who were not black, by skin color or ethnic heritage; this "O" statement reveals that your "A" statement, "All S are P," is FALSE), you attempt to claim that it were intertwined with, and maybe even wholly dependent upon a belief in racial supremacy? I can only assume that this is a rhetorical tactic intended to elicit support from the ignorant by appealing to their emotions on the question, because I don't believe that you're ignorant enough yourself to actually buy that.

The fact of a stupid misinterpretation of the story of the curse on Canaan in the book of Genesis is well known by most who have bothered to study either Church History or the History of the so-called American "Civil War," and it was, as I have alluded to in the quote of myself just above, involved in some people's understanding of slavery (even though slavery was not limited to blacks, as I have also stated more than once) and therefore also used in some official documents in order to appeal to those who believed the stupid misinterpretation. Add to that misinterpretation of a Genesis myth the epistle to Philemon, and you have not only a flawed interpretation that promoted racist attitudes, but also a rather blatant statement in support of the institution of slavery itself (although taking this out of context and not consulting other relevant passages of the Christian scriptures would be an error of exegesis). This, however, is merely a variation on the fact that, as I have stated over and over and over again throughout these threads, slavery was not the issue, but it was used as an excuse by politicians on both sides (that is, it was an emotively-charged issue and politicians appealed to the emotions of their constituents on the matter, just as they appealed to the "traditional values" of their constituents in the form of a widespread, but flawd, interpretation of a myth found in the book of Genesis).

You might just as well blame the entire thing (slavery, racism, Southern secession, and the War) on Christianity. You would be on surer footing if you did so, but you would still be incorrect.

[The Cat-Tribe]

It is mind-boggling inane, however, to insist that the institution of race-based slavery was not intertwined with (if not wholly dependent upon) racial supremacy. A brief set of the copious evidence of what should be unquestionable:

(snipped select quotations from various sources)

Please. I have already addressed this, even once quite recently:

I agree that the institution of slavery was not, for most people, an issue of white supremacy (but it certainly was for some, and such language was certainly used in official documents in order to appeal to that element)

Now you're attempting to claim that the entire institution of slavery was race-based? If that were not ludicrous enough (and it most certainly IS ludicrous, for the simple fact of an "O" statement, "some S are not P," that is, there were slaves who were not black, by skin color or ethnic heritage; this "O" statement reveals that your "A" statement, "All S are P," is FALSE), you attempt to claim that it were intertwined with, and maybe even wholly dependent upon a belief in racial supremacy? I can only assume that this is a rhetorical tactic intended to elicit support from the ignorant by appealing to their emotions on the question, because I don't believe that you're ignorant enough yourself to actually buy that.

The fact of a stupid misinterpretation of the story of the curse on Canaan in the book of Genesis is well known by most who have bothered to study either Church History or the History of the so-called American "Civil War," and it was, as I have alluded to in the quote of myself just above, involved in some people's understanding of slavery (even though slavery was not limited to blacks, as I have also stated more than once) and therefore also used in some official documents in order to appeal to those who believed the stupid misinterpretation. Add to that misinterpretation of a Genesis myth the epistle to Philemon, and you have not only a flawed interpretation that promoted racist attitudes, but also a rather blatant statement in support of the institution of slavery itself (although taking this out of context and not consulting other relevant passages of the Christian scriptures would be an error of exegesis). This, however, is merely a variation on the fact that, as I have stated over and over and over again throughout these threads, slavery was not the issue, but it was used as an excuse by politicians on both sides (that is, it was an emotively-charged issue and politicians appealed to the emotions of their constituents on the matter, just as they appealed to the "traditional values" of their constituents in the form of a widespread, but flawd, interpretation of a myth found in the book of Genesis).

You might just as well blame the entire thing (slavery, racism, Southern secession, and the War) on Christianity. You would be on surer footing if you did so, but you would still be incorrect.

Before I conclude that we must live in alternative universes, let me see if I can clarify your position:

1. Are you denying that slavery in the Confederate States (or what became the Confederate States) in 1860 was almost exclusive race-based? If so, what percentage of slaves in the Confederate States in 1860 were white/Caucasian? Please provide evidentiary support for any assertions.

2. Are you admitting that racism/racial superiority was routinely used as a justification for slavery in the Confederate States in 1860? If not, why not? Again, please provide evidence.

3. Are you asserting that only a small minority of those in the Confederate States actually believed that slavery was justified by racism/racial superiority? If so, please provide evidence.

4. If you are asserting that few believed racism/racial superiority justified slavery in the Confederate States, please explain why it would be routinely used publicly as a justification for slavery in the Confederate States. Why would public speakers and officials use language they did not believe in and the majority of citizens did not believe in to appeal to the emotions of a small minority?

[Seleucas]

DK and Distruzio, sorry but I am going to have to disagree with you both as far as the disruption that abolishing slavery would have caused in the South being a point in favor of Southern secession. Though repealing socialism would disrupt certain economies, it would be so that said economies would be able to restructure in a more efficient manner; so, too, would abolishing slavery allow for the South to recoordinate so as to take advantage of the benefits of free labor.

Quite true. Please note that we aren't saying that the South should have done what it did. Only that it was right in doing it. Moreover, we both have, on various occasions, admitted that Slavery was inefficient compared to free labor and that King Cotton was being out competed by foreign producers. The South would have, assuming she retained political freedom from the Union, had to reorganize her economy in order to survive economically.

DK and I are saying that this reorientation should have happened at the behest of those most directly affected by the disruption of the institution. The Slaves and the Slave Owners, both.

I am a little more partial to agitation by the likes of John Brown or Lysander Spooner (the latter of whom who, though he was very much anti-slavery, saw the Civil War for what it really was.) But slavery would have been abolished peacefully, like most of the Western world had done, especially with no Federal government to lean upon for fugitive slave laws or the assistance of the Federal army.

That being said, I still maintain that the North should not have attempted to re-integrate the South into the Union. Better that the South would thwart the North's attempts at mercantilism while the South would be deprived of protection of slavery through fugitive slave laws and the assistance of the Federal army in the case of slave uprisings.

Each of which were abolished by the Confederate Constitution.[/quote]

Exactly.

[Icketopia]

The states have a right to secede according to the Constitution, so yes.

[Grave_n_idle]

The states have a right to secede according to the Constitution, so yes.

No, they don't.