Which US PResidents were Horrid?: Part II

[Ramo]

Can't, on a school computer.

[DinoDoc]

Bastard

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo
Regarding your one and only argument: the secession papers said the war was about slavery, so it must've been about slavery.

Hardly all I have said and it is plenty on its own anyway. You have only had the UNSUPPORTED claim it was about taxes. I have support you have nothing.

The secession papers were propaganda, created principally for a legalistic reason, namely to gain European recognition and support (and to ward off an invasion). Propaganda is not where one should get information. The fact of the matter is that abolition was a phantom threat, while higher tariff duties were real, substantial threats, which almost caused a civil war 30 years earlier.

There was no way those were going to help with Europe. France and England both were against slavery and those were two countries they needed. As propaganda it helped the North immensly. Of course it wasn't mere propaganda anyway. It was the real reasons for secession. Tarrifs is something the other countries might have understood.

I am still not seeing ANY support for your claim. Even if you dredge something up modern revisionism will not trump the words of the men that made the decisions.

Irrelevant. You were ranting about firing the first shot, and I told you who did - federal troops.

How do you know? What I saw didn't say whether the Floridians fired or not. Besides I did say that firing the first shot is not important if the other side is clearly planing to start shooting. A peremptive strike against against an agressor is not starting a war.

Considering as how that DIDN'T start a war it not relevant in any case. Ft. Sumter started a war. That did nothing.

Fine, you want to talk Ft. Sumter? I wouldn't exactly call resupplying a fort while negotiating its supposed surrender particularly defensive.

They were only supplying food and similar items. No weapons. And the South started shooting before the ship arrived.

Demanding a surrender isn't exactly defensive either. It was federal soil. Literly.

By seceding, they have no more voice on the fate of the Western territories, nullifying your argument.

Nonsense. They were doing the seceding. They had allready denied states the choice. They wanted to deny more states the choice. The fact is they pitched a fit that they FEARED they wouldn't be allowed to force more states is evidence they didn't care one bit about states rights.

Yes, yes, yes. The Southern leaders were hypocritical feudalistic, authoritarian bastards who deserved to die horrible, horrible deaths. You're preaching to the choir, here. But it is not what the debate is over.

I never said that. Then again they got a lot of people killed over slavery.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger


As Ramo previously mentioned, the tariffs that the North wanted to impose were legal (even if they did cripple the South). Why would the South bring up tariffs in the secession documents if they were trying to come up with a legal justification for seceding?

US history. The US rebelled against Brittain at least partly over taxes. They weren't looking for legal excuses anyway. They were of the oppinion the had the right to secede whatever the reasons.

Again, the secession documents were created as a legal justification for secession. Why, then, would the South have brought up perfectly legal actions taken by the North in its secesion documents? The previous actions taken by the North that were illegal revolved around slavery, not tariffs. The previous (and future) actions taken by the North that would have caused (and later did come to cause) the most economic harm to the South were tariffs, though.

The Southern claims about the tarrifs is that the tarrifs discriminated against the South and subsidized the North. True or not that was the claim. If that isn't pertinant enough to be mentioned they must have thought it didn't mean anywhere near as much as slavery.

Now if someone can show that there a was debate about mentioning tariffs and that they decided not to mention it because it wasn't relevant to their legal claims and that slavery was relevant then a point will be made. I haven't seen such a claim. Maybe it can be supported.

Though I don't see how since Lincolm made it clear he was not going to abolish slavery at the expense of the union.

Lincoln's political platform was built around high tariffs. The reason the South seceded was to avoid these high tariffs.

If so they would have mentioned it. Its a traditional political complaint in the US and an important precedent in US history.

However, this did not constitute a legal justification for secession, while the North's previous actions with regards to slavery did provide legal justification for secession. Since the secession documents were intended to provide a legal justification for secession, they contained a great deal on slavey and not a bit on tariffs.

They had legal justification. They could quit any time they felt like it. That was what they said. They joined voluntarily and they could quit voluntarily. Of course that was realy only true for some states but they all claimed it. Only the thirteen colonies and Texas actually had a choice about joining the Union.

People today would rather think it was about taxes than except the fact that people were willing to fight and kill other Americans over slavery. Nevertheless that is exactly what the secession was done for. Slavery.

[Ramo]

Hardly all I have said and it is plenty on its own anyway. You have only had the UNSUPPORTED claim it was about taxes. I have support you have nothing.

I have a claim supported by logic. You have a claim supported by propaganda. 'Nuff said.

There was no way those were going to help with Europe. France and England both were against slavery and those were two countries they needed. As propaganda it helped the North immensly. Of course it wasn't mere propaganda anyway.

Like I said, it was a legalistic appeal. It was meant to legally, not morally, justify secession to the European leadership. They didn't like slavery, but they didn't have significant objections to the Confederacy as long as the war didn't become about slavery (which changed after the Emancipation Proclamation).

It was the real reasons for secession.

The papers mention "states' rights," for instance. You think that's a real reason for secession?

Tarrifs is something the other countries might have understood.

Yep, England would've perfectly understood how the North used tariffs to exploit the South, just as it had used tariffs to exploit its colonies, particularly in South Asia. If the South was looking for English sympathy, free trade wasn't exactly the best appeal.

I am still not seeing ANY support for your claim. Even if you dredge something up modern revisionism will not trump the words of the men that made the decisions.

I'll tell you a secret, but it may be a little unsettling:
Politicians occasionally lie.

Like I said earlier, I'm at school, and therefore don't have my books with me.

How do you know?

Going on memory, don't have my books with me..

They were only supplying food and similar items. No weapons. And the South started shooting before the ship arrived.

Yep, so they could hold the fort longer.

Demanding a surrender isn't exactly defensive either. It was federal soil. Literly.

What's a nice friendly suggestion between states?
Nonetheless, the feds said they were surrendering when they obviously had no intention of surrendering.

Nonsense. They were doing the seceding. They had allready denied states the choice. They wanted to deny more states the choice.

The fate of the states would be determined by popular sovereignty. They had the choice, but saw adding another slave state that was not dominated by agricultural interests not worth the effort of doing something similar to what they did in Kansas.

The fact is they pitched a fit that they FEARED they wouldn't be allowed to force more states is evidence they didn't care one bit about states rights.

Irrelevant. I never claimed anything about states' rights.

I never said that.

But I did.

Anyways, I gotta do my Physics homework now. Later.

[loinburger]

Ethelred: The South must have considered the issue of tariffs to be quite important, considering that they specifically mention them in their constitution, which is modelled after the original Constitution except that it specifically mentions free trade as a right afforded to all states.

Section VIII
The Congress shall have power-
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; [my emphasis] and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

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; [my emphasis]...

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


I have a claim supported by logic. You have a claim supported by propaganda. 'Nuff said.

You claim support by repeating yourself. I claim support by going on the word of the men that made the decisions.

Like I said, it was a legalistic appeal. It was meant to legally, not morally, justify secession to the European leadership.

Got some evidence to support that? I know I have evidence against it. It didn't work at all if that was the intent. That it couldn't have worked is my evidence.

They didn't like slavery, but they didn't have significant objections to the Confederacy as long as the war didn't become about slavery (which changed after the Emancipation Proclamation).

England especially would have liked to help split the US. However the fact that the South had rebelled to retain slavery stopped them from helping the South.

The papers mention "states' rights," for instance. You think that's a real reason for secession?

The right was the right to keep slaves. We both know I think that was the reason. And we allready covered how hypocritical their claims of states rights were since they wanted to force slavery on new states.

Yep, England would've perfectly understood how the North used tariffs to exploit the South, just as it had used tariffs to exploit its colonies, particularly in South Asia. If the South was looking for English sympathy, free trade wasn't exactly the best appeal.

Nor was slavery. In fact the Brittish were boarding ships to stop slave shipments. Anyones ships. Any countries ships. Claiming a desire to want to enslave men was not going to endear anyone with the Brittish.

I'll tell you a secret, but it may be a little unsettling:
Politicians occasionally lie.

Gosh and to think I once voted for Tricky Dicky. I never knew.

Like I said earlier, I'm at school, and therefore don't have my books with me.

Use the WEB Luke. It will protect you and aid you in your endevours.

Going on memory, don't have my books with me..

The net is better. Its my memory. I make more mistakes when I fail to consult it.

Yep, so they could hold the fort longer.

It was their fort. It was federal soil with federal troops that were short on food and under seige and blockade. Blockade and seige are acts of war even if a shot isn't fired. Buchanan didn't have the guts to call it an act of war. He knew it was but he was a Lame Duck so he was waiting for Lincoln.

What's a nice friendly suggestion between states?
Nonetheless, the feds said they were surrendering when they obviously had no intention of surrendering.

No they didn't. They were negotiating and only because the seige had cut them off from supply. Again, the siege itself was an act of war.

If they didn't get supplies they would have surrendered in a few days. The South was impatient.

The fate of the states would be determined by popular sovereignty. They had the choice, but saw adding another slave state that was not dominated by agricultural interests not worth the effort of doing something similar to what they did in Kansas.

The fate of the state is something the South wanted to force. Against states rights.

Irrelevant. I never claimed anything about states' rights.

Really and then what is this?

Yes, and the Confederate argument over secession had always been over the legality of federal actions.

That is States rights. The rights of the states vs the powers of the federal government.

And you just quoted the session documents reference to states rights.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger
Ethelred: The South must have considered the issue of tariffs to be quite important, considering that they specifically mention them in their constitution, which is modelled after the original Constitution except that it specifically mentions free trade as a right afforded to all states.

Important yes. Just not important enough mention at all when they seceded. They were clearly quite enraged that they might lose slavery. It was not mere propaganda and it didn't help them at all with international relations. In fact was exceedingly harmfull. The tarrif issue was more than enough reason legally since they felt the US had no legal hold on them anyway.

Legally all they had to do was say 'we quit' from their point of view. As far as I can see they were right then as well. Since then things are different. A major war has a powerful legal precedent.

Boy would the US transportation system be a mess with that article. I think the next bigest change is the term of office for the President. One single six year term.

[AzNmYsTiKaLdEmO]

damn dat abraham lincoln..... if it weren't for him, slaves would still be making out clothing and it would sell for cheap prices. now without slaves, clothing prices hav gone up tenfold...... damn hiM!!!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Important yes. Just not important enough mention at all when they seceded.

The Declaration of Independence makes no reference to the separation of Church and State (something which the English government impeded upon, IIRC), but that doesn't lessen the importance of the First Amendment. The Constitution is a far more important legal document than the Declaration of Independence; the former outlines the functioning of the government, the latter was really just a propoganda tool.

The tarrif issue was more than enough reason legally since they felt the US had no legal hold on them anyway.

The tariffs that the North imposed were extremely damaging to the South, but they were not illegal. Mentioning them in the secession documents would therefore have accomplished nothing. Instead, they are expicitely dealt with in the CSA Constitution, where their treatment would accomplish something.

Legally all they had to do was say 'we quit' from their point of view.

From their point of view that is all they had to say. Not everybody necessarily shared their point of view, so they also had the need to bring up the illegal actions taken by the North (which do not include tariffs).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo

No, you're changing whatever "argument" you previously had after I refuted it (hell, the two arguments are contradictory), into an argument that does not help your case.

I never changed my argument after you refuted it. I told you that I already knew what you said -- that there was already slavery in Cuba and Mexico, and so forth. That is like, history 101.

You thought I meant that I claimed that Southern politicians wanted to expand slavery where it did NOT exist yet.

I really claimed that Southern politicians wanted to conquer countries where slavery already existed.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger


The Declaration of Independence makes no reference to the separation of Church and State (something which the English government impeded upon, IIRC),

That should be on the Creationism thread. England wasn't messing much with religion in the colonies. They had given that up for lent. Lent too.

but that doesn't lessen the importance of the First Amendment. The Constitution is a far more important legal document than the Declaration of Independence; the former outlines the functioning of the government, the latter was really just a propoganda tool.

There is a difference. Winning. Yes I agree the Declaration was a propaganda tool.(some think its a legal, document it isn't) It covered actual grievances though. It wasn't a stealth document that ignored the real grievance.

You and Ramo are basicaly claiming the various documents of session weren't real grievances but a snow job to fox the foreigners. Well that just isn't true.

First the Declaration is a single document assembled by three men and primarily written by one and then approved by a single body of representitives. The session documents that I linked to are four seperate documents written by at least four different people completly independently for the four different sets of STATE voters and not for the foreigners. If it had been for foreigners they wouldn't have even mentioned slavery as no major European nation agreed with the South on that.

The tariffs that the North imposed were extremely damaging to the South, but they were not illegal. Mentioning them in the secession documents would therefore have accomplished nothing. Instead, they are expicitely dealt with in the CSA Constitution, where their treatment would accomplish something.

Slavery wasn't ilegal and no one was about to abolish it. So now we are left with nothing to write about.

From their point of view that is all they had to say. Not everybody necessarily shared their point of view, so they also had the need to bring up the illegal actions taken by the North (which do not include tariffs).

Which they didn't do. The actions were legal. It was a fear of future actions that they acted on. The tariffs had been around for a long time. I am still going on their own words about their decisions. Their decisions were on a state by state basis. The Confederate Constitution was a decision by all the states as a collective body. They are different things and have different requirements. One is a set of laws and the other is a statement about why they are leaveing another set of laws.

Its not like they changed the tariff laws AND made slavery ilegal.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes I agree the Declaration was a propaganda tool.(some think its a legal, document it isn't) It covered actual grievances though. It wasn't a stealth document that ignored the real grievance.

The grievances it brings up are all legal violations. Tariffs imposed on the South by the North were not illegal and are therefore disanalogous.

You and Ramo are basicaly claiming the various documents of session weren't real grievances but a snow job to fox the foreigners. Well that just isn't true.

They contain real grievances, particularly concerning states' rights (where the North had violated the Constitution). Just like the Declaration of Independence, they do not contain grievances with absolutely no legal basis; the North's tariff policy was not illegal, therefore it would not be in the secession documents as it would not constitute a legal grievance.

Slavery wasn't ilegal and no one was about to abolish it. So now we are left with nothing to write about.

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with the fact that the North's tariffs were not in the secession documents because they were not illegal?

Which they didn't do. The actions were legal.

The secession documents bring up several legal grievances. Notable among these are the lack of enforcement on the Fugitive Slave Law (thereby failing to enforce interstate property rights as guaranteed in the Constitution).

It was a fear of future actions that they acted on.

Yes, higher tariffs.

The tariffs had been around for a long time.

But Lincoln was going to make them worse. He was all for Clay's American System.

I am still going on their own words about their decisions.

By "their own words," do you mean "diaries and journals of those responsible for writing up the secession documents," or do you mean "the secession documents"? I would hardly call the secession documents "their own words," rather I would call them "a propoganda tool."

I am still going off of the actual Constitutional changes enacted by the CSA government, which deal almost exclusively with tariffs.

One is a set of laws and the other is a statement about why they are leaveing another set of laws.

One, the Consitution, is a binding legal document and a nearly unimpeachable source. The other, the secession documents, are not binding legal documents and were intended as propoganda tools.

Its not like they changed the tariff laws AND made slavery ilegal.

No, they didn't really add or delete anything regarding slavery, just an expanded set of laws for how slaves that already exist in newly acquired territories would be dealt with. The primary changes they made were to the laws concerning states' free trade (tariffs), because tariffs were of primary concern while slavery was only of secondary or tertiary concern.

[Ramo]

I claim support by going on the word of the men that made the decisions.

Your claim is supported by misinterpreting their propaganda, mine is based on analyzing the context of these statements. Quotes are well and good, but they're meaningless if they're interpreted in a vacuum.

Got some evidence to support that? I know I have evidence against it. It didn't work at all if that was the intent. That it couldn't have worked is my evidence.

Read the bloody papers. They were legal appeals, not moral appeals. Do I really have to walk you through one of them?

However the fact that the South had rebelled to retain slavery stopped them from helping the South.

If this had happened, perhaps that would follow.

But history tells us that England, France, and Spain were courting the CSA with possible alliances until Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation.

The right was the right to keep slaves. We both know I think that was the reason.

Riiight.

And we allready covered how hypocritical their claims of states rights were since they wanted to force slavery on new states.

Ah, I see. The Secession papers should be taken at face value only when supporting your claims. Interesting philosophy there, seeing as how the secession papers is your only argument.

It was their fort. It was federal soil

Court decisions had consistently spelled out state jursdiction over lands in their within the borders, regardless whether the land was ceded to the federal gov't, before and after 1860. At best, you have an extremely nebulous conflict over legal rights to the land. It was an unprecedented situation, so it was not necessarily federal or Confederate soil. Calling it an "act of war" is a fairly long strech.

The fate of the state is something the South wanted to force. Against states rights.

"Blah, blah, blah states' rights." If you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing about the South's defense of states' rights.

Really and then what is this?

quote:

Yes, and the Confederate argument over secession had always been over the legality of federal actions

I was referring in particular to the secession papers, smart guy. I didn't say that the South actually seceded over states' rights.

I never changed my argument after you refuted it.

"Before the Civil War, the Southern states wanted to aggressively expand the institution of slavery in the western territories, Nicragua, Cuba, and Mexico. ..."

"The Southern politicians wanted to take over countries where slavery already existed, so they can establish more plantations for more profits for themselves. "

No, no change at all.

Look, you're either lying, had a pretty bad case of amnesia, or made a big typo.

I don't mind the latter case, but I wish you'd take responsibility for whatever mistakes you make instead of accusing me of not understanding and changing your statement into something it was not.

I told you that I already knew what you said -- that there was already slavery in Cuba and Mexico, and so forth. That is like, history 101.

Furthermore, your pretentious "I already knew that" that you write every in every other one of your posts is starting to get on my nerves. Look dude, you may have know whatever was written in response to you, but you generally either have either neglected to take that fact into consideration or have written something contradicting it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo

"Before the Civil War, the Southern states wanted to aggressively expand the institution of slavery in the western territories, Nicragua, Cuba, and Mexico. ..."

"The Southern politicians wanted to take over countries where slavery already existed, so they can establish more plantations for more profits for themselves. "

No, no change at all.

Look, you're either lying, had a pretty bad case of amnesia, or made a big typo.

I don't mind the latter case, but I wish you'd take responsibility for whatever mistakes you make instead of accusing me of not understanding and changing your statement into something it was not.

Furthermore, your pretentious "I already knew that" that you write every in every other one of your posts is starting to get on my nerves. Look dude, you may have know whatever was written in response to you, but you generally either have either neglected to take that fact into consideration or have written something contradicting it.

The way I first wrote my statement was a mistake, since I neglected to write it explicitly enough, to convey that slavery was already in existence in those countries.