Confederate layouts?

As you know by now, the Constitution makes no reference to secession. You might, however find "The Texas Ordinance Of Secession"(1861), relevant.

Ity is my recollection that Texas also 'has the right' to split into five states.

Buck

I hadn't read that before. Needless to say the NAACP would not care for many of the sentiments... Some of the statements seem to be in error. Hadn't most all other "Christian nations" made slavery illegal by then? Slavery at least in the American fashion - "involuntary servitude" existed long after some other "Christian nations" had made slavery illegal.

It does illustrate another divide in the Civil War, which was arguably more about economics than slavery. Not all Southerners, and certainly not all Southern Christians, believed slavery was right, let alone condoned by God.

Gen. Robert E. Lee never owned a slave because he believed the institution of slavery was immoral. He believed that the days of slavery as an institution were numbered. However he fought the war because he believed, as the Texas document implied (regardless of its rude assessment of black people), that the Federal government had illegally over-stepped its bounds and launched an economic war that threatened the survival of the Southern states.

France, a nation were slavery was already illegal, sided with the Confederacy for the same reason. Though economically it was in France's self-interest, and they were never able to really help the South because they were too busy getting their asses kicked by Mexico.

As did the wealthy political elite in England, although the working folks and a lot of the lower middle class were opposed to it.

Yes. IIRC there were some nut bags out by the Davis Mountains that seceded some time ago. The State said they could not secede and locked them up. Seceding as fun as it might be is not so easy these days. Bruce

. . . doing WHAT to his horse?

Oh, sorry, that was Stonewall Jackson I was thinking of - Lee probably wasn't a bible thumping racist pervo, just on the side of them.

Actually Robert E. Lee believed that slavery was immoral.

Like I said, just fought on their side. Too bad - we could have traded that putz McClellan (who wasn't all that disapproving of slavery) for him and had the war over a couple years and a couple hundred thousand dead sooner.

He fought as an anti-federalist, as many of the Confederates who didn't agree with slavery did, since federalism, not slavery, was the real core issue in the war.

I think it's safe to say that slavery would have ended in the South without that war creating the federal leviathan we have today.

One might say that in a government of enumerated powers, the constitution doesn't prohibit it, thus it exists.

Of course one is free to equate anti-federalism with states' rights, but this may be an oversimplification in Lee's case. He did not resign fom the army at the initial establishment of the Confederacy. He probably would have remained in the army if Virginia had not seceded. He was not an anti-federalist in principle, but, rather a person with conflicting loyalties. He saw himself as a Virginian first and only then as an American. His situation was not unique. Among generals George Thomas (Virginia) stayed with the Union while John Pemberton (Pennsylvania) immediately resigned at the war's outbreak and led confederate troops. Hard times - hard choices.

Could you please explain the above. Point A: Why do you believe slavery would have ended without the war and, also, when? Point B: Why do you equate larger government with the war? I don't believe the government grew that much, if at all, during the remainder of the nineteenth century. In my view, whether you begin government growth with the New Deal or go back to the first Roosevelt's trust-busting, the onset of said growth was a response to economic, not military concerns. Thank you.

Jerry

Unh hunh. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Most agree that increasing mechanization and decreasing cotton producti= on due to soil exhaustion would have made slavery uneconomical.

ll,=A0during=A0the

The war changed "these united States" into "this United States."

But the Civil War was fought, for the most part, for economic reasons. = True, the South seceded to keep their slaves, but the reason the North didn't= let them go was economic. Look up tariffs vs free trade.

--=20 It's turtles, all the way down

Firstly Larry, thank you for explaining what Spender meant. But, seriously, let's assume he agrees with your assessment. If so, I would like to offer the following.

But didn"t cotton continue to be the South's major crop for some decades? When do you believe slavery might have actually ended? An approximate date would still be appreciated. Also your view lends itself to a scenario wherein individual slave owners would bestow manumission as a means of lowering costs. I agree that this would be a de facto end of slavery. But when, if ever, would there be a de jure end to slavery? Do you believe that the individual state legislatures of the South would outlaw the system? My own opinion is that this might have occurred in the border states within twenty years of the war's onset. In the Deep South? Never.

A nice slogan, perhaps, but not an answer to my question.

I can see where your coming from and am perfectly willing to concede that certain *leaders*, particularly some in the newly formed Republican Party might be strongly motivated by economic factors. But, wars are fought by men. The initial outpouring of northern volunteers who probably didn't perceive economic factors and certainly (in the main) weren't anti-slavery shows the concept of Union should not be dismissed. Thank you.

Jerry

PS In re-reading the above I believe one of my original questions has still not been addressed: Why does Spender believe that larger government per se grew out of the Civil War. Thanks again.

Slavery was the only states rights vs federalism issue that generated enough friction to take the problems to war.

The Cotton Gin is credited with breathing new life into the southern cotton industry and thus the slave system.

Paul^H^H^H^ Steve

Loyalty always has some principles behind it. In Lee's case it certainly was a love for Virginia, that is Virginia's sovereignty as a state.

I think it would have ended, albeit over more extended period of time, because of pressures from economic partners who were against slavery. The change, over a more extended period of time, would not have threatened the economic viability of the South.

I just don't think tradition would have kept the institution alive. More and more Southern Christians were turning against slavery. The anti-slavery movement had started long before the Revolutionary War.

It was the beginning of the acceptance of the federal government's lordship over the states. You can even look at it in today's terms. Lincoln suspending the right of Habeas Corpus was little different from Bush instructing the NSA to ignore civil rights laws. (And to think that in Lincoln's day, Republican meant liberal.) But, as you said, hard times - hard choices.

At the very least they could have held off on the heavy-handed economic pressures and avoided a war by actually trying to pass an amendment repealing the 3/5ths man wording, and clarifying the fact that black people are men and women deserving of equal treatment under the law.

As I implied, if the war had been about slavery they would have gone though those legal options first. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't even issued until the country was nearly three years into the war. A war about slavery and the President of the Union doesn't even bother to officially free the slaves (let alone allow "free and equal" black men in the North to fight for the Union) for three years? And note that the document was directed only towards the Confederate states, exempting the practice of slavery in the border states and parts of Confederate states that had fallen under Union control.

Slavery was just a convenient, emotionally appealing battle-cry for an economic war.

It may have ended with the passing of an amendment to the bill of rights, given a provision for a transitional period (i.e. no new slaves and no mistreatment of current slaves.)

I think the slogan is the answer. A Union of sovereign and equal states is

- exactly what the Constitution provides for - is quite different from an all encompassing federal government that can poke it's nose into any state or personal matter it wants to. The powers of the federal government are enumerated, and quite limited, in the Constitution.

It was just an illustration of the beginnings of the federal government operating outside of its enumerated powers and trumping state's rights.

Yet Lincoln didn't issue The Emancipation Proclamation for nearly three years after the war had begun, and the document exempted the practice of slavery in the border states as well as parts of Confederate states that had fallen under Union control.

Read that again. Even after issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery was *legal* in the border states and in area of Conderate states that were under Union control.

Slavery certainly wasn't the issue that sparked the war. It was simply became emotionally loaded Fox News banner of the day.