Guys, argue all you want. The “Civil War” was fought over States rights to govern themselves. Liberals have distorted our education system into making it a “war against slavery”. Just because they changed the text books doesn’t change the facts.
Ric Golding said:After reading some of the arguments regarding the US Constitution, it would seem to me that it's all in the interpretation, like most written matter assembled, transcribed and guessed at by man. Not far off the various "debates" that rage around the bible, given enough time these things are almost guaranteed to happen.
Guys, argue all you want. The "Civil War" was fought over States rights to govern themselves. Liberals have distorted our education system into making it a "war against slavery". Just because they changed the text books doesn't change the facts.
A book I read recently had a suggestion for those who insist that the Constitution states this or that and certainly those who drafted it must have meant … (insert pet peeve)! The suggestion was: start reading the preserved, voluminous correspondence of those involved in the task.
Sounds like a reasonable idea.
OTOH we used to have a Prime Minister who would consult the dead in order to get guidance and advice.
HJ, that’s whats referred to as the Federalist Papers. That explains the reasonings behind their intentions with our Constitution. It’s all very clear, in plain english, what their intent was. Too often one phrase is extracted and taken out of context with the whole reasoning. Interpretations can be twisted to resemble anything. And have been over the years. Problem is 20 people can read the same sentence and you have 20 different opinions on what it means or what they think it means. You also have to place in perspective all that was going on in our fledgling nation in 1789. Our first try, the “Articles of Confederation” wasn’t working. Too many loose ends that nobody had an answer to. Every state going in a different direction. Thus a group of leaders in this country got together in Philadelphia one summer and tried to come up with a system of Government that a majority of the states could agree on.
Ken,
That’s understood; the really interesting stuff in many of those cases are apparently the private letters. Like sounding boards or cases of thinking out loud on paper.
And all of it in handwriting, nice concise prose. Gives “think global” a whole new twist with a bit of zest. 
Ric Golding said:
Guys, argue all you want. The “Civil War” was fought over States rights to govern themselves. Liberals have distorted our education system into making it a “war against slavery”. Just because they changed the text books doesn’t change the facts.
This is fond fantasy that never dies. Read South Carolina’s declaration of secession: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm Or look at the endless debate that preceded secession–it’s about slavery, and the right of slavery to expand, not “state’s rights.” There’s very little evidence to support the state’s rights argument–very few facts. And as I mentioned earlier, the realy good state’s rights argument is on the side of the north. Here are some quotes from that well known liberal, John Singleton Mosby, Confederate raider
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lownote/_forumfiles/mosby.jpg)
I espcially think that last sentence is telling. The excerpt is from David Blight, “Race and Reuinion: The Civil War in American Memory”
It wasn’t “states rights” in general everyone was arguing over but one state right in particular that was causing all the fuss. And one political party’s attempt to limit it’s spreading any further that it was…and that I didn’t get in high school.
Steve Featherkile said:
So, tell me why was a slave only counted for 3/5 of a person?Come now, if it had been left to politicians, women would still be kept barefoot and pregnant, you know that!
Mike,
Still waiting for that answer!
Steve Featherkile said:Steve Featherkile said:
So, tell me why was a slave only counted for 3/5 of a person?Come now, if it had been left to politicians, women would still be kept barefoot and pregnant, you know that!
Mike,Still waiting for that answer!
The debate over how to count slaves is more complicated. Southern states wanted to count them at 100%, which would give them more congressmen, which the North didn’t want and didn’t think fair. How could property enjoy the rights of a free man? Southerners wanted the representation in congress but were also slightly uneasy at a figure that implied equality. There’s a famous argument that claims that the 3/5th compromise involved letting the Southern states count slaves only partially, but in return putting the US capitol in what’s now Washington DC.
The 3/5ths compromise was part of the attempt to maintain a balance of power between northern and southern states. The big issue between north and south was not slavery at this point, it was import tarriffs.
The usual explanation for the 3/5ths number itself comes from Adam Smith, who argued in the Wealth of Nations that a slave would only do 3/5ths the work of a free man, because the slave wasn’t motivated.
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union
Mike,
Do you read what you ask us to read?
“frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States,by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States,”
To say it was not about state rights is blatantly false.
What does “frequent” mean to you? Obviously more than one item of encroachment. And even if slavery was the only issue, they still felt that the Federal govt. was encroaching on the rights of the state.
Ralph
You are right, it is complicated, not as simplistic as Adam Smith said, the slave wasn’t motivated. Who would be, but that is not the arguement…
"The Slavery Compromises by [url=http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/faq.html]Rick Swanson[/url]
Years before the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, Thomas Jefferson, a slaveowner himself, admitted the horrible nature of slavery: In his 1782 "Notes on Virginia" he made a prophetic statement in regard to U.S. slavery: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
Recall that in the "Great Compromise," it was determined that representation in the House of Representatives would be based on the population of each state. After the convention approved the Great Compromise, Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination." This division over slavery led to the "3/5 Compromise."
Of the 55 Convention delegates, about 25 (almost half!) owned slaves. The delegates from Southern (slave) states wanted to counts slaves as part of their population. This would give the Southern states additional representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. Delegates from the Northern (Free) states strongly opposed this, arguing that if slaves had no rights to vote (or any other rights of citizenship) then the South should not be given additional representatives in the House. Also, the North feared that counting slaves as part of the South's population would allow the South to have enough representatives in the House to out-vote the North on issues regarding slavery. The South likewise feared that not counting slaves as part of their population would give the South too few representatives in the House, thus allowing the North to out-vote the South on issues regarding slavery. The compromise they reached would arbitrarily count each slave as 3/5 of a person. Thus, neither North nor South fully got their way, as slaves were counted in part toward population when determining how many representatives the free whites should have in the House of Representatives. Hence the name "3/5 compromise." Not wanting to put the word "slave" in the Constitution, the delegates agreed the Constitution would state that population would be determined by counting the number of "free Persons . . . plus three-fifths of all other Persons . . ." Of course, if one is an "other person" rather than a free person, obviously the "other person" must be "not free"; in other words, a slave.
The North and South also divided over whether the new national legislature (Congress) would be able to regulate (and thus perhaps outlaw) slavery. The North wanted the legislature to be able to regulate slavery, and of course the South did not want the legislature to have this power.
The Southern delegates used both economic and racial justifications for slavery. During the South Carolina Ratifying convention, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney repeated his argument for continuing slavery: "While there remained one acre of swamp-land uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against restricting the importation of negroes. I am . . . thorougly convinced . . . that the nature of our climate, and the flat, swampy situation of our country, obliges us to cultivate our lands with negroes, and that without them South Carolina would soon be a desert waste." (4 Jonathan Elliott, Debates in the Several State Conventions 273, 285 (1891)) Other Southerners were evern more direct racial supremacists, arguing that if slaves became free, they would engage in countless violent crimes against whites, and would also interbreed with whites, thus "polluting" the white race.
The delegates from the Northern free states believed that concessions on slavery were the price for the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, some Southern states would refuse to join the Union. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention finally agreed that Congress would be prohibited from regulating the international slave trade (i.e. imports of slaves from foreign countries) for 20 years, but after that time it could prohibit it. Again, not wanting to use the word "slavery, the delegates agreed the Constitution would state: “the The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.” (Notice 1808 would be 20 years after ratification). To what degree domestic slavery could be regulated after that time was simply left an open, undecided question. Basically the delegates agreed they could not agree, so put off the issue for (at least) 20 years. But by sidestepping the slavery issue, the framers simply were delaying the inevitable conflict over slavery.
However, the Southern states' agreement to the ending of the international import of slaves was based not on morality, but on simple economics and politics. Politically, Southern whites feared if the slave population continued to increase in relative proportion to the white population, eventually the slave population would become so large, it would be uncontrollable by the white population and would rebel and even take revenge on their former masters. Economically, states with a large existing slave population such as Virginia would see the value of their slaves increase if the importation of additional slaves was halted. So even the Southern states went along with the ban on new importation of slaves, but for purely selfish reasons and not out of any moral opposition to slavery.
Finally, the Southern states insisted that escaped slaves be returned to them, otherwise slaves would have a strong incentive to try to escape to a Northern state where they could be free. So, the Northern delegats agree to a clause in the Constitution dealing with fugitive slaves, required runaway slaves to be returned their owners upon demand by the owner. Once again not wanting to use the word "slave," the Fugitive Slave Clause substituted "person held to service or labour" in place of the word "slave": "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, . . . , escaping into another, shall . . . be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Some of the delegates, however, such as Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, were outraged that any compromise was reached. During the Convention, on August 8, he gave what came to be called his famous "Curse of Heaven" speech, one of the most stirring speeches at the Constitutional Convention. Madison's notes for that day record "Gvrnr. Morris" as stating: "He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. . . . Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why is no other property included? . . .The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S.C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their deearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice." Gouverneur Morris went on to contrast the prosperity and human dignity of free states and territories with "the misery and poverty" of slave states.
On Saturday, August 25, John Dickenson moved to make the slavery clauses more explicit by changing "persons" to "slaves." Several delegates objected to this. Madision records his own objection: "Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." A draft of notes that Dickinson made for a speech at the convention (but which he apparently never gave) arguing in favor of using the world "slave" included this statement: "The omitting the Word will be regarded as an Endeavor to conceal a principle of which we are ashamed."
From me - The bolded above strongly suggests that there were many more than just the two that you alluded to who were opposed to slavery. They compromised their principles to form a “more perfect union.”
edited to note author
Steve Featherkile said:Steve I'm still not sure what you are trying to argue here. There is no doubt compromise was involved in the writing of the Constitution--nobody ever said there wasn't! I could have given a much longer answer--I think my answer in substance is pretty much the same as this one.
You are right, it is complicated, not as simplistic as Adam Smith said, the slave wasn't motivated. Who would be, but that is not the arguement...
Ralph Berg said:
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal UnionMike,
Do you read what you ask us to read?
“frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States,by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States,”
To say it was not about state rights is blatantly false.
What does “frequent” mean to you? Obviously more than one item of encroachment. And even if slavery was the only issue, they still felt that the Federal govt. was encroaching on the rights of the state.
Ralph
Ralph, read it again–the state right primarily referred to is the right to secede from the union. Just do a word search for “slave”
Here, this version is easier to read
Perhaps we are making the same argument?
You said that there were only two at the convention who actively supported the anti-slavery movement. My argument is that there were considerably more than just two. Even Jefferson was troubled by slavery and could not square the institution with the lofty ideals put forth in both the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution.
I stand by my statement that social change does not occur until society is ready to change, well meaning politicians notwithstanding. They can be part of the machine of change, but the change has to come from the people, not the legislature…
Primarily?
Yes. But they still saw it as a state right. “frequent violations” still says to me it was not the only issue.
It was all about state rights, with slave ownership being the primary right in question.
Ralph
Ralph
Can you tell what the frequent violations are/were?
From S. Carolina’s point of view simply banning slavery in Massachusetts constituted a violation of S Carolina’s right to own slaves, because the Constitution legitimated slavery unambiguously and everywhere. Is that a “state’s rights” argument? It’s not at all–it’s actually an argument for the soveriegnty and supremacy of the federal constitution over the states.
There were northerners calling for the abolition of slavery everywhere, but Lincoln was not among them. Lincoln favored leaving slavery intact where it was, but not allowing it to spread.
I would still argue that the real state’s rights case belongs to the North, because of Dred Scott but also because of the South’s instance that slavery must be legal in all places at all times. The South argued that no state could ban slavery, ever. The Supreme Court, under slaveowning justice Roger Taney, ratified this position and added further that no state could grant black persons any rights at all. So in effect the Northern states were not allowed to make their own determinations about what constituted legitimate property.
Look at it this way–suppose New Jersey banned dog ownership. Would it be a violation of South Carolina’s rights if New Jersey banned dog ownership?
In my opinion–and it’s my opinion, backed by facts but still, my opinion–the “state’s rights” argument for the Civil War is extremely weak–a thin justification aimed at avoiding the centrality of slavery. The confederacy is now linked in some people’s mind with self-pity and a generalized sense of rebellion against authority, So in West Virginia, a state which only exists because western Virginians refused to join the confederacy, guys where confederate ball caps t symbolize their ornery rebelliousness, having no idea of what the symbol meant historically. It meant defense of the right to own slaves. That’s the only right S. Carlina was defending–it had no problem with overriding Illinois’ desire to ban slavery from Illinois.
mike said:Lincoln adopted this position in an attempt to preserve the Union, knowing full well that the institution of slavery would collapse on itself, eventually. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
There were northerners calling for the abolition of slavery everywhere, but Lincoln was not among them. Lincoln favored leaving slavery intact where it was, but not allowing it to spread.
South Carolina seceded, troops from the South Carolina army* surrounded Ft Sumter, demanding surrender, Lincoln sent in a relief column to force the issue, and the “War of Northern Aggression” was off.
*Remember, South Carolina considered itself to be a sovereign state, equal in stature with Britain or France.
mike omalley said:
RalphCan you tell what the frequent violations are/were?
From S. Carolina’s point of view simply banning slavery in Massachusetts constituted a violation of S Carolina’s right to own slaves, because the Constitution legitimated slavery unambiguously and everywhere. Is that a “state’s rights” argument? It’s not at all–it’s actually an argument for the soveriegnty and supremacy of the federal constitution over the states.
There were northerners calling for the abolition of slavery everywhere, but Lincoln was not among them. Lincoln favored leaving slavery intact where it was, but not allowing it to spread.
I would still argue that the real state’s rights case belongs to the North, because of Dred Scott but also because of the South’s instance that slavery must be legal in all places at all times. The South argued that no state could ban slavery, ever. The Supreme Court, under slaveowning justice Roger Taney, ratified this position and added further that no state could grant black persons any rights at all. So in effect the Northern states were not allowed to make their own determinations about what constituted legitimate property.
Look at it this way–suppose New Jersey banned dog ownership. Would it be a violation of South Carolina’s rights if New Jersey banned dog ownership?
In my opinion–and it’s my opinion, backed by facts but still, my opinion–the “state’s rights” argument for the Civil War is extremely weak–a thin justification aimed at avoiding the centrality of slavery. The confederacy is now linked in some people’s mind with self-pity and a generalized sense of rebellion against authority, So in West Virginia, a state which only exists because western Virginians refused to join the confederacy, guys where confederate ball caps t symbolize their ornery rebelliousness, having no idea of what the symbol meant historically. It meant defense of the right to own slaves. That’s the only right S. Carlina was defending–it had no problem with overriding Illinois’ desire to ban slavery from Illinois.
I just read the document you provided. I take the document at its word. You believe that SC was just blowing smoke up our ass.You make a convincing argument.
Ralph
Ralph Berg said:
............................You believe that SC was just blowing smoke up our ass.You make a convincing argument.
Ralph
Aren’t those both (NC & SC) tobacco growing regions? That would get kind of smelly, wouldn’t it? :lol:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:Ralph Berg said:
............................You believe that SC was just blowing smoke up our ass.You make a convincing argument.
Ralph
Aren’t those both (NC & SC) tobacco growing regions? That would get kind of smelly, wouldn’t it? :lol:
Yes,
But don’t get me started on tobacco allotments.More government meddling to benefit the few.
Ralph
Ralph Berg said:Hans-Joerg Mueller said:Ralph Berg said:
............................You believe that SC was just blowing smoke up our ass.You make a convincing argument.
Ralph
Aren’t those both (NC & SC) tobacco growing regions? That would get kind of smelly, wouldn’t it? :lol:
Yes,
But don’t get me started on tobacco allotments.More government meddling to benefit the few.
Ralph
You can also buy cigarettes a lot cheaper down there…