Interesting that no on has noted

SouthernBaron said:

tjohn said:

Slavery was an issue that defied compromise.

Really? They made a lot of compromises. They didn't last, but they sure kept trying. Slavery is just an issue that defies a presentist mindset.

I believe the South was feeling a bit under siege on the slavery issue. It was falling into disfavor internationally and the non-slave states were pushing hard to keep slavery out of the new territories. At some point, the deck would have been completely stacked against the South. Also, religion had entered politics and religion doesn't seem to promote compromise.

Finally, it seems to me that slavery was so woven into the lifestyles of the Southern rich and famous that the viewed Abolitionists as an existential threat.

Anyway, these are ideas I picked up from a book I am slowly reading entitled "America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation" by David Goldfield.

LOST said:

The Colonies were not Sovereign. They were colonial possessions of Great Britain.
By what Right did they secede?

None.

tjohn said:

SouthernBaron said:

tjohn said:

Slavery was an issue that defied compromise.

Really? They made a lot of compromises. They didn't last, but they sure kept trying. Slavery is just an issue that defies a presentist mindset.

I believe the South was feeling a bit under siege on the slavery issue. It was falling into disfavor internationally and the non-slave states were pushing hard to keep slavery out of the new territories. At some point, the deck would have been completely stacked against the South. Also, religion had entered politics and religion doesn't seem to promote compromise.

Finally, it seems to me that slavery was so woven into the lifestyles of the Southern rich and famous that the viewed Abolitionists as an existential threat.

Anyway, these are ideas I picked up from a book I am slowly reading entitled "America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation" by David Goldfield.

Well, I don't discount any of that. Clearly there was a breaking point in 1860, or there wouldn't have been a war. A series of compromises had gotten America to that point.

My one question: you say that religion had entered politics. Hmm. How, and for whom? In some ways, religion had always been there, but everybody was vaguely Protestant in the beginnings, so whatev's. And religion was particularly influencing northern abolitionists, on this point as well as prohibition, which was tabled for some decades while we worked out the more obvious problem.

ram said:

LOST said:

The Colonies were not Sovereign. They were colonial possessions of Great Britain.
By what Right did they secede?

None.

Yep, that's pretty much it. America was founded on secession. Its legality is based on others' willingness/ability to stop it. But this seems to undercut everybody's points, doesn't it?

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

" War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contradictions, when they have developed to a certain stage, between classes, nations, states, or political groups"

"War is the continuation of politics." In this sense, war is politics and war itself is a political action; since ancient times there has never been a war that did not have a political character."

The states were sovereigns. The were united states. States basically meant countries. They wanted to project as 1 country outwardly, but inwardly they were separate states. The commerce clause was meant to prevent trade wars between the states.

The 10th Amendment leaves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the States.

SouthernBaron said:

tjohn said:

SouthernBaron said:

tjohn said:

Slavery was an issue that defied compromise.

Really? They made a lot of compromises. They didn't last, but they sure kept trying. Slavery is just an issue that defies a presentist mindset.

I believe the South was feeling a bit under siege on the slavery issue. It was falling into disfavor internationally and the non-slave states were pushing hard to keep slavery out of the new territories. At some point, the deck would have been completely stacked against the South. Also, religion had entered politics and religion doesn't seem to promote compromise.

Finally, it seems to me that slavery was so woven into the lifestyles of the Southern rich and famous that the viewed Abolitionists as an existential threat.

Anyway, these are ideas I picked up from a book I am slowly reading entitled "America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation" by David Goldfield.

Well, I don't discount any of that. Clearly there was a breaking point in 1860, or there wouldn't have been a war. A series of compromises had gotten America to that point.

My one question: you say that religion had entered politics. Hmm. How, and for whom? In some ways, religion had always been there, but everybody was vaguely Protestant in the beginnings, so whatev's. And religion was particularly influencing northern abolitionists, on this point as well as prohibition, which was tabled for some decades while we worked out the more obvious problem.

I have to read a bit and get back to you. I remember reading the Introduction to Goldfields book and seeing disturbing parallels between the years before the Civil War and our times.

Well... when we write history, we are writing about ourselves, too. I'll await your response.

TylerDurden said:

The states were sovereigns. The were united states. States basically meant countries. They wanted to project as 1 country outwardly, but inwardly they were separate states. The commerce clause was meant to prevent trade wars between the states.

The 10th Amendment leaves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the States.

I've already defined "sovereign states," above. They do not fit the definition. One reason why no other country recognized them -- it was international law even then.

When the original thirteen colonies ratified the Constitution, and when the remaining states became states, they signed on to the laws of the United States being superior to their own. They don't wage war, they don't make treaties -- they are not sovereign.

Again, even if I grant that Georgia was sovereign (and I don't) because of its one-time status, how the hell did Mississippi become sovereign too?

I will quote two paragraphs from the Introduction to "America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation" by David Goldfield.

"The Civil War is also America’s greatest failure. The political system could not contain the passions stoked by the infusion of evangelical Christianity into the political process. Westward expansion, sectarian conflict, and above all slavery assumed moral dimensions that confounded political solutions. Violence became an acceptable alternative because it worked. It put the Catholics in their proper place and away from Protestant girls. It worked against the Native Americans and against the Mexicans. And it worked against the slave-holders. Antebellum America was a turbulent place – in cities, on the frontier, and at the ballot box. The violence took its toll. Gradually, the bonds of Union fell away: the national church polities, the national political parties, and the moderate politicians disappeared.

War was not inevitable. But the prevailing political culture made it difficult to solve issues peaceably. The failure is evident in the deaths of over 620,000 young men, the misery of their families and friends left to mourn their loss, the destruction of homes and personal property, the uprooting of households, and the scenes of war haunting those who managed to live through it. Without gainsaying the individual heroism of those who fought and died, it would have been a greater tribute to our nation had they lived.

"

Kansas--Missouri. If you think it was just a dispute over policies, go back and read the history of this dispute back then. It was definitively religious and passionate and violent.

Sorry tjohn, but I'm going to be that guy.

Civil war is a failure. I buy that. If a country splits in two, something or someone has failed. There are failures, or faults, cast into the foundation of this country where slavery is concerned, and it had to come to a head one way or another. I have not read the rest of the book, and therefore Goldfield's evidence; but just reading that passage, I have questions for what you're drawing from it. He refers to evangelical Christianity; where and for whom? Is evangelical Christianity so monolothic? How does this relate to the forms of Christianity, often understated, that informed the establishment of this country? America was both more Christian than modern secularists want to think, and far less Christian than (many) modern Christians want to think. I'd be hesitant to conflate pre-1860 evangelicalism, however it is defined, with that of today (which he may not do). Also we should be careful about religion/religious belief-as-such and religion as a political influence, because while there is a lot of overlap, they aren't the same. Furthermore, religion and politics aren't opposed; religion and secularism are. How secular American politics is or was is up for discussion. This passage does imply that violence was an option for everyone, not just southerners, and indeed he seems to stress the abolitionists and the anti-Catholics, who were more prominent in the North, though there's a ton of grey area there. This would imply that he will stress the evangelical influence on abolitionism, not just the defenses of slave-holding; it went both ways. I bet he answers much of that later on, or he wouldn't have such a long CV. Looks intriguing, though. And some of his books were published by LSU, so, Geaux Tigers!

He isn't anti-South, if that is what you are wondering. And he doesn't draw parallels between then and now - that was my impression.

dos_centavos said:

I could be off here, but the South was becoming an economic power with cotton and other industries. The South had great success due to the advantageous labor they held in slaves. Which led to the audacity to propose succession from the Union. The North didn’t want that to happen so the start of the Civil War. However they needed additional support by way of slaves to win the war, so the chance for freedom from slavery was used as an incentive to join the North.

Therefore the Civil War was not directly related to slavery but was instrumental in helping the North. Said differently, I think if the South didn’t propose succession from the Union, slavery would not have ended when it did. Actually despite the Civil War being over, slavery essentially continued but that’s another story.

As it happens, the secession resolutions passed by the CSA states generally contained a list of their grievances and, chief amongst those grievances, cited more than any other, was Northern hostility to slavery in general and, specifically, Northern resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

tjohn said:

He isn't anti-South, if that is what you are wondering. And he doesn't draw parallels between then and now - that was my impression.

No, that wasn't what I got, looks like interesting work. I'm glad that more people in the academy are doing more nuanced research on religion in our history. For a while it seemed like people didn't know what to do with it so they ignored it or reduced it to modern stereotypes that didn't take actual belief seriously.

ram said:

Morality is irrelevant. The constitution is not a moral document. But it is supposed to be a controling one as written.

There have been a lot of clearly unconstitutional things done by our government over the last 200+ years, yet you remain fixated on this.

dave23 said:

There have been a lot of clearly unconstitutional things dinner by our government over the last 200+ years...

Even dinner is unconstitutional now? Time for a revolution. (Sorry!)

I believe the northern states outlawed dinner with the 33rd amendment. It's "suppah" now.

I say supp(er/ah) when it's late and informal.

SouthernBaron said:

tjohn said:

He isn't anti-South, if that is what you are wondering. And he doesn't draw parallels between then and now - that was my impression.

No, that wasn't what I got, looks like interesting work. I'm glad that more people in the academy are doing more nuanced research on religion in our history. For a while it seemed like people didn't know what to do with it so they ignored it or reduced it to modern stereotypes that didn't take actual belief seriously.

I am making my way slowly through the book. In the 1800's, it seems that people were inspired by religion and belief in American exceptionalism to a degree that I find difficult to comprehend.

SouthernBaron said:

dave23 said:

There have been a lot of clearly unconstitutional things dinner by our government over the last 200+ years...

Even dinner is unconstitutional now? Time for a revolution. (Sorry!)

Well, I have had some borderline criminal meals...

The first and 33rd amendments walk into a bar, the bartender says we don't serve your kind here. The end.

Regarding what it was claimed yesterday that "no one has noted," here's some interesting notation.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/9/8371435/appomattox-surrender-sketches

We should be in the hundreds in amendments by now. But there was no need because the courts subverted legitimate process and made the changes by fiat.

I hate those little cars.

this is worth the read

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/09/1376102/-My-History-of-Violence

tom said:

TylerDurden said:

The states were sovereigns. The were united states. States basically meant countries. They wanted to project as 1 country outwardly, but inwardly they were separate states. The commerce clause was meant to prevent trade wars between the states.

The 10th Amendment leaves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the States.

I've already defined "sovereign states," above. They do not fit the definition. One reason why no other country recognized them -- it was international law even then.

The Declaration of Independence speaks of "free and independent states" that have "full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." The British acknowledged the independence of not one state, but of each state & listed them 1 by one.

The states were and are created by the people and not the federal government. When Missouri drafted a constitution and applied for admission into the union Jefferson told them that if they were denied that they would be a free and independent state.

When the original thirteen colonies ratified the Constitution, and when the remaining states became states, they signed on to the laws of the United States being superior to their own. They don't wage war, they don't make treaties -- they are not sovereign.

Again, even if I grant that Georgia was sovereign (and I don't) because of its one-time status, how the hell did Mississippi become sovereign too?

I don't agree with the above. The people are the sovereign. This is the American System. The States are the agent for the people. The Federal government is the agent for the states. Yes, when the states join a union, they grant powers to the federal government. However, the states and the people are only bound by laws that fit under the framework of the constitution. The states/people are not bound by unconstitutional law.

Whatever, this is a silly argument.

The slaveholders you admire tried to quit the Union in a hissy fit over Lincoln being elected.

They started a war.

You lost.

It's done, get over it.

Though I have to say it's almost hilarious that you are reading the Declaration of Independence as the law of the land, and even more so the opinion of the British.

tom said:

Whatever, this is a silly argument.

The slaveholders you admire tried to quit the Union in a hissy fit over Lincoln being elected.

They started a war.

You lost.

It's done, get over it.

Right so now I admire slave owners.

Let's get something straight. You didn't win. I didn't lose. Neither of us were there. K? Stop taking credit for things you had absolutely nothing to do with. And stop assuming the worst of people you disagree with. It's stupid, childish and mean. But it seems as though it is your best effort at discussion.