Confederate or Union?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those of you who claim it was a voluntary union, look carefully. US law provided for voluntary acceptance of the Constitution and joining of the US, if you look carefully there are no provisions for legal secession from that contract anywhere in either the Constitution or other US law.
Click to expand...
There is no provision in the Constitution for Federal Income Tax either.

The leaders of the Southern states at that time thought that they were merely exercising a right, not starting a revolution.

No one thought there would be a war and many thought that some compromise would be worked out to keep the Union or SC would just go their own way. ONLY when Lincoln began calling up troops in order to invade the South did the South realize what was happening.

When Lincoln started gathering troops, he asked the governors of the border states to start rounding up troops and then transfer them to his command. The governor of Delaware informed Lincoln that as governor, he had no lawful authority for raising troops.

And since we're gonna bring up legalities, there was nothing in the Constitution that provided that Lincoln could raise troops either.

Lincoln, acting on his own, began the process of starting the war. He called a special session of Congress to meet on July 4th, which was 2.5 months after he starting raising troops.

During this time, before Congress met,
...free from interference, he drove ahead to organize his war, making laws and breaking them as he had need to, creating armies, enlarging the Navy, declaring blockades, exercising all the war powers of Congress.
- The Story of the Confederacy
Click to expand...

BTW, an interesting sidenote, in the District of Columbia, slavery was legal throughout the war.
 
Thing of black. The blackest, darkest, most evil color you can thing of.
Click to expand...

Mike, I THINK You'd look better in another color :rolleyes: But good luck with that "black" thing you've got going...:scrutiny:
 
But I do want to point out that there's another way of addressing this: a recognized, legal, time-consuming, discouraging, bureaucratic means of secession with significant political risks even if you win (like losing parts of the state that voted to stay with the union).
Click to expand...
Again, while no provisions were written in to allow sucession, there are a few ways it could have been done.

Negotiation with federal authorities: Of course the federal government has no authority in the Constitution to allow the country to splinter, but a Constitutional Amendment could always have been proposed to allow just that. I'd have nothing wrong with a well written amendment that made it difficult to secede. This would of course be the legal way to do so.

War. Which is of course, the way the south went. Also, as an American I see the leadership as traitors. Of course, the British saw us that way during and after the Revolution. Had the south won their leaders would have been seen by them as great patriots (as unfortunately, many southerners see them anyway), and even in the north they would have been eventually grungingly accepted (in the same way that the Brits eventually accepted us, and while some still see men like Washington as traitors, and face it they were traitors to their then country, many/most now see them differently). I guess the way history would see them had they suceeded in seceeding would largely depend upon what kind of country they left (and I suggest that one that would have probably had slavery into the 20th Century probably would not have been seen very favorably in modern times).



I also want to ask, what do people think the CSA would have been like after 3 or 4 decades? Because we ended up back together, many people imagine it like Canada: more or less like the US, but with a border in between. But it's easy to imagine an outcome like Cuba or North Korea, with huge resources put into holding slaves and maintaining the system, military adventures into Mexico and the Caribbean, while most of the society gets poorer and poorer and most young people try to move to the US.
Click to expand...

Hard to say. Slavery probably would have continued for decades longer. The south would have been virtually bankrupted. Most of the commercial and manufacturing might of the nation was in the north. Neither country would have been what we became (I fear that both would have been no stronger than perhaps Canada or maybe even Mexico today). There probably would have been further wars over western territory. There would have been very raw feelings (as there were after the reunification of the country) that probably would have stood in the way of the kind of treaties we had with England re. the Northwest Territories and without the treaties I'm sure the Union and the Confederacy would have fought at least one more war over some western territories.

Heck, when the two countries were much weaker than the one it might have been very possible that Mexico might have ceased on the opportunity to try to get back some of the territory they lost just 20 years before.

More opptimistically, perhaps with the close ties of northern and southern families, shared history, historic commercial ties and proximity making each other natural trading partners it might be possible that there would have been a better outcome. Perhaps no second western war, but still we would be a shadow of what we became economically and militarily when united.
 
There is no provision in the Constitution for Federal Income Tax either.
Click to expand...
Let me reword this to be a little more polite:

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution provides for a Federal Income Tax. An amendment to the Constitution is a part of the Constitution so it is indeed provided for in the Constitution.
 
Thanks for educating me.
Click to expand...

No problem. You're welcome. :)

I was under the impression that we were discussing the 1860s.

Income tax was introduced in 1862. The 16th Amendment didn't happen until 1913. If secession was unconstitutional during that time because it was not mentioned in the Constitution, so was income tax.
 
There was an attempt at an income tax during the Civil War. It could have been interpreted either way under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

It clearly gives the Congress the power to tax. However, the Supreme Court ruled (interpreted) that an income tax was unconstitutional after which the federal government had to return to more indirect forms of taxation until the 16th Amendment passed. So yes, there was an income tax for a time during the Civil War, until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional (and it is not clearly unconsitutional based on Article I, section 8 and very well could have gone either way).
 
No one thought there would be a war and many thought that some compromise would be worked out to keep the Union or SC would just go their own way. ONLY when Lincoln began calling up troops in order to invade the South did the South realize what was happening.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this is meant. The Confederacy certainly prepared for war, and many people expected it.


BTW, an interesting sidenote, in the District of Columbia, slavery was legal throughout the war.
Click to expand...

This is not correct.
Slavery was abolished in DC in April 1862, and in US territories in June 1862.
There were also negotiations with politicians in the border states to arrange compensated emancipation. They refused.
 
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation..."

Chaim,

All that stuff only applies to states within the union. Would all those rules apply to Rhode Island in the time period between when the Constitution was ratified by the other 12 states and when they finally did so? I think not, as they were their own independant state, and just as the Southern states declared their own independance.

What those rules would have prohibited was a state within the union engaging in those activities, and in that case it would have been a good idea. So yes, if a state wants to remain part of the USA they cannot similtaniously join the EU. It is not a good things to have states messing around in foreign diplomacy and what not, but a seperate nation (CSA) has as much right to do so as the US has to do so after seceeding from England, or should the Brit govt have "kept the empire together" even if it took genocide?

For that matter, do you even believe in the self-determination of peoples? I thought we were all about that. Should the Czechs still be part of the German Reich of Bismark and Wilhelm II, they were free to leave after all? Should Isreal be it's own state, maybe it should go back to the Turkish Ottoman empire? We can't allow countries to discintigrate now can we? Actually, why can't we? Do you believe in freedom?

Why is it that if the people of a state overwhelmingly want to leave and go their own way, you'd support killing them as opposed to letting them go and do their own thing? Do the other states somehow own the state that wants to go, or have some other claim on it? Do other people have a claim on you if you choose to leave a gentlemen's club or whatever other voluntary association you join, or are you just a part of the hive that expendable to the wishes of others? Well, if one person cannot make such a claim, how can a state, which is nothing more than a body representing a group of people?
 
interesting points all...as for the term traitor and ignoble innuendos hurled at the Patriotic Southerners ;)

Who betrayed who?

The South for leaving a Union that through decades prior to the Civil war methodically bullied the Southerners way of life and economy?

The South...for leaving a system of government that no longer represented their people? After all, if your government isn't for the people...who is it for?

The South...for seeing the Bloodshed in Kansas and recognizing the inevitable consequence of their status in the Union?

The North...for a scorched earth policy on non-military targets?

The North...for rewriting history "The War to End Slavery" (Just like WW2 was the war to end death camps).

As far as the legality of leaving the Union...Lincoln didn't take South Carolina to court...the consent to be governed no longer existed in that Confederation of States...right or wrong...the states left the Union and later rejoined. That leaving and rejoining was acknowledged by the Union. Their citizenry was treated much differently while outside of the Union. They were not treated as felons or traitors - they were not hanged indiscrimantely - they were treated as prisoners of war.

The war happened...and our country was much more stabilized by it than if it were avoided w/ compromising laws. Like I said before, it would suck to be living in the new europe of america...50 states w/ their own currencies and exchange rates. 50 different anniversaries of independence. 50 different tax rates. Tennessee invading Florida because Peyton Manning could never beat them...Mississippi invading Louisiana for creole recipes...Georgia uniting with the Russian Georgia just because they're spelled the same...it would be chaos.

L.W.
 
Glock,

Does this look familiar?

"No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility."


It's article VI of the Articles of Confederation. Under that document, the individual states bound themselves to the same provision that they would bind themselves to under the Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation were in full force until the moment that the Constitution was ratified by the appropriate number of states.
 
Computer flake,

"4) Since slaves were considered property (like a horse or wagon is property) and most of the Southern boys who fought in the Civil War never even SAW a slave...."

Except when it was time to apportion seats for the House of Representatives.

Then the Southern slave owners wanted their "property" to also count as people.

I'm sure that was of great comfort to the slaves...

"Hey Rastus!"

"Yessum Massah Sir?"

"Great news, today you're officially 3/5ths of a person!"
 
From www.donsides.com/Philosophy.html

"Mrs. Julia Grant, following her husband on the Mississippi Central Railroad Campaign, Nov/Dec 1862, stayed at the Walter House in Holly Springs, Mississippi, having brought along several of her slaves. General Grant had purchased a slave in 1858, which was sold shortly before the war started.

The General did not own slaves during the time of the war, but Mrs. Grant maintained hers until they were freed by the issuance of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, about a month after she entered Holly Springs.

During Mrs. Grant's stay at the Walter House she was taken to a local dress shop, wherein she was engaged in conversation concerning the war:

"Then they talked of the Constitution, telling me the action of the government was unconstitutional. Well, I did not know a thing about this dreadful Constitution, and told them so. They seemed very much astonished and asked, "Why surely you have studied it?" "No, I have not; I would not know where to look for it even if I wished to read it, and besides, the Northern people think and say it is unconstitutional for any of the states to secede." I really was much grieved at my ignorance on these matters, but since then I have learned that even the chief justice is sometimes puzzled over the interpretation of this same Constitution."

The Personal Memoirs of Mrs. Julia Dent Grant
Page 106
 
Last edited:
Since you are bringing that into my post I'll respond. Of course slavery was a big part of the war! The war was not about slavery for the north in the beginning, sure enough, but they didn't start the war. The southern leaders succeeded from the Union over state's rights, sure that was part of it. But what was the tinder, the match? What issue brought on the state's rights issue, what specific right was it? Read a couple speeches from the time and you'll be left with absolutely no doubt that it was the continuation of slavery!
Click to expand...

There was quite a bit more to succession than just slavery. Slavery was a large issue, I agree. But the South didn't decide to leave the Union simply because of slavery. It was a host of problems with which the South did not agree. Such as the North demanding upgraded roads, waterways, and railroads and wanting the federal government to pay for it. The South saw this as spending their money and getting nothing in return. There were also issues of tariffs being pressed by the North which weighed heavily against the South. The South did not feel justified in tariffs against their cotton, which was a main source of income for the South. The decisions over a national bank and currency also were one-sided and disagreed upon by the South. When the issue of ending slavery entered the picture it was enough to send representatives packing. So slavery may have been the straw that broke the camel's back but it wasn't the initial catalyst. The storm had been brewing for years before slavery was even an issue. I think we both agree on the biggest part: the South succeeded because the rich white men wanted to put money back into their pockets.

"Hey Rastus!"

"Yessum Massah Sir?"

"Great news, today you're officially 3/5ths of a person!"
Click to expand...

Hahah I should make this my tagline. That's the funniest thing I've read today!
 
JohnBT: I am confused. The paragraphs don't seem to be written from the same point of view.

Which paragraphs come from Julia Grant's memoirs, and which come from some other source?

I have heard many times that USG owned one slave from 1858 to 59; the story has always been that he was a present from Julia's father, a wealthy landowner, and that Ulysses freed him outright in 1859 (i.e. before he knew there would be a war and before he returned to the army).
 
I'm not sure how this is meant. The Confederacy certainly prepared for war, and many people expected it.
Click to expand...

Yes, the South did prepare for war, but only after Lincoln began raising an army with the announced goal of invading the Confederate states. Until that time, most of the state leaders in the South didn't consider their secession would lead to war. They believed that their withdrawal from the Union was a legal action under the Constitution.

There had been several instances since the Constitution was adopted that some states, for one reason or another, decided they would just leave the Union. These were overcome by negotiations that worked out their differences. Leading up to the Civil War, many in the Southern political leadership thought this would also be the result of their saber rattling and secession. Once Lincoln started gathering his troops, war was inevitable.
 
Mike,

Slavery was legal under the US Federal govt, so why are you trying to absolve that govt of responsibility and blame the south? The fact that there was slavery in the "Union" states nullifies any attempt to claim moral responsibility. The fact of the matter is that is was primarily a war to retain control over territory and people that did not want to be controlled.

Didn't Lincoln himself say that his intention was not to eradicate nor preserve slavery, but to preserve the union?
 
Hey Irwin...

I don't for a moment claim the high road or acknowledge the low road for the South in Bloody Kansas, or anywhere else where the issue of slavery in a territory was in question.

BOTH sides were killing with extreme violence, and both sides were dying.

However...in Kansas...one side was fighting for their rights under the law of the land...slavery wasn't illegal. Their opponents were fighting to push their moral beliefs upon those who didn't agree with them. How far would these radicals go? By storming an arsenal and trying to flame a slave rebellion amongst the States that were considered immoral...how thoughtful.

L.W.
 
Didn't Lincoln himself say that his intention was not to eradicate nor preserve slavery
Click to expand...
Indeed, slavery was not eradicated, and the Union victors specifically allowed it under certain, narrow circumstances when they added the 13th Amendment (though Abe, obviously, was not a part of that process). That form of slavery remains perfectly constitutional to this day.

Does anyone know how much the form of slavery preserved in the 13th Amendment has been used and abused over the last 140ish years?

How much do we enslave people today, or has the practice died out despite it still being 100% constitutional in narrow circumstances?
 
This is like asking would you rather eat pig crap or dog crap. The North was wrong because a state has a right to secede. The South was wrong because any government that allows slavery within its borders is same as allowing rape, theft, murder, etc.

Therefore both governments are illegitimate in a major fashion. Both sides suck. And that is my official stance on it. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NickEllis
  • Locked
North American Confederated Union?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
2K
CAnnoneer
C
J
  • Locked
Educators Debate Efforts to Rename Schools that are named after Confederate Leaders
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
Malone LaVeigh
M
2
  • Locked
Lincoln Statue Ignites Confederate Passion
Replies
17
Views
877
JohnBT
J
M
  • Locked
Gen. Sherman's war spoils at bottom of SC River
Replies
18
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
P
  • Locked
Were Lincoln and FDR REALLY that bad?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
135
Views
5K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top