Which US PResidents were Horrid?: Part II

[Ramo]

The way I first wrote my statement was a mistake, since I neglected to write it explicitly enough,

And you think you wrote the latter statement explicitly at all, or even implicitly?

[qutoe] to convey that slavery was already in existence in those countries.[/quote]

Then you'd be wrong again. Nicaragua did not have slavery in 1861. Walker, the American dictator who tried to reinstate slavery, was kicked out in 1857.

(Please don't write "Tell me something I didn't know." or some variation of that statement)

[MrFun]

You're right -- Nicaragua did not have slavery at that time.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger

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

The grievances in the Declaration of Independence were about things that were legal. In fact many of the complaints were about laws that had been passed by Parliment which makes them legal. England has NO ilegal laws unlike the US because they have no Constitution.

Since you have only your own speculation here is another dose of reality.

Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb: "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections."

Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."

Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina: "The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . . This war is the servant of slavery." [The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861)


The Republican Platform for 1860 does mention import duties but they don't say anything about high duties. Or discriminatory duties against certain states.

Democratic Platform Douglas faction has no mention of duties or tariffs.

Democratic Platform Breckinridge faction also has no such mention.

Constitutional Union Party Platform is really short and only has platidutes.

So I don't see much evidence that tariffs were driving any of the parties.

Easy to read them. They are short unlike modern platforms.

The attempts at compromise to short circuit the secession were directed at slavery. Not tariffs.

The comprimise proposal by Jefferson Davis.


Resolved, That it shall be declared, by amendment of the Constitution, that property in slaves, recognized as such by the local law of any of the States of the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized; and, like other property, shall not be subject to be divested or impaired by the local law of any other State, either in escape thereto or of transit or sojourn of the owner therein; and in no case whatever shall such property be subject to be divested or impaired by any legislative act of the United States, or of any of the Territories thereof.

I see slavery not tariffs and that is Jeferson Davis himself. Aparently he didn't agree with you either.

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.

Good ol states rights. The tyrants answer to laws against human rights. Sure was popular in the South in the 50's and 60's.

The complaints in the Declaration of Independence while legitmate were not about things that were illegal. The King was within his legal rights as was Pariliment.

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?

What are you talking about? Nothing in the secesion documents were about ilegal things. They were about things they feared might become illegal. Slavery.

The law was on the side of the South.

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).

Yes where the South attempted to force THEIR laws on other states. More evidence that the South had no respect for State Rights outside of Southern States. If they wanted to enforce their laws that was their responsibility.

You are aware aren't you that by seceding they made things worse in that respect. Secession meant that the escaped slaves would become legal refugees.

Yes, higher tariffs.

Funny how they failed to mention that. You seem to be reading minds.

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

All you have to do is look at what the people of the time were saying. They were mostly talking slavery not tariffs. Tariffs were a secondary issue that was something were comprimise was more likely.

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."

You call them a propaganda tool to avoid what they say. There is no reason to say they were mere propaganda except to avoid what they so clearly say about their reasons for secession.

Diaries and journals would be usefull to support your point. Inventing claims of propaganda isn't.

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

Only because you skipped over the parts about slavery that I have here farther down.

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.

Again you unsupported claim that it was propaganda. Now that you can see that slavery also part of the Constitutional changes you will have to give some support for that propaganda claim.

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.

ARTICLE I.Section IX.
1- The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.


ARTICLE IV. Section II.
1- The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

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


All of those are additions regarding slavery.

Its exceedinly clear from what the people of the time actually said that slavery was the primary concern. There simply is no reason that tariffs wouldn't have been mentioned in any of those secession documents if they were the primary concern. Those were state documents by individual states not foreign aid proposals by a national government.

----------------------------
Oh and here is something interesting from the Confederate Constitution.


ARTICLE I. Section IX.
3 - The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

If Lincoln had the Confederate Constitution his suspension of Habeus Corpus would have been legal.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


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.

I didn't take them from vacuum. Its clear by many other things said by many people that slavery was the primary issue. Your claims that the secession documents were pure propaganda is unsupported by anything resembling evidence. So far it is a mere assertion by you and Loinburger.

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

I was the one that posted the links. I read them. They weren't legal apeals so much much as a statement of why they were seceeding. The law was on their side.

In fact you just called them propaganda. Make up your mind. Oh and support your claim that they were propaganda rather than heartfelt statements about their desire to retain slavery.

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.

History also shows us that the Brits weren't going to do anything ever since they were against slavery.

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.

Legal then propaganda. Funny how YOU keep switching.

I didn't. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in them. The secession papers are not my only arguement but even they are far more than you have. You have only a personal claim that they are propaganda. Or is that a legal claim? You keep changing.

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.

Blockade and siege is an act of war. That is reality and not a stretch.

It was definitly Federal soil. It wasn't ceded to the federal government at any time. It was BUILT by the Federal Government.

Fort Sumter is built on an artificial island paid for with Federal funds. The granite even came from the North.

http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Sumter.html

Fort Sumter, named after a South Carolina Revolutionary War hero, was designed as part of a defensive system for Charleston Harbor. Plans were drawn in 1827, and construction began two years later. Located on a man-made island of sea shells and grani te from northern quarries, it was a pentagonal structure, fifty feet high, with walls eight to twelve feet thick.

[MrFun]

Ethelred, you presented some very good arguments.

But I don't think you will be able to get through to them. Most white Southerners and some white Northerners today, have this bias that will not let them see the continuum of the issue of expanding slavery into new territory, with secession, then the creation of the Confederacy, and then the Civil War.

All the books I have read outside of my classes and studies have emphasized how slavery was the main issue that brought about the greatest crisis the United States ever faced.

Thanks for your counter-arguments to theirs, Ethelred.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
But I don't think you will be able to get through to them. Most white Southerners and some white Northerners today, have this bias that will not let them see the continuum of the issue of expanding slavery into new territory, with secession, then the creation of the Confederacy, and then the Civil War.

I'm sorry that I'm more willing to believe a legally binding document like the CSA Constitution than non-binding documents like the secession papers. Given your previous statements about how the US Constitution is a vacuous piece of paper with no real meaning or objectivity, I can't blame you for calling this "bias" on my part.

[Ramo]

England has NO ilegal laws unlike the US because they have no Constitution.

Ever hear of the Magna Carta?

but they don't say anything about high duties

You're telling me that they supported lower duties?
The Morrill Tariff was one the first pieces of legislation Congress was to pass. It doubled tariff duties. The subsequent tariffs (in the next few years), increased duties even more.

You'll note that that the Republican platform (which is relatively long) does not mention abolition as its goal in any way whatsoever.

I suppose it's my turn for a quote.

For example, in Lincoln's first campaign he told the electorate, "My politics can be briefly stated. I am in favor of internal improvements and protective tariffs. These are my sentiments and my political principles."

Democratic Platform Douglas faction has no mention of duties or tariffs.

Democratic Platform Breckinridge faction also has no such mention.

Yes, the Democratic party was not homogenous in its opposition to tariffs. That's why it wasn't in the platform. The parties were extremely lose coalitions. For example, a significant portion of the Republican party consisted of former-Democrats.

Look at regional campaigns if you want a clear picture.

Or discriminatory duties against certain states.

What? First of all, protective tariffs hurt everyone in the country. Even in the North, farmers made up the majority of the population. It was only because manufacturing interests ran the North that the Northern gov'ts supported higher tariff duties. Secondly, protective tariffs inherentely disproportionately hurt the South, since they were so much more reliant on agriculture.

The attempts at compromise to short circuit the secession were directed at slavery. Not tariffs.

The comprimise proposal by Jefferson Davis.

Or you can look at the compromise proposed by the New York Chamber of Commerce to get Congress to reject the Morrill Tariff. The US didn't much like it.

Oh and here is something interesting from the Confederate Constitution.


ARTICLE I. Section IX.
3 - The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

If Lincoln had the Confederate Constitution his suspension of Habeus Corpus would have been legal.

That's in the US Constitution too. The only reason (as I explained earlier in this thread) that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional was because he didn't have Congressional approval initially, which he got later.

I didn't take them from vacuum.

No, that's exactly what you did. You ignore the political machinery of the coutnry. Again, abolition had absolutely no chance of getting enacted in the South, while higher tariff duties were on the verge of gettting passed. That's important. More important than a bunch of rhetoric.

I was the one that posted the links. I read them. They weren't legal apeals so much much as a statement of why they were seceeding. The law was on their side.

No, they were explaining why they were seceding through legalistic reasons. Again, would you prefer if I took you through one of the papers?

In fact you just called them propaganda. Make up your mind.

They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, one implies the other (legal appeal implies propaganda). Again, they only mention legal grievances. They made the federal gov't out into in illegal organization to justify the secession. Ergo, propaganda.

Legal then propaganda. Funny how YOU keep switching.

I didn't "switch" anything.

I didn't. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in them.

I thought it was a the secession papers were "heartfelt statements." You can't have it both ways.

Of course, it's a "heartfelt statement" only when it supports your assertion, namely that the South seceded to preserve slavery. Nevermind, of course, that abolition wasn't anywhere close to a threat.

The secession papers are not my only arguement but even they are far more than you have.

Reread the thrad.

You have only a personal claim that they are propaganda. Or is that a legal claim? You keep changing.

No, you keep on being unable to read my posts correctly.

But I don't think you will be able to get through to them. Most white Southerners and some white Northerners today, have this bias

**** off. You have no idea who I am.

[Ramo]

Doh, forgot about this:

Blockade and siege is an act of war. That is reality and not a stretch.

It was definitly Federal soil. It wasn't ceded to the federal government at any time. It was BUILT by the Federal Government.

Fort Sumter is built on an artificial island paid for with Federal funds. The granite even came from the North.

It was in the Charleston Harbor. The state ceded that to the federal gov't, so there would be legal issues about Ft. Sumter's ownership.

History also shows us that the Brits weren't going to do anything ever since they were against slavery.

Not if you look at the diplomatic correspondence between the Confederacy and the Europeans. Intervention by European powers was very possible; they wanted to take over American spheres of influence. Of course, that changed with the Emancipation Proclamation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Ever hear of the Magna Carta?

That isn't the English Constitution. I defy you to find an English Constitution.

[Ramo]

No, that implies that there were "illegal laws" (a bad phrase, but you get the gist), not that there is an English Constitution.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
What are you talking about? Nothing in the secesion documents were about ilegal things. They were about things they feared might become illegal. Slavery.

The law was on the side of the South.

So you would call "failure to respect consitutionally guaranteed property rights" a "legal" action taken by the north?

Yes where the South attempted to force THEIR laws on other states. More evidence that the South had no respect for State Rights outside of Southern States. If they wanted to enforce their laws that was their responsibility.

Read the Constitution, it was a property rights issue. It's not called "forcing THEIR laws on other states" when THEIR laws are Consitutionally guaranteed.

You are aware aren't you that by seceding they made things worse in that respect. Secession meant that the escaped slaves would become legal refugees.

I've said before that had the issue only been slavery that the South would not have seceded, since it hurt their chances to maintain slavery to secede. You asked me what the other reasons for secession could possibly have been, I brought up tariffs, and you dismissed me out of hand.

Funny how they failed to mention that. You seem to be reading minds.

Yeah, funny, seeing as how I've said time and time again why tariffs would not be in the secession documents.

All you have to do is look at what the people of the time were saying. They were mostly talking slavery not tariffs. Tariffs were a secondary issue that was something were comprimise was more likely.

All you have to do is look at the economic situation. Slavery was dying out anyway, outlawing it would have had little to no economic impact on the South. Tariffs were what was and what were going to have all of the economic impact. What Ramo and I have said and what you repeatedly ignore is that the secession documents were propoganda instruments. They bring up slavery because it is an emotionally charged issue. Tell me, do you get emotionally charged about tariffs? Even if the war were exclusively over tariffs, don't you think they'd try to incorporate something more emotionally charged? "Fight for tariffs" just doesn't work as well as "Fight for states' rights," and tariffs were not in violation of states' rights.

You call them a propaganda tool to avoid what they say. There is no reason to say they were mere propaganda except to avoid what they so clearly say about their reasons for secession.

I thought you admitted yourself that they were intended for propoganda. You certainly admitted it about the Declaration.

Diaries and journals would be usefull to support your point. Inventing claims of propaganda isn't.

If you could economically establish that the removal of slavery would have had anywhere near the impact of the North's tariff policies, then I'll concede the issue and say "Yup, the whole war was about slavery." That's a promise.

ARTICLE I.Section IX.
1- The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Ever read the US Constitution? If you had, you'd notice that this is included in there as well. IIRC, importation of slavery had been illegal in the US since before its existence (when it was still a group of colonies).

ARTICLE IV. Section II.
1- The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

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

These are the same as the property rights granted in the US Constitution. The only difference is that they make clear that slaves are property. Other than this (which is hardly a change, only a clarification), the property rights in the CSA were not fundamentally different than the property rights granted in the US Constitution.

All of those are additions regarding slavery.

I'd call the last two clarifications. I'd call the first one "the same thing as was in the US Constitition."

Its exceedinly clear from what the people of the time actually said that slavery was the primary concern. There simply is no reason that tariffs wouldn't have been mentioned in any of those secession documents if they were the primary concern. Those were state documents by individual states not foreign aid proposals by a national government.

Again, propoganda. Could you even imagine fighting a war over tariffs, regardless of which side you were on? Even if they were more economically crippling than the ending of slavery, they were a. not as emotionally charged and b. far too complicated for Joe Schmoe to understand. Try a little experiment and ask ten pseudo-random people their thoughts on slavery as well as their thoughts on tariffs. If even one or two people give you a response on tariffs, I would be very surprised indeed.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


That isn't the English Constitution. I defy you to find an English Constitution.

Do the Aussies have one?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Do the Aussies have one?

Yes.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger




I'm sorry that I'm more willing to believe a legally binding document like the CSA Constitution than non-binding documents like the secession papers.

No what you are believing is your interpetation of what that means. Since they also had quite a few new items specificaly to retain Slavery for all time I don't think you have much to go on there. After all the Constitution is a what not a WHY.

The secession papers were just as binding as the Declaration of Independence. They were lucky not to hang when they lost. The signers of the Declaration would not have been so lucky. Those were no mere propaganda broadsheets there were declarations of rebellion.

Jeferson Davis knew it was about slavery, why don't you believe the President of the Confederate States of America?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


Ever hear of the Magna Carta?

Yes. And as someone else has already been pointed out it wasn't a Constitution. It was a document of extortion by barons against the King.

Its been at least partly overturned. English Nobility are no longer above the law. And it wasn't done by an amendment but by a simple majority decision of Parliment. Its real value was the precedent of putting limits on the King. It did nothing for the commoners. In fact it made commoners literly second class citizens for centuries in England.

You're telling me that they supported lower duties?
The Morrill Tariff was one the first pieces of legislation Congress was to pass. It doubled tariff duties. The subsequent tariffs (in the next few years), increased duties even more.

Thank you making up my side of the argument. I apreciate that very much.

There was war or hadn't you noticed. A war that cost money. A war started by people that chose war rather than sticking around and getting a compromise. The Morrill Tariff had nothing to do with Secession. It came after.

Tariffs had been higher and lower and was on the lower end of the spectrum in 1860. The South was quite happy with tariffs on foreign cotton and sugar by the way. That tariff didn't bother them one single bit.

They didn't mention tariffs in the Secession documents because it wasn't the issue.

I suppose it's my turn for a quote.

For example, in Lincoln's first campaign he told the electorate, "My politics can be briefly stated. I am in favor of internal improvements and protective tariffs. These are my sentiments and my political principles."

The South favored protective tariffs as well. On sugar and cotton.

Yes, the Democratic party was not homogenous in its opposition to tariffs. That's why it wasn't in the platform.

Yeah they certainly weren't. They were all for tariffs on things that the South produced and sold to the North.

Or you can look at the compromise proposed by the New York Chamber of Commerce to get Congress to reject the Morrill Tariff. The US didn't much like it.

Why? It had nothing to do with the causes of the Civil War. It came after the South Seceded. Over slavery issues.

Again, abolition had absolutely no chance of getting enacted in the South, while higher tariff duties were on the verge of gettting passed. That's important. More important than a bunch of rhetoric.

They weren't on the verge of getting passed till the South left. With little opposition compromise went out. Considering that the South didn't bother mentioning Tariffs even once in the secession documents, which were not mere rhetoric, I don't see any reason for thinking they thought tariffs more significant than slavery.

That "rhetoric" was an act of rebellion. Its just a bit more than a bunch of rhetoric to be dismissed as propaganda. People don't often put their lives on the line for things they think are minor issues.

No, they were explaining why they were seceding through legalistic reasons. Again, would you prefer if I took you through one of the papers?

Why don't you so you that you will have a clue about what you are talking about. I did look at editorials. Guess whose side of this arguement they are on?



Charleston Mercury
February 28, 1860
Prospects of Slavery Expansion


Its all about slavery and nothing about tariffs. A bit long to post here so - Link

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/merc2.html

Another

An editorial from the Washington, Arkansas, Telegraph of January 13, 1865.

Sample sentence.
The great conservative institution of slavery, so excellent in itself, and so necessary to civil liberty and the dignity of the white race, is one of the grand objects of our struggle.

Link to the rest.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ark.html

Now wasn't that special. Who needs Nazis?

Richmond Enquirer

Saturday Morning, March 23, 1861

Sample

1 - That African slavery in the Territories shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the Territorial Legislatures.

2 - That the right to slaveholders of transit and sojourn in any State of the Confederacy, with their slaves and other property, shall be recognized and respected.

3 - That the provision in regard to fugitive slaves shall extend to any slave lawfully carried from one State into another, and there escaping or taken away from his master.

Link

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/richmond.html

There now are you happy? Southern papers. They don't agree with you. They think it was slavery. Just like Jefferson Davis.

They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, one implies the other (legal appeal implies propaganda).

Well there sure is propaganda in that statement. Legal appeal implies facts and laws. If they really thought slavery wasn't going to be abolished why did they talk about it so much.

Your switching again.

I thought it was a the secession papers were "heartfelt statements." You can't have it both ways.

I leave that to YOU. I am not having it both ways. Hypocrisy is often a heartfelt sentiment.