USAians: What are you doing on this loooong MLK weekend?

[Patroklos]

This is kind of what I'm talking about. The whole "it could have been anything" is just bull**** (you kind of go back and forth, say it was the main issue, but it could have been anything).

That is not going back and forth. Slavery WAS the hot button issue within that debate, that doesn't mean it had to be.

They didn't really do anything when the Tariff of 1832 came up except voice their displeasure.

Was the same thing at stake? Absolutely not. Mf Fun pointed this out nicely.

There are people who vehemently disagree with government wiretaps on principle, but as heated as they are they are not going to go to war over it. What if the government baned interstate travel for the same reasons? Would an armed uprising over that be because of the ban on government travel (a devestating real world action) or the government overstepping its bounds at the expense of their liberties (a principle). Or both?

Unless you mean it would give the North the ability to legislate over the South on the issue of slavery.

Yes. South Carolina didn't care at all whether Missouri was free or slave, but rather what the Radical Republicans would do with that circumstance in regards to their states' sovereignty. If the politicians of the day had gurunteed in the Constitution slavery for every state that wanted it, do you think South Carolinians would have mounted a manifest destiny motivated campaign to spread slavery throughtout North America? No, just like they didn't care what New Jersy did with their slaves as long as they didn't tell them what to do with theirs.

He actually said that 2 books were coursework and all 4 were used in his studies. I'm assuming the other 2 were used in his thesis.

Did he get an advanced copy?

Please. [An extreme minority of] Historians had completely devalued the central role slavery played. It was all "states rights", not slavery crap, until recently, when the "revisionists" said, hey, wait a sec, states rights is basically code for slavery and it was more central than they put on.

This is merely your perception. Are there old books out there that downplay slavery to the degree modern pop history down plays state rights? Sure, is that relevant to the vast majoirty of peer reviewed, scholarly written, and completely relevent books from the early nineteeth centrury? No.

Why exactly did I hear so much of in a positive light by the right (of which I was a part at the time) while growing up? The Lost Cause was a myth, created by white Southerners:

Thats funny, I grew up in the South and suffered nothing of the sort. Slavery was in every American history course, we even went and toured the planations and slave quarters.

And again, what the laymen thinks is not important here. I am sure the KKK and others had followings that believed all sorts of things. They are not the same people as renouwned tenured hitorians at the nations greates universities, North and South.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
I pointed out the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars was not a side-issue tied to states' rights. Huge investments like that are not a side-issue attached to states' rights; it was the central issue.

Could you please refrain from responding to me in this thread unless you feel like explaining to me why you feel as if this is an either/or issue and why I should agree with that assessment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I accidently copied NAVNUPWRTRACOMNOTE 1301

I'm more fascinated by what that means .

That is not going back and forth. Slavery WAS the hot button issue within that debate, that doesn't mean it had to be.

I think its quite a streach to say something else could have caused the response that the threat to slavery did. It seems apparently that slavery HAD to be the hot button issue to lead to the secession of the Southern states.

Yes. South Carolina didn't care at all whether Missouri was free or slave, but rather what the Radical Republicans would do with that circumstance in regards to their states' sovereignty.

The Radical Republicans? You mean the party that appeared in 1854? And the radicals that didn't emerge as the power brokers until well into the Civil War?

The slave states weren't all the into states rights when it came to slavery though, as the Fugitive Slave Act shows. Isn't that taking away state soveriegnty for federal power?

This is merely your perception. Are there old books out there that downplay slavery to the degree modern pop history down plays state rights? Sure, is that relevant to the vast majoirty of peer reviewed, scholarly written, and completely relevent books from the early nineteeth centrury? No.

It's only considered "pop history" to you because you think states rights actually mattered to the Southern states, rather than just being a rallying call to keep slavery around.

Where were the Southern states for states rights when the Fugitive Slave Act came up? Where they for states rights when Dred Scott was being decided?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Did he get an advanced copy?

Why would he have to? Lets look at them again:

Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America by Garrett Epps (2007)

Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863 - 1877 by Eric Foner (2002)

Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction by Eric Foner and Joshua Brown (2002]

Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory by David W. Blight (2006)

Your emphasis.

From Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Race-Reunion-Civil-American-Memory/dp/0674008197/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201637097&sr=8-1

Race and Reunion, IN PAPERBACK "Belknap Press; New Ed edition (March 1, 2002)"

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Reborn-Fourteenth-Amendment-Post-Civil/dp/080507130X/ref=ed_oe_h

Democracy Reborn, Hardcover "Henry Holt and Co. (August 22, 2006)"

I'm wondering why you have to lie about release dates of books? Perhaps Democracy Reborn was very recent, but I don't exactly remember when Mr. Fun got his masters. I DO know it was after 2002.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Which is why it was used by the Dukes of Hazzard?

By the mid-70s, the flag had been appropriated by the Southern "Rebel" culture, a culture which grew out of the struggle against civil rights in the 1950s and 60s, i.e., white supremacy. It was adopted for that struggle because it was used by the Klan from 1915 onwards. "Rebel" culture is a mixed bag, but one thing it definitely is, is racist. Certainly not to the extent of the movement it originated from, but enough so that many Black folks find it very threatening.

Che, if you wanted to use an image to represent the Confederacy, what image would you use? When you think of a flag for the south what image comes to mind?

The point is the Confederacy was a very bad thing. There is nothing about the Confederacy worth celebrating. It was an evil place created for evil reasons by evil people. Those who would celebrate it are no better than those who would celebrate Germany's culture under the Nazis. Guderian-Rommel Day!

The Klan adopted the Iron Cross also, does that mean that the iron cross symbolizes white supremacy?

The Iron Cross didn't become a symbol of white supremacy because the Klan (or American Nazis) adopted it. They adopted it because it was a symbol of white supremacy.

An image only has power if people agree with them, and right now Che, you are listening to what the Klan says and you are believing them when they expropriate an image.

They didn't expropriate it. They are using it as intended.

You are a brave man che. I suppose you would say this to the good doc or to MtG?

I have, with the exception that they are Americans.

[Patroklos]

I'm more fascinated by what that means

Naval Nuclear Power Traning Command Notice.

I think its quite a streach to say something else could have caused the response that the threat to slavery did. It seems apparently that slavery HAD to be the hot button issue to lead to the secession of the Southern states.

Eh, I make no bones with the fact that majority of Southerners thought slavery was morally okay, as horrible as that is. Unfortunately morals are sometimes not enough to entice someone to arms (or fortunetly?). Just like the assault on states rights by things like tariffs and currency policy was not enough to get the South or the North to secede all by themselves (despite each grumbling about it). Combine that moral outrage with a real life economic threat and you get succession (I have never maintained it was ALL about states rights).

That being said, out of preserving their states sovereignty and power, preserving the moral institution of slavery for ****s and giggles, or maintaining the economic order and prosperity of the region, which one do you think was an afterthought for Southern leaders?

What else could have triggered a succession? a 50% cotton tax maybe? And you might say that would never happen, but I bet a 50% cotton tax was as absurd and idea as abolishing slavery was to the average Southerner, and just as devastating.

The Radical Republicans? You mean the party that appeared in 1854? And the radicals that didn't emerge as the power brokers until well into the Civil War?

Their predecessors were already there, unless you think the whole Congress was wiped out by plague in 1860 and a few hundred new politicians moved in.

The slave states weren't all the into states rights when it came to slavery though, as the Fugitive Slave Act shows. Isn't that taking away state sovereignty for federal power?

No. I assume you meant free states, in which case not interfering with another states right to practice slavery is reinforcing states rights, not detracting form them.

It's only considered "pop history" to you because you think states rights actually mattered to the Southern states, rather than just being a rallying call to keep slavery around.

That and historical records agree with me

Where were the Southern states for states rights when the Fugitive Slave Act came up? Where they for states rights when Dred Scott was being decided?

You misinterpret what those meant.

[Patroklos]

I'm wondering why you have to lie about release dates of books? Perhaps Democracy Reborn was very recent, but I don't exactly remember when Mr. Fun got his masters. I DO know it was after 2002.

Imran, I never said anything about which of the four he didn't use, just that he couldn't have used some of them because of the release date. That is still true, thanks for correcting me in one instance, confirming my suspicion it the second.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
That being said, out of preserving their states sovereignty and power, preserving the moral institution of slavery for ****s and giggles, or maintaining the economic order and prosperity of the region, which one do you think was an afterthought for Southern leaders?

The first one actually. I think Southern leaders were more interested in their economic interests and the moral institutional of slavery than they were for state soveriegnty.

Their predecessors were already there, unless you think the whole Congress was wiped out by plague in 1860 and a few hundred new politicians moved in.

Their predecessors were very tiny in numbers. Hell, they were very tiny in numbers until the middle of the Civil War, when they exploded.

No. I assume you meant free states, in which case not interfering with another states right to practice slavery is reinforcing states rights, not detracting form them.

So if a former slave ends up in a free state and that state's rule is that no one can be enslaved, the federal government forcing the state to send that slave back is "reinforcing" states rights? Maybe some deluded Southerners, but the Northern states sure didn't think so as the federal government used its powers to strike down state laws.

That and historical records agree with me

Disagree completely.

You misinterpret what those meant.

So Dred Scott didn't allow a Southerner to travel in a state that did not allow the ownership of a person and keep his slave an owned person in direct violation of that particular state's laws?

[DinoDoc]

Why should a state be allowed to confiscate your perfectly legal property simply because you were travelling through its territory?

[Patroklos]

The first one actually. I think Southern leaders were more interested in their economic interests and the moral institutional of slavery than they were for state soveriegnty.

So you think statesmen were more concerned about a fanciful "white man's burden" concept than politcal capital and power? Oh what a wonderful world it would be if such a thing could be true about politicians.

So if a former slave ends up in a free state and that state's rule is that no one can be enslaved, the federal government forcing the state to send that slave back is "reinforcing" states rights?

A state can only legislate over itself, not over other states. that includes the citizens of other states. The Feds basically said "You don't want your citizens to be slaves? Fine, and the slave states can't do a thing about it. South Carolina wants to allow its citizens to be slaves. Fine, and the free states can't do a thing about it.

As far as I know free blacks coming back to the South (and freemen were quite common in the South) didn't instantly become slaves again when crossing state lines.

Maybe some deluded Southerners, but the Northern states sure didn't think so as the federal government used its powers to strike down state laws.

Interesting. So both the South and the North thought it was a state right, they just disagreed about which way it should go? I thought nobody cared about states rights?

Disagree completely.

We are all wrong sometimes, I am sure this isn't your first time

So Dred Scott didn't allow a Southerner to travel in a state that did not allow the ownership of a person and keep his slave an owned person in direct violation of that particular state's laws?

Come now, this is far to simple for you to trip over. A state citizen is beholded to one authority, that state (and the federal goverment, to the degree that state gave up such power voluntarily which means at the pleasure of the state so still just the state).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why should a state be allowed to confiscate your perfectly legal property simply because you were travelling through its territory?

If a state had legalized marijuana, try traveling through other states and not getting that stash confiscated by the local authorities.

So you think statesmen were more concerned about a fanciful "white man's burden" concept than politcal capital and power? Oh what a wonderful world it would be if such a thing could be true about politicians.

Do you think that statesmen are more concerned about abortion than state soverignty, because I do.

A state can only legislate over itself, not over other states. that includes the citizens of other states. The Feds basically said "You don't want your citizens to be slaves? Fine, and the slave states can't do a thing about it. South Carolina wants to allow its citizens to be slaves. Fine, and the free states can't do a thing about it.

Indeed, but the slaves of Southern slaveowners weren't citizens in the South. They were chattel. IIRC, slaves couldn't vote or hold office. In the Northern states said practice (people as property) was against the law.

Interesting. So both the South and the North thought it was a state right, they just disagreed about which way it should go? I thought nobody cared about states rights?

They both thought it was a moral right, but used the states rights arguments when it would help their argument (North in Dred Scott for example) and jettisoned them when it wouldn't.

A state citizen is beholded to one authority, that state (and the federal goverment, to the degree that state gave up such power voluntarily).

Slaves were not citizens.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Then read your correspondences, because what they said 150 years ago is the same thing HISTORIANS said 100 years ago. That is that slavery was important, state rights were important, and the threat of the govermnent to violate state soverignty to take slavery away is what they started the war. As you said yourself for the rank and file the violation of states rights period, for whatever reason, is why they took up arms.

This is very close to my interpretation. How is it that you can't see that the confederacy was in the wrong in this war and had to be defeated? Are you seriously suggesting that the airy-fairy concept of states rights has more moral weight than taking away slavery??

I'm all in favor of states rights too but to invoke it as more important than ending slavery is creepy as all hell. If the seceeding states indeed thought that their state sovereignty would be violated to end slavery then obviously they should have chosen to end the slavery themselves unilaterally to defuse the threat. They decided that keeping slavery was more important than keeping the peace. What could be more evil a cause than that? Furthermore how could slavery have been ended in the south once it had broken away? It is painfully brutally clear that everybody who chose to fight for the south knew their decision would protect the institution of slavery. What excuse could they have to fight for such a cause? How could state rights possibly justify that?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If a state had legalized marijuana, try traveling through other states and not getting that stash confiscated by the local authorities.

You're using the wrong example here. Slaves were a perfectly legal form of property and recognized as such by the federal government. By what legal right does the state have the ability to take such legal property from a citizen of another state simply for the crime of crossing thier territory?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You're using the wrong example here. Slaves were a perfectly legal form of property and recognized as such by the federal government. By what legal right does the state have the ability to take such legal property from a citizen of another state simply for the crime of crossing thier territory?

If a state had legal marijuana (such as for medicinal use), do you think that crossing into another state which had banned marijuana would NOT confiscate it?

[Patroklos]

How is it that you can't see that the confederacy was in the wrong in this war and had to be defeated?

I am not sure where I said they shouldn't have been.

States rights, not bad. Slavery, bad. Does me agreeing with one automatically bind me to the other?

If they were fighting a war over chocolate icecream, brussel spoats, and anchovies sundays while I am a big fan of chocolate ice cream I would have to oppose their cause due to the inclusion of bussel sprouts and achovies.

On second thought I might be able to live with anchovies, but not Brussel sprouts.

I'm all in favor of states rights too but to invoke it as more important than ending slavery is creepy as all hell.

We are talking specific people's the pretext for war, which has nothing to do with which one of you or I think is more important ourselves.