Church Shooting

[Magox]

How did it help take out the rebellion? Why was it a rebellion and not a legal secession? What came first, Ft. Sumter or your "indirect declaration of war?"

Had no idea, thanks.

Of course Ft. Sumter was the flashpoint, but I surmise that the the suspension of habeus corpus was the impetus of action from the North. He knew that this would kickstart things. And in my view, secession, rebellion, very little difference. Yes, I know there is a technical difference, but it was a rebellion no matter how you slice it and dice it.

 

And how did it take out the rebellion? I don't understand your question, they took out the rebellion by defeating them in war.

If you think Lincoln went to war because he was morally opposed to the slavery of blacks who he saw as equal then you're not only ignorant, you're !@#$ing stupid.

 

The fact that this statement comes from you, means nothing... Now !@#$ off, Neanderthal.

[FireChan]

Of course Ft. Sumter was the flashpoint, but I surmise that the the suspension of habeus corpus was the impetus of action from the North. He knew that this would kickstart things. And in my view, secession, rebellion, very little difference. Yes, I know there is a technical difference, but it was a rebellion no matter how you slice it and dice it.

 

And how did it take out the rebellion? I don't understand your question, they took out the rebellion by defeating them in war.

How did the suspension of habeus corpus, a right, help win the war? Unless you're saying it started the war? And that's how it helped win it?

 

Pretend you're Lincoln, sell me on why I should agree on suspending rights of our citizens.

 

It was a rebellion if you don't actually understand the definition of a rebellion. But then dinosaurs are gumdrops.

Edited June 25, 2015 by FireChan

[Magox]

How did the suspension of habeus corpus, a right, help win the war? Unless you're saying it started the war? And that's how it helped win it?

 

Pretend you're Lincoln, sell me on why I should agree on suspending rights of our citizens.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Again, we are talking past each other..

[FireChan]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Again, we are talking past each other..

So Lincoln violated the rights of his citizens and broke tenets of our government to start a war? What a noble guy. Sounds like a few other noble global leaders.

Edited June 25, 2015 by FireChan

[Rob's House]

I don't disagree with any of this. Especially because we all know or should know that if it meant no secession and the Union could be preserved without a war even if it meant not a single slave was made free, Lincoln and most others would have gladly signed on to that.

 

But we continue to pussyfoot around the subject.

 

States' rights for what?

 

Secession for what?

 

Let's all stop pretending we don't know what the central theme of the day was about. Let's not ignore the volumes of written words and speeches, especially by the politicians of the south at the time. Let's pretend the very 'Constitution of the Confederate States of America" didn't specify the what.

 

Let's not pretend the founders themselves didn't foresee what the central "come to Jesus" issue was going to be about either.

 

Seems people BEFORE, DURING, and SHORTLY after didn't pussyfoot around the grand issue. Why we insist on doing that today is an interesting study into the human psyche. I have my theories.

I already addressed this, you read and responded to it, and you're now acting as though you had not.

[Magox]

The argument is simple. Lincoln wants to preserve the union, he sees a rebellion from the South that stands firm on an indefensible position. His goal is to keep the union in tact and that this deplorable group from the south want to secede from the union because under the guise of state's rights, they don't want any yankee to tell them that they can't have slaves. He knows that the courts are in their pocket, and with just a few provocative actions from the South, he takes action with the suspension of habeus corpus, knowing that this most likely meant war.

So Lincoln violated the rights of his citizens and broke tenets of our government to start a war? What a noble guy. Sounds like a few other noble global leaders.

Yes, a noble guy that wanted to preserve the union and fought for the rights of slaves. Noble indeed. I'll tell you this, much more noble than any one that led the Confederacy.

[Rob's House]

The argument is simple. Lincoln wants to preserve the union, he sees a rebellion from the South that stands firm on an indefensible position. His goal is to keep the union in tact and that this deplorable group from the south want to secede from the union because under the guise of state's rights, they don't want any yankee to tell them that they can't have slaves. He knows that the courts are in their pocket, and with just a few provocative actions from the South, he takes action with the suspension of habeus corpus, knowing that this most likely meant war.

 

Yes, a noble guy that wanted to preserve the union and fought for the rights of slaves. Noble indeed. I'll tell you this, much more noble than any one that led the Confederacy.

And we went to Iraq to give the Iraqis freedom.

[FireChan]

The argument is simple. Lincoln wants to preserve the union, he sees a rebellion from the South that stands firm on an indefensible position. His goal is to keep the union in tact and that this deplorable group from the south want to secede from the union because under the guise of state's rights, they don't want any yankee to tell them that they can't have slaves. He knows that the courts are in their pocket, and with just a few provocative actions from the South, he takes action with the suspension of habeus corpus, knowing that this most likely meant war.

Yes, a noble guy that wanted to preserve the union and fought for the rights of slaves. Noble indeed. I'll tell you this, much more noble than any one that led the Confederacy.

How did the suspension of habeus corpus ignite the war?

Bush was infinitely more noble than Hussein. Who cares? Are you just throwing out nonsense?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Census data doesn't bear that out.

 

Again, that's not true. In 1800 there were roughly 900,000 slaves in the American colonies. By 1860 there were four million. Sugar (especially) and cotton were booming crops post 1800, not even the Haitian revolt in the 1790s (which is why we got the Louisianan Purchase so cheap) slowed down the growth of the institution by any noticeable amount. Cotton alone in the south boomed from 10,000 bales of cotton to 400,000 by 1820 and continued to rise. This wasn't merely due to advances in technology, it was due to an increase in the labor force. Sugar though was the most slave-intensive crop in the Americas and that industry saw a tremendous uptick post 1800.

[Deranged Rhino]

Seems people BEFORE, DURING, and SHORTLY after didn't pussyfoot around the grand issue. Why we insist on doing that today is an interesting study into the human psyche. I have my theories.

 

I think a lot of it comes from looking back at the issues with a modern lens. It's easy to assume, looking back from today's perspective, that slavery was going to die a natural death eventually because we all live in a free country. But that's ignoring the larger historical point which is freedom was new in the 1800s. The abolitionist movement was the true outlier, not slavery. Slavery had existed since time immemorial and had taken all sorts of forms before chattel slavery in the Americas. A world without slavery was the new idea, the fragile flame that most didn't expect to truly last. Freedom was such a new concept the founding of America -- ostensibly based on the principle of personal sovereignty -- was a limited to only a select few of its people because the founders knew the idea of universal freedom was too revolutionary for their time.

 

 

How did it help take out the rebellion? Why was it a rebellion and not a legal secession? What came first, Ft. Sumter or your "indirect declaration of war?"

Had no idea, thanks.

 

What came first was Lexington and Concord in my opinion. The Civil War was the ultimate conclusion of the American Revolution, the interceding years between those wars were just a lull.

Edited June 25, 2015 by GreggyT

[Magox]

How did the suspension of habeus corpus ignite the war?Bush was infinitely more noble than Hussein. Who cares? Are you just throwing out nonsense?

Now you are just being dense. You are the one who brought up nobility, ya nitwit.

And we went to Iraq to give the Iraqis freedom.

Listen up goofball, if you don't see the distinction between freeing American citizens and freeing Iraquis then you are a bigger tool than I could have ever imagined. You gonna stick with that?

[FireChan]

Now you are just being dense. You are the one who brought up nobility, ya nitwit.

How did the suspension of habeus corpus ignite the war?

 

And no, you did when you waxed poetically on how history remembers Lincoln as a good guy, like that means anything.

[Rob's House]

Now you are just being dense. You are the one who brought up nobility, ya nitwit.

 

Listen up goofball, if you don't see the distinction between freeing American citizens and freeing Iraquis then you are a bigger tool than I could have ever imagined. You gonna stick with that?

Lincoln didn't free any American citizens. He invaded a sovereign nation that was no longer under his jurisdiction. The issue is clearly too complex and you clearly too idealistic, emotional, and obtuse to understand it. I doubt any education could enable you to see it anyway other than through your very narrow and simplistic prism.

 

I think a lot of it comes from looking back at the issues with a modern lens. It's easy to assume, looking back from today's perspective, that slavery was going to die a natural death eventually because we all live in a free country. But that's ignoring the larger historical point which is freedom was new in the 1800s. The abolitionist movement was the true outlier, not slavery. Slavery had existed since time immemorial and had taken all sorts of forms before chattel slavery in the Americas. A world without slavery was the new idea, the fragile flame that most didn't expect to truly last. Freedom was such a new concept the founding of America -- ostensibly based on the principle of personal sovereignty -- was a limited to only a select few of its people because the founders knew the idea of universal freedom was too revolutionary for their time.

 

 

 

What came first was Lexington and Concord in my opinion. The Civil War was the ultimate conclusion of the American Revolution, the interceding years between those wars were just a lull.

2 things:

 

1. Respek for the way you've argued in this thread.

 

2. Can you provide a source to where the info about the southern slave trade escalated throughout the 19th century? It's somewhat contrary to what I thought and I'd like to follow up on it.

[K-9]

The Constitution of the USA gave states the right to secede no matter what. It wasn't a "right to secede, only if you aren't doing bad stuff."

 

Both sides in the Civil War were wrong. Even if the Union did some good things along the way.

Problem I have with that argument, not yours specifically, but the argument in general, is that there was no precedent. Nothing in the Constitution grants the right to secede. It's been a while since I looked into it, but I know Lincoln and others cited Article 1, Section 10 in their arguments against the legality of it. There were also those who cited the Articles of Confederation and claimed it's use of the term "perpetual" meant that the Union was not dissoluble.

 

Anyway, the point is it was never tested in the courts. The South thought they were within their rights, the President and others in the federal government thought they were bound by their duties to preserve and defend the union. Both sides were willing to fight for what they thought was right as is so often the case when issues can't be resolved otherwise.

[Deranged Rhino]

Lincoln didn't free any American citizens. He invaded a sovereign nation that was no longer under his jurisdiction. The issue is clearly too complex and you clearly too idealistic, emotional, and obtuse to understand it. I doubt any education could enable you to see it anyway other than through your very narrow and simplistic prism.

 

2 things:

 

1. Respek for the way you've argued in this thread.

 

2. Can you provide a source to where the info about the southern slave trade escalated throughout the 19th century? It's somewhat contrary to what I thought and I'd like to follow up on it.

 

Thanks, I am enjoying the debate and am a history nerd, so I don't often get to really discuss this kind of stuff in my day to day life anymore. Sadly my personal library is in storage so I don't have a lot of specific titles I can link you to off the top of my head, but one of the better books is "Inhuman Bondage" I just forget who wrote it.

 

Wait, thanks to the slow loading time of the site right now for me I found a good overview of the increased numbers I was talking about, though this is more about the ineffectiveness of the 1808 banning of the trans Atlantic trade. It brings up a lot of the numbers I rattled off. The book is worth checking out in full, though, I do not agree with all of their conclusions. I'll get you a better list soon.

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/the-transatlantic-slave-trade-and-the-civil-war/?_r=1

[TakeYouToTasker]

Problem I have with that argument, not yours specifically, but the argument in general, is that there was no precedent. Nothing in the Constitution grants the right to secede. It's been a while since I looked into it, but I know Lincoln and others cited Article 1, Section 10 in their arguments against the legality of it. There were also those who cited the Articles of Confederation and claimed it's use of the term "perpetual" meant that the Union was not dissoluble.

 

Anyway, the point is it was never tested in the courts. The South thought they were within their rights, the President and others in the federal government thought they were bound by their duties to preserve and defend the union. Both sides were willing to fight for what they thought was right as is so often the case when issues can't be resolved otherwise.

The absence of Federal power to prevent secession is what permits it. The Constitution was designed as a cage on Federal powers.

 

The argument that the Founders never imagined a senario in which the participating states might wish to exit the Union is an absurd one, given the context of the Constitution.

[K-9]

I already addressed this, you read and responded to it, and you're now acting as though you had not.

I don't recall having addressed it with Tom. Or are we all to assume that because a poster has an exchange with another he has it with everyone on specific issues? If you found it redundant, I don't care. But please don't act as though you don't attempt to make the same points over and over to different people, either.

 

Acting like I had not? Wrong. Simply making it again.

[Magox]

Lincoln didn't free any American citizens. He invaded a sovereign nation that was no longer under his jurisdiction. The issue is clearly too complex and you clearly too idealistic, emotional, and obtuse to understand it. I doubt any education could enable you to see it anyway other than through your very narrow and simplistic prism.

 

2 things:

1. Respek for the way you've argued in this thread.

2. Can you provide a source to where the info about the southern slave trade escalated throughout the 19th century? It's somewhat contrary to what I thought and I'd like to follow up on it.

You are one thick-skulled dude.

[DC Tom]

 

Again, that's not true. In 1800 there were roughly 900,000 slaves in the American colonies. By 1860 there were four million. Sugar (especially) and cotton were booming crops post 1800, not even the Haitian revolt in the 1790s (which is why we got the Louisianan Purchase so cheap) slowed down the growth of the institution by any noticeable amount. Cotton alone in the south boomed from 10,000 bales of cotton to 400,000 by 1820 and continued to rise. This wasn't merely due to advances in technology, it was due to an increase in the labor force. Sugar though was the most slave-intensive crop in the Americas and that industry saw a tremendous uptick post 1800.

 

Sorry, I was imprecise. Census data does not bear out that Africa was the major source of slaves until 1850. The trans-Atlantic slave trade peaked around 1805.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Sorry, I was imprecise. Census data does not bear out that Africa was the major source of slaves until 1850. The trans-Atlantic slave trade peaked around 1805.

 

1/4th of the total number of slaves brought across the Atlantic since the trade began in the late 1400s came after 1808.