The American Civil War

[Seleucas]

Really?

Since when is protesting a tax on tea to pay for your defences part of the ideals of the enlightenment?

when the government in question does so from half a world away, without giving you a voice, ignores every suggestion and compremise (colonies wanted to self-tax and give the money to england), browbeats your delegations (in the case of Ben Franklen was an ardent loyalist until they dragged him and his delegation before court and scapegoated them for the boston teaparty.) raises your taxes without concent, punishes you for trading with anyone but the motherland, then bans industrial factories in your country selling off those your people own, kick people off land awarded to native allies by burning their farms, AND when you complain occupy your lands as if you were a forgien nation? all the while claiming you are equal citizans?

The Americans were barely even taxed; they paid 1/7 of what their British counterparts did, in the most liberal empire at the time. Not to mention that said taxes were for the colonies to pay off a war to protect them, and, furthermore, that they had a good deal of the culpability in it having started to begin with. As for 'not compromising,' the British had already repealed their taxes save for a symbolic tax on tea. While the mercantile policies of the British were overbearing, for a large part they were unenforced, and conversely the Americans did enjoy a common market with Great Britain for their own products. Also, Great Britain did not want the settlers to provoke the Indians, and feared that they might try to wipe them out (which, once they gained independence... they did.)

Even if the colonists did not have a voice, they were probably better off than any other group of people in the world, even better than many of the people living in Britain. And, ultimately, they ended up implementing most of the same fiscal and monetary measures whose use by the British they had objected to, implemented their own brand of mercantilism through protectionism and slavery, and in many respects were worse in terms of liberty than the British (note the king's protection of the Indians versus the US's genocidal policies, or how the English abolished slavery decades before the Americans who only eliminated it as a punitive measure against the South.) That they did not have a voice in the policies that ultimately benefited them, or that, once they got power, did not behave any better than the people who had ruled over them, does not give credence to the legitimacy of their revolution.

[Wikkiwallana]

Which still held as much power in the national government as the people that were supposedly opressing them.Contrary to popular belief being left out of government decision making and saying "The person I like didn't win so I'm out" are two very different things.

If a large area of a country is being ignored because it's outnumbered and it has a specific regional identity and wants to be its own country, where's your problem? Surely you agree with Self-determination?

The problem is that the underlined simply isn't true.

[Wikkiwallana]

Violates their rights? How? The US has a perpetual lease on that territory. Sure, the claim is not as strong as that on Ft. Sumter, where the Federal Government undeniably owned the property, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be any less an act of war if Cuba were to attack the base.

The USA may hold a "perpetual lease" but it's still Cuban land, they have a right to change their mind on a deal negotiated over 100 years ago by a regime they since got rid of.

No, they don't. Not unless they have a clause in the lease saying they can. Contracts have to be binding or all agreements not constantly enforced at gunpoint are worthless.

[IshCong]

The South couldn't, you know. Why would you support them?

I support the right of all peoples to self determination in the face of Imperialism. Which includes the right to chose to be part of a bigger nation, or to independent. The South wanted to be free and said "so long" then all hell broke lose. If Russia went into say Belarus and said "ok, you may want to do your own thing but we have traditionally ruled you so self-rule's over" the USA would lead the condemnation.

That's because Russia would be, essentially, invading Belarus and removing their sovereignty by taking areas of land that had fallen under the sovereignty of Belarus from Belarus. The fact that Russia ruled them in the past has no bearing on the situation as Russia doesn't rule them now, unless, of course, the people of Belarus and Russia were to enter into a compact willingly, and without coercion, that would establish Russian rule.

Conversely, the South was trying to take chunks of the USA from the USA without the consent of the USA. They were in rebellion, not maintaining their independence as Belarus would be.

[Vulpae]

when the government in question does so from half a world away, without giving you a voice, ignores every suggestion and compremise (colonies wanted to self-tax and give the money to england), browbeats your delegations (in the case of Ben Franklen was an ardent loyalist until they dragged him and his delegation before court and scapegoated them for the boston teaparty.) raises your taxes without concent, punishes you for trading with anyone but the motherland, then bans industrial factories in your country selling off those your people own, kick people off land awarded to native allies by burning their farms, AND when you complain occupy your lands as if you were a forgien nation? all the while claiming you are equal citizans?

The Americans were barely even taxed; they paid 1/7 of what their British counterparts did, in the most liberal empire at the time. Not to mention that said taxes were for the colonies to pay off a war to protect them, and, furthermore, that they had a good deal of the culpability in it having started to begin with. As for 'not compromising,' the British had already repealed their taxes save for a symbolic tax on tea. While the mercantile policies of the British were overbearing, for a large part they were unenforced, and conversely the Americans did enjoy a common market with Great Britain for their own products. Also, Great Britain did not want the settlers to provoke the Indians, and feared that they might try to wipe them out (which, once they gained independence... they did.)

Even if the colonists did not have a voice, they were probably better off than any other group of people in the world, even better than many of the people living in Britain. And, ultimately, they ended up implementing most of the same fiscal and monetary measures whose use by the British they had objected to, implemented their own brand of mercantilism through protectionism and slavery, and in many respects were worse in terms of liberty than the British (note the king's protection of the Indians versus the US's genocidal policies, or how the English abolished slavery decades before the Americans who only eliminated it as a punitive measure against the South.) That they did not have a voice in the policies that ultimately benefited them, or that, once they got power, did not behave any better than the people who had ruled over them, does not give credence to the legitimacy of their revolution.

hindsight is 20/20 eh

overall it was the treatment of their colonies as just that, colonies, many americans saw themselves as british, and even after the revoloution began there were a number of americans on the fence about it. they saw themselves as british, and were loyal to the crown untill parliment started treating them as second class citizans.

It was mostly britan's mis-handling of the situation in america. a pattern that we saw over and over when a nation mistreats it's colonies and reacts without thinking. Imperial Spain was the posterchild for this method of thinking.
Colonists are vocal an issue? ignore them, colonists protest? punish them, colonists riot? crackdown, colonists rebelling? shoot them.

canada had a recent issue with Quebic wanting to seperate, they simply sat the leaders of the other side down, and talked it out, the US is getting the picture too, especally after Vietnam, and lessions learned in Iraq and afganistan.

Slavery was also an issue when the country was founded the founding fathers didn't want to deal with the dissent and fracticious issue so soon after the founding of this country, lest theri hard won independence be lost to civil war.

when the issue was finally adressed, we had a civil war, it was about a lot of things, and many issues left over from america's founding.

What happened to the natives was deplorable, but the clash between cultures became inevitible as america grew. Like england before it, it should have handled the situation better than it did.
it did not, but we cannot change that, nor would carving up states to give them back to natives accomplish anything.

All we in america can do is take a look at our past, learn from it, and not repeat the same mistakes. The same with every nation, every person, ignore history at your own peril.

[Laerod]

Where exactly in the constitution is the resupplying of federal military installations prohibited?

there isn't, but the topic was up on debate if it violated this or that, if lincon had sent the supplies while this was going on, it might be construed as invading a state, giving legitimacy to the southern cause.
legitimacy it did not yet have, and after taking the fort, could never have

What? No. It would be no more an invasion than resupplying Guantanamo Bay, first off. And secondly, acts of war or even wars of aggression weren't against supreme law of the land at the time.

Where exactly in the constitution is the resupplying of federal military installations prohibited?

The You Are Not The Boss Of Me Clause. Article XXXVI, Section 14.

I looked for that one, but I can't seem to fi-...

I see what you did there... >_>

[Northern Knights]

I care more about the coming Civil War than the first one!

[GrandKirche]

when the government in question does so from half a world away, without giving you a voice, ignores every suggestion and compremise (colonies wanted to self-tax and give the money to england), browbeats your delegations (in the case of Ben Franklen was an ardent loyalist until they dragged him and his delegation before court and scapegoated them for the boston teaparty.) raises your taxes without concent, punishes you for trading with anyone but the motherland, then bans industrial factories in your country selling off those your people own, kick people off land awarded to native allies by burning their farms, AND when you complain occupy your lands as if you were a forgien nation? all the while claiming you are equal citizans?

The Americans were barely even taxed; they paid 1/7 of what their British counterparts did, in the most liberal empire at the time. Not to mention that said taxes were for the colonies to pay off a war to protect them, and, furthermore, that they had a good deal of the culpability in it having started to begin with. As for 'not compromising,' the British had already repealed their taxes save for a symbolic tax on tea. While the mercantile policies of the British were overbearing, for a large part they were unenforced, and conversely the Americans did enjoy a common market with Great Britain for their own products. Also, Great Britain did not want the settlers to provoke the Indians, and feared that they might try to wipe them out (which, once they gained independence... they did.)

Even if the colonists did not have a voice, they were probably better off than any other group of people in the world, even better than many of the people living in Britain. And, ultimately, they ended up implementing most of the same fiscal and monetary measures whose use by the British they had objected to, implemented their own brand of mercantilism through protectionism and slavery, and in many respects were worse in terms of liberty than the British (note the king's protection of the Indians versus the US's genocidal policies, or how the English abolished slavery decades before the Americans who only eliminated it as a punitive measure against the South.) That they did not have a voice in the policies that ultimately benefited them, or that, once they got power, did not behave any better than the people who had ruled over them, does not give credence to the legitimacy of their revolution.

To quote the film "A Matter of Life and Death" "Where else but in England have the rights of the individual against the system been held so high?" "In America Sir, where these rights are held to be inalienable!" "I doubt you have more practical freedom in America than in England...An Englishman thinks as he likes in Religion and Politics".

[TaQud]

I care more about the coming Civil War than the first one!

if it did happen it would be about Corporations, Politicians vs states and small businesses

[UncleDolan]

I care more about the coming Civil War than the first one!

if it did happen it would be about Corporations, Politicians vs states and small businesses

Not a race war?
That's a pretty likely event too.

[Forsakia]

Why does other countries' recognition define that?

That is always how it has been. If you want to be your own country without getting along with any other countries, you need to emigrate to another planet.

And they didn't think that the confederacy were going to win and didn't want to piss off the union without benefit.

Also an excellent reason not to support them. It would have been an excellent for the south not to start the fight in the first place, except that they were deluded enough to think they were going to win.

As I've said before I'm making a moral argument about the right of self-determinism.

Why does the recognition of other countries matter? Take two hypothetically identical countries declaring independence, one country has a sufficiently large army to make it a worthwhile ally, and so garners international recognition, the other does not and as a result is not recognised by other countries who see no benefit for themselves in it.

How does the size of their army (being an "excellent reason" for other countries not to recognise them) change whether they have a morally legitimate right to independence?

It obviously has a practical effect on whether the right to independence is upheld or not, in the same way that a country with no police force might be unable to uphold an individual's right to life, but as I see it makes no difference to whether the country has a morally legitimate right to independence.

[Laerod]

if it did happen it would be about Corporations, Politicians vs states and small businesses

Not a race war?
That's a pretty likely event too.

Not really.

[IshCong]

That is always how it has been. If you want to be your own country without getting along with any other countries, you need to emigrate to another planet.

Also an excellent reason not to support them. It would have been an excellent for the south not to start the fight in the first place, except that they were deluded enough to think they were going to win.

As I've said before I'm making a moral argument about the right of self-determinism.

Why does the recognition of other countries matter? Take two hypothetically identical countries declaring independence, one country has a sufficiently large army to make it a worthwhile ally, and so garners international recognition, the other does not and as a result is not recognised by other countries who see no benefit for themselves in it.

How does the size of their army (being an "excellent reason" for other countries not to recognise them) change whether they have a morally legitimate right to independence?

It obviously has a practical effect on whether the right to independence is upheld or not, in the same way that a country with no police force might be unable to uphold an individual's right to life, but as I see it makes no difference to whether the country has a morally legitimate right to independence.

You're right, the recognition of other states doesn't give you a morally legitimate reason to rebel/seek independence, and the lack of that recognition doesn't mean your cause is not morally legitimate.
It does, however, mean that said region/faction/group/etc was never, for all practical purposes, an independent and sovereign state, which was what was originally being pointed out. The simple fact of the matter is that the practical legitimacy of a region/faction/group/etc's claim to sovereignty is, by virtue of global politics and the anarchic relations of nations, defined by other states. You might point out that certain organizations, like the UN, can recognize states and make them legitimate. Of course, the UN is composed of other states.

[Alien Space Bats]

<continued from above>

Everything You Know Is Wrong - Part III (Continued)

---

From my earlier posts, you can see that both North and South became deeply concerned about the balance of political power between them in the U.S. Senate, starting from around the outbreak of the War of 1812. At that time, there were 18 States - 9 "Slave" and 9 "Free" (Louisiana having just joined the Union and restored the balance after free States had enjoyed a 8-7 edge within the Union from 1804 (when New Jersey abolished slavery) until 1812 (the year of Louisiana's entry). After the War of 1812, four more States joined the Union - 2 "Slave" and 2 "Free", bringing the total to 11 of each.

Then Missouri petitioned Congress for Statehood with no ready "partner" at hand, at which point the proverbial fecal matter struck the whirling blades...

#2: Western Expansion - The Missouri Compromise

To understand why Missouri's Statehood application threw Washington into a tizzy, you have to understand a little bit about the history of slavery west of the Mississippi River; to understand that, you have to understand a little bit about the history of slavery in the Northwest Territory; and to properly appreciate both these things, you have to understand a little bit about how European imperialism played out in North America before the Revolution.

Lots of European powers took interest in the Americas, and many established colonies there; but The Great Game: North American Edition™ quickly devolved into one involving just three players following Holland's final abandonment of New Netherland in 1674. Over the next 90 years, these three players - France, Spain, and England - would engage each other in a series of conflicts, many taking place simultaneously in both Europe and North America.

The climax to this rivalry came in the 1760's, when Britain leveraged the rise of Prussia as a major European power into a lasting position of supremacy over its French adversaries on the North American continent. Realizing that it was about to lose New France irrevocably (having been wiped out of Canada while simultaneously failing to secure George II's other royal possession, the Kingdom of Hanover, as ransom for their lost North American territories), the French Crown cut a secret deal with its Spanish cousin to divide New France in two.

The arrangement was simple: Knowing they were going to lose the entirety of their continental possessions, France unilaterally ceded all its lands between the Appalachians and the Rockies - which the French dubbed "Louisiana" - along with the city of New Orleans - to Spain in a secret treaty; as part of this treaty, Spain agreed to return the lands to France at some future date upon request. In essence, France used the cession of the lands to Spain as a way of keeping them out of British hands.

It didn't work perfectly, although in all honesty it wasn't expected to. Britain, having already caught wind of back-channel negotiations between the two Bourbon kingdoms, declared war on Spain earlier that year (1762); thus, when the final peace agreement was worked out the following year (1763), Britain took over control of that half of Louisiana that lay east of the Mississippi River. Twenty years later, when Britain settled up accounts with its rebellious American colonies, what had once been "East Louisiana" got transferred to American control and formally became part and parcel of the United States.

Four years later, Congress incorporated part of what had once been French Louisiana as the Northwest Territory (or, formally, the "Territory Northwest of the River Ohio"); this was done through a piece of landmark legislation called the Northwest Ordinance. Two years later, following the ratification of the Constitution, the Ordinance was reenacted by the 1st United States Congress with minor modifications; in doing so, Congress took care to acknowledge the Ordinance as more than just an act of legislation: It was recognized as a binding legal "compact" between "the original States and the people and states in said territory", and therefore an agreement that would "forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent".

The Ordinance of 1787 is crucial to American history on a number of levels: For one thing, it would serve as the model for future "organic acts" - the formal term for those acts of Congress which establish Territories under U.S. law. But of critical importance to this discussion was the fact that the Ordinance banned the practice of slavery within the Northwest Territory, and if it was indeed, as claimed by Congress when reenacted in 1789, a law that must "forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent", then this prohibition was one that could not be reversed, save through unanimous acclimation by "the original States and the people and states in said territory".

In contrast, the Southwest Ordinance of 1790 (which established the Southwest Territory, or "Territory South of the River Ohio") held no such importance. For one thing, it was enacted under the Constitution, not under the Articles of Confederation - and was thus considered just an ordinary bill, subject to potential future amendment by Congress, if desired, and not an unalterable "compact" that could only be changed if all parties consented; for another, the competing State land claims that stood in the way of its creation were less numerous and didn't involve disputes between so-called "slave" and "free" States, as had those in the Northwest. Nor did the Territory it established last as long: In spite of the name, it never included what is today the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which was created completely from territory belonging to Virginia (with the consent of the Commonwealth of Virginia) in 1792 to become America's 15th State; instead, it consisted entirely of what would become the State of Tennessee, having been created by North Carolina's abandonment of its western land claims. It ceased to exist in 1799, upon Tennessee's admission to the Union as its 16th State in 1796. Not surprisingly, there was no provision in the Southwest Ordinance banning slavery within the territory; indeed, this was no oversight: When North Carolina ceded the land to the United States on December 22nd, 1789, it had expressly conditioned the cession "[p]rovided always that no regulations made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate Slaves."

Tennessee's admission to the Union in 1796 disposed of most of what was left of the land that had once been the eastern half of French Louisiana. All that remained was that portion claimed by Georgia (consisting of the northern two-thirds of what are today the States of Mississippi and Alabama) and a narrow strip obtained from Spain in 1795 as part of a treaty establishing a mutually agreeable border between the U.S. and Spanish Florida. This region was subsequently organized as Mississippi Territory in 1798.

Entitled "An Act For An Amicable Settlement Of Limits With The State Of Georgia, And Authorizing The Establishment Of A Government In The Mississippi Territory", Mississippi's "original act" specifically provided "[t]hat from and after the establishment of the said government, the people of the aforesaid territory shall be entitled to, and enjoy all and singular the rights, privileges and advantages granted to the people of the territory of the United States, north-west of the river Ohio, in and by the aforesaid Ordinance of the thirteenth day of July, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, in as full and ample a manner as the same are possessed and enjoyed by the people of the said last mentioned territory" - IOW, that all the rights and liberties extended to the people of the Northwest Territory were equally guaranteed to the people of Mississippi. This was essential due to the fact that the Federal Constitution's guarantees of liberty under the Bill of Rights did not extend to the States, and therefore might arguably not extend to residents of the new Territory vis-à-vis their local (Territorial) government. The same guarantees had appeared in the Southwest Ordinance of 1790 as well, further establishing the historical importance of the Northwest Ordinance as precedent.

Unlike the Southwest Ordinance, however, where Congress' hands were arguably tied by its commitment to North Carolina to refrain from ever abolishing slavery within the Southwest Territory, no such constraint existed in the case of Mississippi: America's claim to the territory came from its peace treaty with Great Britain, as clarified through its recent treaty with Spain; and while African slavery was still legal in the Spanish colonies (as opposed to Indian slavery, which had been banned since 1769), Spain did not insist on its continuation within the ceded territory (nor - arguably - could it, as Spain's cession was a tacit admission that Mississippi Territory had never properly been theirs in the first place). Yet Congress refused to approve a proposal to ban slavery within the new territory, as it had in the Northwest (even though such a ban was proposed); consequently, in the absence of a section banning slavery, slavery became legal within the new Territory.

Interestingly enough, Congress did, however, enact a restriction against the importation of slaves into the territory from abroad:

That from and after the establishment of the aforesaid government, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to import or bring into the said Mississippi territory, from any port or place, without the limits of the United States, or to cause or procure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in so importing or bringing any slave or slaves, and that every person so offending, and being thereof convicted before any court within the said territory, having competent jurisdiction, shall forfeit and pay, for each and every slave so imported or brought, the sum of three hundred dollars; one moiety for the use of the United States, and the other moiety for the use of any person or persons, who shall sue for the same; and that every slave, so imported or brought, shall thereupon become intitled to, and receive his or her freedom.

- Section 7, "An Act For the Government of the Mississippi Territory"

This is something we will see again, when it comes to the "original acts" establishing American government west of the Mississippi, albeit with important and far-reaching differences.

<more to come>

[TaQud]

<continued from above>

Everything You Know Is Wrong - Part III (Continued)

---

From my earlier posts, you can see that both North and South became deeply concerned about the balance of political power between them in the U.S. Senate, starting from around the outbreak of the War of 1812. At that time, there were 18 States - 9 "Slave" and 9 "Free" (Louisiana having just joined the Union and restored the balance after free States had enjoyed a 8-7 edge within the Union from 1804 (when New Jersey abolished slavery) until 1812 (the year of Louisiana's entry). After the War of 1812, four more States joined the Union - 2 "Slave" and 2 "Free", bringing the total to 11 of each.

Then Missouri petitioned Congress for Statehood with no ready "partner" at hand, at which point the proverbial fecal matter struck the whirling blades...

#2: Western Expansion - The Missouri Compromise

To understand why Missouri's Statehood application threw Washington into a tizzy, you have to understand a little bit about the history of slavery west of the Mississippi River; to understand that, you have to understand a little bit about the history of slavery in the Northwest Territory; and to properly appreciate both these things, you have to understand a little bit about how European imperialism played out in North America before the Revolution.

Lots of European powers took interest in the Americas, and many established colonies there; but The Great Game: North American Edition™ quickly devolved into one involving just three players following Holland's final abandonment of New Netherland in 1674. Over the next 90 years, these three players - France, Spain, and England - would engage each other in a series of conflicts, many taking place simultaneously in both Europe and North America.

The climax to this rivalry came in the 1760's, when Britain leveraged the rise of Prussia as a major European power into a lasting position of supremacy over its French adversaries on the North American continent. Realizing that it was about to lose New France irrevocably (having been wiped out of Canada while simultaneously failing to secure George II's other royal possession, the Kingdom of Hanover, as ransom for their lost North American territories), the French Crown cut a secret deal with its Spanish cousin to divide New France in two.

The arrangement was simple: Knowing they were going to lose the entirety of their continental possessions, France unilaterally ceded all its lands between the Appalachians and the Rockies - which the French dubbed "Louisiana" - along with the city of New Orleans - to Spain in a secret treaty; as part of this treaty, Spain agreed to return the lands to France at some future date upon request. In essence, France used the cession of the lands to Spain as a way of keeping them out of British hands.

It didn't work perfectly, although in all honesty it wasn't expected to. Britain, having already caught wind of back-channel negotiations between the two Bourbon kingdoms, declared war on Spain earlier that year (1762); thus, when the final peace agreement was worked out the following year (1763), Britain took over control of that half of Louisiana that lay east of the Mississippi River. Twenty years later, when Britain settled up accounts with its rebellious American colonies, what had once been "East Louisiana" got transferred to American control and formally became part and parcel of the United States.

Four years later, Congress incorporated part of what had once been French Louisiana as the Northwest Territory (or, formally, the "Territory Northwest of the River Ohio"); this was done through a piece of landmark legislation called the Northwest Ordinance. Two years later, following the ratification of the Constitution, the Ordinance was reenacted by the 1st United States Congress with minor modifications; in doing so, Congress took care to acknowledge the Ordinance as more than just an act of legislation: It was recognized as a binding legal "compact" between "the original States and the people and states in said territory", and therefore an agreement that would "forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent".

The Ordinance of 1787 is crucial to American history on a number of levels: For one thing, it would serve as the model for future "organic acts" - the formal term for those acts of Congress which establish Territories under U.S. law. But of critical importance to this discussion was the fact that the Ordinance banned the practice of slavery within the Northwest Territory, and if it was indeed, as claimed by Congress when reenacted in 1789, a law that must "forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent", then this prohibition was one that could not be reversed, save through unanimous acclimation by "the original States and the people and states in said territory".

In contrast, the Southwest Ordinance of 1790 (which established the Southwest Territory, or "Territory South of the River Ohio") held no such importance. For one thing, it was enacted under the Constitution, not under the Articles of Confederation - and was thus considered just an ordinary bill, subject to potential future amendment by Congress, if desired, and not an unalterable "compact" that could only be changed if all parties consented; for another, the competing State land claims that stood in the way of its creation were less numerous and didn't involve disputes between so-called "slave" and "free" States, as had those in the Northwest. Nor did the Territory it established last as long: In spite of the name, it never included what is today the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which was created completely from territory belonging to Virginia (with the consent of the Commonwealth of Virginia) in 1792 to become America's 15th State; instead, it consisted entirely of what would become the State of Tennessee, having been created by North Carolina's abandonment of its western land claims. It ceased to exist in 1799, upon Tennessee's admission to the Union as its 16th State in 1796. Not surprisingly, there was no provision in the Southwest Ordinance banning slavery within the territory; indeed, this was no oversight: When North Carolina ceded the land to the United States on December 22nd, 1789, it had expressly conditioned the cession "[p]rovided always that no regulations made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate Slaves."

Tennessee's admission to the Union in 1796 disposed of most of what was left of the land that had once been the eastern half of French Louisiana. All that remained was that portion claimed by Georgia (consisting of the northern two-thirds of what are today the States of Mississippi and Alabama) and a narrow strip obtained from Spain in 1795 as part of a treaty establishing a mutually agreeable border between the U.S. and Spanish Florida. This region was subsequently organized as Mississippi Territory in 1798.

Entitled "An Act For An Amicable Settlement Of Limits With The State Of Georgia, And Authorizing The Establishment Of A Government In The Mississippi Territory", Mississippi's "original act" specifically provided "[t]hat from and after the establishment of the said government, the people of the aforesaid territory shall be entitled to, and enjoy all and singular the rights, privileges and advantages granted to the people of the territory of the United States, north-west of the river Ohio, in and by the aforesaid Ordinance of the thirteenth day of July, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, in as full and ample a manner as the same are possessed and enjoyed by the people of the said last mentioned territory" - IOW, that all the rights and liberties extended to the people of the Northwest Territory were equally guaranteed to the people of Mississippi. This was essential due to the fact that the Federal Constitution's guarantees of liberty under the Bill of Rights did not extend to the States, and therefore might arguably not extend to residents of the new Territory vis-à-vis their local (Territorial) government. The same guarantees had appeared in the Southwest Ordinance of 1790 as well, further establishing the historical importance of the Northwest Ordinance as precedent.

Unlike the Southwest Ordinance, however, where Congress' hands were arguably tied by its commitment to North Carolina to refrain from ever abolishing slavery within the Southwest Territory, no such constraint existed in the case of Mississippi: America's claim to the territory came from its peace treaty with Great Britain, as clarified through its recent treaty with Spain; and while African slavery was still legal in the Spanish colonies (as opposed to Indian slavery, which had been banned since 1769), Spain did not insist on its continuation within the ceded territory (nor - arguably - could it, as Spain's cession was a tacit admission that Mississippi Territory had never properly been theirs in the first place). Yet Congress refused to approve a proposal to ban slavery within the new territory, as it had in the Northwest (even though such a ban was proposed); consequently, in the absence of a section banning slavery, slavery became legal within the new Territory.

Interestingly enough, Congress did, however, enact a restriction against the importation of slaves into the territory from abroad:

That from and after the establishment of the aforesaid government, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to import or bring into the said Mississippi territory, from any port or place, without the limits of the United States, or to cause or procure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in so importing or bringing any slave or slaves, and that every person so offending, and being thereof convicted before any court within the said territory, having competent jurisdiction, shall forfeit and pay, for each and every slave so imported or brought, the sum of three hundred dollars; one moiety for the use of the United States, and the other moiety for the use of any person or persons, who shall sue for the same; and that every slave, so imported or brought, shall thereupon become intitled to, and receive his or her freedom.

- Section 7, "An Act For the Government of the Mississippi Territory"

This is something we will see again, when it comes to the "original acts" establishing American government west of the Mississippi, albeit with important and far-reaching differences.

<more to come>

Speechless... (In a good way)

[Laerod]

<continued from above>

Everything You Know Is Wrong - Part III (Continued)

---

From my earlier posts, you can see that both North and South became deeply concerned about the balance of political power between them in the U.S. Senate, starting from around the outbreak of the War of 1812. At that time, there were 18 States - 9 "Slave" and 9 "Free" (Louisiana having just joined the Union and restored the balance after free States had enjoyed a 8-7 edge within the Union from 1804 (when New Jersey abolished slavery) until 1812 (the year of Louisiana's entry). After the War of 1812, four more States joined the Union - 2 "Slave" and 2 "Free", bringing the total to 11 of each.

Then Missouri petitioned Congress for Statehood with no ready "partner" at hand, at which point the proverbial fecal matter struck the whirling blades...

#2: Western Expansion - The Missouri Compromise

To understand why Missouri's Statehood application threw Washington into a tizzy, you have to understand a little bit about the history of slavery west of the Mississippi River; to understand that, you have to understand a little bit about the history of slavery in the Northwest Territory; and to properly appreciate both these things, you have to understand a little bit about how European imperialism played out in North America before the Revolution.

Lots of European powers took interest in the Americas, and many established colonies there; but The Great Game: North American Edition™ quickly devolved into one involving just three players following Holland's final abandonment of New Netherland in 1674. Over the next 90 years, these three players - France, Spain, and England - would engage each other in a series of conflicts, many taking place simultaneously in both Europe and North America.

The climax to this rivalry came in the 1760's, when Britain leveraged the rise of Prussia as a major European power into a lasting position of supremacy over its French adversaries on the North American continent. Realizing that it was about to lose New France irrevocably (having been wiped out of Canada while simultaneously failing to secure George II's other royal possession, the Kingdom of Hanover, as ransom for their lost North American territories), the French Crown cut a secret deal with its Spanish cousin to divide New France in two.

The arrangement was simple: Knowing they were going to lose the entirety of their continental possessions, France unilaterally ceded all its lands between the Appalachians and the Rockies - which the French dubbed "Louisiana" - along with the city of New Orleans - to Spain in a secret treaty; as part of this treaty, Spain agreed to return the lands to France at some future date upon request. In essence, France used the cession of the lands to Spain as a way of keeping them out of British hands.

It didn't work perfectly, although in all honesty it wasn't expected to. Britain, having already caught wind of back-channel negotiations between the two Bourbon kingdoms, declared war on Spain earlier that year (1762); thus, when the final peace agreement was worked out the following year (1763), Britain took over control of that half of Louisiana that lay east of the Mississippi River. Twenty years later, when Britain settled up accounts with its rebellious American colonies, what had once been "East Louisiana" got transferred to American control and formally became part and parcel of the United States.

Four years later, Congress incorporated part of what had once been French Louisiana as the Northwest Territory (or, formally, the "Territory Northwest of the River Ohio"); this was done through a piece of landmark legislation called the Northwest Ordinance. Two years later, following the ratification of the Constitution, the Ordinance was reenacted by the 1st United States Congress with minor modifications; in doing so, Congress took care to acknowledge the Ordinance as more than just an act of legislation: It was recognized as a binding legal "compact" between "the original States and the people and states in said territory", and therefore an agreement that would "forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent".

The Ordinance of 1787 is crucial to American history on a number of levels: For one thing, it would serve as the model for future "organic acts" - the formal term for those acts of Congress which establish Territories under U.S. law. But of critical importance to this discussion was the fact that the Ordinance banned the practice of slavery within the Northwest Territory, and if it was indeed, as claimed by Congress when reenacted in 1789, a law that must "forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent", then this prohibition was one that could not be reversed, save through unanimous acclimation by "the original States and the people and states in said territory".

In contrast, the Southwest Ordinance of 1790 (which established the Southwest Territory, or "Territory South of the River Ohio") held no such importance. For one thing, it was enacted under the Constitution, not under the Articles of Confederation - and was thus considered just an ordinary bill, subject to potential future amendment by Congress, if desired, and not an unalterable "compact" that could only be changed if all parties consented; for another, the competing State land claims that stood in the way of its creation were less numerous and didn't involve disputes between so-called "slave" and "free" States, as had those in the Northwest. Nor did the Territory it established last as long: In spite of the name, it never included what is today the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which was created completely from territory belonging to Virginia (with the consent of the Commonwealth of Virginia) in 1792 to become America's 15th State; instead, it consisted entirely of what would become the State of Tennessee, having been created by North Carolina's abandonment of its western land claims. It ceased to exist in 1799, upon Tennessee's admission to the Union as its 16th State in 1796. Not surprisingly, there was no provision in the Southwest Ordinance banning slavery within the territory; indeed, this was no oversight: When North Carolina ceded the land to the United States on December 22nd, 1789, it had expressly conditioned the cession "[p]rovided always that no regulations made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate Slaves."

Tennessee's admission to the Union in 1796 disposed of most of what was left of the land that had once been the eastern half of French Louisiana. All that remained was that portion claimed by Georgia (consisting of the northern two-thirds of what are today the States of Mississippi and Alabama) and a narrow strip obtained from Spain in 1795 as part of a treaty establishing a mutually agreeable border between the U.S. and Spanish Florida. This region was subsequently organized as Mississippi Territory in 1798.

Entitled "An Act For An Amicable Settlement Of Limits With The State Of Georgia, And Authorizing The Establishment Of A Government In The Mississippi Territory", Mississippi's "original act" specifically provided "[t]hat from and after the establishment of the said government, the people of the aforesaid territory shall be entitled to, and enjoy all and singular the rights, privileges and advantages granted to the people of the territory of the United States, north-west of the river Ohio, in and by the aforesaid Ordinance of the thirteenth day of July, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, in as full and ample a manner as the same are possessed and enjoyed by the people of the said last mentioned territory" - IOW, that all the rights and liberties extended to the people of the Northwest Territory were equally guaranteed to the people of Mississippi. This was essential due to the fact that the Federal Constitution's guarantees of liberty under the Bill of Rights did not extend to the States, and therefore might arguably not extend to residents of the new Territory vis-à-vis their local (Territorial) government. The same guarantees had appeared in the Southwest Ordinance of 1790 as well, further establishing the historical importance of the Northwest Ordinance as precedent.

Unlike the Southwest Ordinance, however, where Congress' hands were arguably tied by its commitment to North Carolina to refrain from ever abolishing slavery within the Southwest Territory, no such constraint existed in the case of Mississippi: America's claim to the territory came from its peace treaty with Great Britain, as clarified through its recent treaty with Spain; and while African slavery was still legal in the Spanish colonies (as opposed to Indian slavery, which had been banned since 1769), Spain did not insist on its continuation within the ceded territory (nor - arguably - could it, as Spain's cession was a tacit admission that Mississippi Territory had never properly been theirs in the first place). Yet Congress refused to approve a proposal to ban slavery within the new territory, as it had in the Northwest (even though such a ban was proposed); consequently, in the absence of a section banning slavery, slavery became legal within the new Territory.

Interestingly enough, Congress did, however, enact a restriction against the importation of slaves into the territory from abroad:

That from and after the establishment of the aforesaid government, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to import or bring into the said Mississippi territory, from any port or place, without the limits of the United States, or to cause or procure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in so importing or bringing any slave or slaves, and that every person so offending, and being thereof convicted before any court within the said territory, having competent jurisdiction, shall forfeit and pay, for each and every slave so imported or brought, the sum of three hundred dollars; one moiety for the use of the United States, and the other moiety for the use of any person or persons, who shall sue for the same; and that every slave, so imported or brought, shall thereupon become intitled to, and receive his or her freedom.

- Section 7, "An Act For the Government of the Mississippi Territory"

This is something we will see again, when it comes to the "original acts" establishing American government west of the Mississippi, albeit with important and far-reaching differences.

<more to come>

Speechless... (In a good way) :shock:

Dude. Spoiler it when you quote it.

[The Aryan Nations]

Grant was better than Lee.

there is no substitute for victory.

How? He had more men (not better), more guns, better guns, more food? That makes him better?

on top of that, Grant basically Zerg Rushed the south. Look at the death tolls.

>Union
>~140,000 KIA
>~365,000 Total dead
>~200,000 wounded

>South
>~72,000 KIA
>~260,000 total dead
>~140,000 wounded


Anyway, i support the south.

Why?

because the south fought for the same thing that the 13 colonies had fought for less than 80 years before the war
because all 13 colonies seceded from the the government of the Articles of Confederation, making two precedents for the legality of such secession.
because the north was economically dependent on southern agriculture
because Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus
Because their uniforms were cooler (SS argument, i know, i know)

[The Aryan Nations]

The USA may hold a "perpetual lease" but it's still Cuban land, they have a right to change their mind on a deal negotiated over 100 years ago by a regime they since got rid of.

No, they don't. Not unless they have a clause in the lease saying they can. Contracts have to be binding or all agreements not constantly enforced at gunpoint are worthless.

>My father signs a contract to be married to my mother
>my father dies, i succeed him as head of household
by your logic, i am now married to my mother.

[Laerod]

Anyway, i support the south.

Why?

because the south fought for the same thing that the 13 colonies had fought for less than 80 years before the war

Slavery?

because the north was economically dependent on southern agriculture

The war kinda disproved that, particularly when you consider that Southern agriculture was busted by the end of the war and in no way could have supported anything.

because Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus

In Maryland. Davis did it in Tennessee and Alabama, and would have done it in West Virginia if it hadn't been for McClellan.

Because their uniforms were cooler (SS argument, i know, i know)

Way to bet on the losing side. Sukhomlinov effect, and all that.

[Nude East Ireland]

I'm not sure if I'd fight for anyone, but the more conservative views in the South (and in the United States as a whole) at the time would've made me just want to move to Canada or something.

[Rio Cana]

I care more about the coming Civil War than the first one!

Too late, it seems Syria might slip into a civil war.

[The Aryan Nations]

there isn't, but the topic was up on debate if it violated this or that, if lincon had sent the supplies while this was going on, it might be construed as invading a state, giving legitimacy to the southern cause.
legitimacy it did not yet have, and after taking the fort, could never have

What? No. It would be no more an invasion than resupplying Guantanamo Bay, first off. And secondly, acts of war or even wars of aggression weren't against supreme law of the land at the time.

The You Are Not The Boss Of Me Clause. Article XXXVI, Section 14.

I looked for that one, but I can't seem to fi-...

I see what you did there... >_>

I, For one, Support article XXXVI, Section 14, and demand that the government of America and the 50 states of this union ratify the said 'you are not the boss of me' clause, and that it become legally binding!

Not a race war?
That's a pretty likely event too.

Not really.

your right. the media would never report such events, and it would be marked down for gang warfare.

[TaQud]

I care more about the coming Civil War than the first one!

Too late, it seems Syria might slip into a civil war.

Like Libya, Egypt

[The Aryan Nations]

Anyway, i support the south.

Why?

because the south fought for the same thing that the 13 colonies had fought for less than 80 years before the war

Slavery?

because the north was economically dependent on southern agriculture

The war kinda disproved that, particularly when you consider that Southern agriculture was busted by the end of the war and in no way could have supported anything.

because Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus

In Maryland. Davis did it in Tennessee and Alabama, and would have done it in West Virginia if it hadn't been for McClellan.

Because their uniforms were cooler (SS argument, i know, i know)

Way to bet on the losing side. Sukhomlinov effect, and all that.

>Slavery
independence from a perceived foreign threat
>War kinda disproved that
the war does not disprove that the south had a higher GDP, and that whole tariff issue.
>in maryland!
irrelevant. he still suspended the constitutional rights of the American citizens in a state not in rebellion.
>bet on the losing side
what?

[Laerod]

No, they don't. Not unless they have a clause in the lease saying they can. Contracts have to be binding or all agreements not constantly enforced at gunpoint are worthless.

>My father signs a contract to be married to my mother
>my father dies, i succeed him as head of household
by your logic, i am now married to my mother.

That's bullshit. You're not a state.