Why did all the southern states vote for Bush?  Just a coincidence?  You apparently dont understand regionalism..
[right][snapback]626559[/snapback][/right]

Technically Az, slavery was still protected by the US Constitution in 1861.

Technically as well, until there was a 2/3's majority in the Senate and the State Houses, slavery would still be protected by the US Constitution.
[right][snapback]626582[/snapback][/right]

Causes Of The American Civil War

by Victoria Kent

Four years of American bloodshed on American soil. Why? The reasons are varied. From the formation of America to 1860, the people in this country were divided.  This division was a result of location and personal sentiments.  Peace could not continue in a country filled with quarrels that affected the common American. There is a common misconception that the American Civil War was fought only over slavery, when in fact there were several other reasons for why the War Between the States was fought.

The Civil War (or the War of the Rebellion as it is officially known)  lasted for four years, from 1861-1865. It was between the American people; primarily the northern states vs. the southern states. The South was called the Confederate States of America (also known as the Rebels) and was led by President Jefferson Davis. The North was still known as the United States of America, or the Union, and the people were called the Yankees or sometimes the Federals. They were led by president Abraham Lincoln.

If one were to ask the average person the causes of the War Between the States, that person would most likely answer with one word: slavery. But this was not the only cause. Slavery had been a historical problem before the war.  Slavery came up in debate during the making of the American Constitution, and both Northern and Southern states held slaves.

In 1611, a group of Scottish women and children were sold as the first slaves in America, and in 1618 the first African slaves were sold in America. Between 1611 and 1865 people of many cultures were sold as slaves in America. So you see it is also a fallacy that American slaves were only African, because many were not.

In the eyes of some Southerners slavery was a necessary evil. The South accepted this idea as a way of life. The South found slavery highly profitable and knew their economy would collapse without it. Slavery, they believed, had to slowly die out not instantly be destroyed, or the South could no longer raise the crops on which the American economy depended.

Many slave holders were not as cruel to their slaves as many people today believe and only five percent of the Southern population even owned slaves. So although many people did not believe slavery was all together correct, they accepted the practice and wondered how to end it.

Northern states held slaves too. Many Northerners opposed slavery but still believed that blacks were inferior to them. One of their main concerns was a the fear of a mass black movement to the North. This would mean fewer jobs for the whites, who would now have to compete with the freedmen. In fact, several Northern passed laws making it nearly impossible for blacks, freedmen or escaped slaves, to live in their states. When former slaves first tried to enlist in the Federal Army during war the North turned them down. They were only later accepted in to the army when the South started to use them as soldiers, and the North saw they were valuable as soldiers. Both North and South were racist, and yet still the slaves tried to help fight for what they believed in. So while many freed slaves fought for the North, others fought for the Confederacy that was their home.

Slave holders felt morally degraded by anti-slavery crusades. The slave holders wanted security for their social class and vindication for their social respectability and personal honor. Slave holders were afraid of losing at what the time, was valuable property, and not getting compensated for it.

Lincoln believed slavery was "wrong but necessary." During the Lincoln-Douglas debates he stated, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of makign voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I willl say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live," he added, "while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Before the War Between the States Lincoln left the door open for the South to return and just as he had stated in the elections he told the South he would not free any slaves.  Lincoln later said to the writer Horace Greeley that he would do whatever it takes to win the war. In a letter dated August 22, 1862, he wrote, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do itâ¤."  To him this included "bending" (or breaking) the Constitution for wartime benefit. Lincoln obviously was not all that wonderful in the manner in which he conducted this issue.

Before the War Between the States began, there were many issues which helped lead up to the war and caused more tension on the issue of slavery. In the early 1800s some states banned slave importation, but kept the slaves they already held. The Compromise of 1850 also did several things to build tension. First the compromise admitted California into the Union. The compromise also gave all new territories, not states, the right to decide if they would be slave holding areas or not. The compromise also declared a strict fugitive law. The Kansas-Nebraska act allowed Kansas and Nebraska, two American territories at the time, the right to decide if they would become slave holding areas or not. The popular vote of the people living in these areas would decide all slavery issues in these areas. Many northerners opposed this act. This act later led to the formation of the republican party in 1854. There were so many arguments about this act, that violence came of it in Kansas.

In 1858 John Brown lead a violent attempt to cause a slave uprising. This only led to bloodshed and angered the South. The South saw this as a plot to end slavery by force, especially as Brown favored the slaughter of white slaveowners. As of 1860 America had 19 antislavery states and 15 slave-holding states. So it was not just one but many events which helped build up aggression between North and South

During the war not all states south of the Mason-Dixon Line fought for the South. In fact the people of Virginia were so divided on the issue of slavery that Virginia was divided  and modern day West Virginia was created.

In January of 1863 President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation did not legally free any slaves as it exempted all territories under Union control.  So slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, and Tennessee were not freed by the proclamation. After the proclamation the Union army had a desertion crisis as Union soldiers were "willing to risk their own lives for the Union but not for black freedom" -- J. McPherson.

After the War Between the States, many freed slaves actually lived in War Between the States in conditions just as bad as they had endured as slaves. Northern factory jobs were horrible, and the conditions did not improve until forty years later. The freed slaves were not given equal opportunity, and both the North and South were racist. Note that these were not only blacks but people of primarily Irish, Indian, and Scottish decent.

Central government was another hot topic during the war. The South moved for stronger states rights and a weaker central government, whereas the North opposed this. Northern industry was lacking and the southern industry was prospering immensely before the War Between the States. To protect the northern industry Andrew Jackson set up tariffs. The tariffs did not work as he would have liked but to enforce them Jackson even used military force against the South in 1832 in Charleston, South Carolina. By 1860 the tariffs on Southern imports were paying 70% of the cost of running the national government. Congress then revised the drafts. The differences in political views created tension between the two sides.

In 1854 the Republican Party was formed, and in 1860 the North and South split into two different government branches. Before the 1860 the South was urged to secede and when Lincoln was elected, with only forty percent of the popular vote, the South did so.

The South believed they were now fighting against a tyrannical government. They felt a oppressive feeling between the North and South. They also feared they were being subjugated and enslaved by the government and disliked the high taxes, after all, hadn⤙t the generations before them fought against taxes? The South also felt the federal government wasn⤙t listening to law abiding citizens and that the federal government was being run by northern industry owners. By leaving the Union it was as if the South was putting down it⤙s foot and saying "No, we⤙re not taking this anymore!"

The difference in the way of life between the two sides also had a great effect on the War Between the States and is considered one of the prime causes. The southern land formation was different from that of the North. The South was countryside and good for farming. They therefore needed slaves to work, and could see the point of having them. But the North was industrial and was primarily factories. They had few plantations and did not easily see the need for slaves. Neither side was trying to look at the other side⤙s point of view, causing the debate to begin.

The South was old fashioned and valued the past and its traditions and the North was anything but. The North was modern and did not value the past and the North used mass production methods. In modern life two friends often share the same values, and two people who don⤙t share the same values, morals, and way of life tend not to be friends. So it makes sense that when one half of a country and another half live so differently and value such different things, that they⤙re not going to get along well.

The North wanted the South to change but the South did not want to change. The South saw the federal government being controlled by northern industrialists and thought it was the government needed to change. Who wants to be pushed around and told to change? No one does, and certainly not the proud South. The South felt the North was being unresponsive to the problem and feared the North would break the fourth amendment; taking away personal property without compensation.

Now imagine for a moment that there is an army marching through one⤙s town. This army plans on taking away one⤙s home, family, everything one has worked for and is telling the people that their beliefs are wrong and need to change. What would one do? Go standup and fight against it, right? And that⤙s just what the South did. It⤙s called homeland defense and it⤙s natural instinct.

The Southern people wanted to protect their homes and families from a hostile invading army. The Northern army was cruel; they raided homes, burned cities and killed innocent civilians, including women and children. Is it not natural instinct to fight against this? That⤙s what made so many men stand up and fight. It is probably what kept the war going for so long. The South wanted revenge. One Illinois officer said "We are fighting for the Union,â¤. a high and noble sentiment, but after all a sentimentâ¤. They (the South) are fighting for independence and are animated by a passion and hatred against invaders." One Texas private in 1864 stated " We are fighting for what matters; real and tangibleâ¤. Our properties, our homes." So is not natural instinct to fight for one⤙s rights, beliefs and stand protect what one loves? Yes it is, it⤙s the psychological factor which kept this war going for so long.

There never was one simple answer to the question "What caused the Civil War?" and there never will be. Keep in mind these are not the only factors but only the primary aspects. People will forever fight about this topic and every person will have their own opinion as an answer. Today there still remains the misunderstanding that this war was fought only about slavery, when in fact one can see that there are many factors which caused the War Between the States. Someday maybe more light will be shed on this topic and the average American will understand the causes of the American Civil War, as it is important not to be ignorant of such a topic, because with ignorance history repeats it self.

no.  technically, slavery wasn't addressed by the US constitution in 1861.  technically, under the 10th amendment, that makes it a state law issue.  technically, it is incorrect to say that a "right" which is neither extended nor denied by the constitution is "protected" by the constitution.
[right][snapback]626611[/snapback][/right]

Now if it were just about slavery,....
[right][snapback]626651[/snapback][/right]

Did anyone say it was JUST about slavery?
[right][snapback]626712[/snapback][/right]

The North did not fight because of slavery. The North fought to preserve the union. Why did the Union need to be preserved? Because the South said it was seceeding. Why? Primarily because they didn't want anyone to fawk with their slaves.

Why you keep posting these other causes baffles me.
[right][snapback]626712[/snapback][/right]

Just as an aside, why is Lincoln so darn revered?  I get it with black folk, because of the emancipation proclaimation, etc (and I know it only freed slaves in the south). 

But Lincoln started a war to meet his own political ends (kinda hard to get re-elected when you lose half the country in your first term, and the economic crutch that the north was leaning on at the time), and he jailed hundreds of people for what he said was "treason" and "sedition", and denied them attorneys, due process etc.  Lincoln was as big of a political opportunist as willie and shrub, yet he's a national hero...
[right][snapback]626715[/snapback][/right]

5th Ammendment concerning property rights, as well as the 3/5's rule and the fugitive slave provisions "protected" the institution, right?

Technically speaking of course.
[right][snapback]626687[/snapback][/right]

An Abolitionist Defends the South
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

        

In the ongoing debate and discourse over the War to Prevent Southern Independence quite a few libertarians will admit that Lincoln was a consummate liar and conniver, a dictator, tyrant, protectionist, corporate tool, murderer of civilians, and a white supremacist to boot. But they refuse to take a stand on the war because, you see, the Confederate government was not a libertarian Nirvana; it was not perfect. Therefore, they say, one cannot conclude that the war was just or unjust: A pox on both their houses! Or worse yet, they condemn the Lincoln dictatorship but praise his "leadership" in a just cause.

Such muddle-headed confusion is not characteristic of all libertarians, of course; Murray Rothbard (in his LRC article, "Two Just Wars") argued forcefully that, imperfect as they were, the Confederates were justified in seceding from the union, and in defending themselves against Lincoln’s invading army. The great historian of liberty, Lord Acton, wrote to Robert E. Lee in 1866 that he saw in the South’s struggle for states’ rights nothing less than the defense of "our civilization," and the last bulwark against centralized state tyranny.

These great scholars did not fall into the trap of allowing the perfect (i.e., libertarian Nirvana) to be the enemy of the good. If the war was over the central government’s "right" to destroy the right of secession, which both Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. Congress insisted, then the South was in the right, according to both Rothbard and Acton. One need not defend or glorify the Confederacy in order to arrive at such a conclusion.

The same can be said of another libertarian icon, the nineteenth-century Massachusetts abolitionist and legal theorist, Lysander Spooner (1808–1887). In the introduction to The Lysander Spooner Reader, George H. Smith describes Spooner as "one of the greatest libertarian theorists of the nineteenth (or any other) century . . ." (p. vii). He argued for the unconstitutionality of slavery, central banking, the postal monopoly, legal tender laws, and myriad other offenses against liberty. And his "contempt for government was rivaled only by his contempt for fellow libertarians who compromised their principles" (p. viii).

Spooner and his entire family were abolitionists for decades prior to the war. He authored The Unconstitutionality of Slavery in 1845, which made him a great hero to the entire abolitionist movement; advocated the nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act by juries (a purely Jeffersonian, states’ rights position); called for slave insurrections aided by abolitionists like himself; and even hatched a plot to kidnap Virginia Governor Henry Wise and hold him as a hostage in exchange for John Brown.

Spooner also saw through the phoniness of the Lincoln regime and its diabolical quest for empire at the expense of hundreds of thousands of American lives. As George H. Smith writes, "Spooner stood nearly alone among radical abolitionists in his defense of the right of the South to secede from the Union" (p. xvii). To Spooner, the right of secession was "a right that was embodied in the American Revolution." Moreover, Lincoln’s war "erupted for a purely pecuniary consideration," not any moral reason.

Spooner’s views on the war are laid out in his famous 1870 essay, "No Treason," published as part of the above-mentioned Lysander Spooner Reader. He understood that the Northern business interests who were the backbone of the Republican Party of his time (also Lincoln’s time), whom he labeled "lenders of blood money," had "for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purpose of liberty and justice . . ." (p. 117). It was such interests, after all, that monopolized (and profited immensely from) the transatlantic slave trade, which was always centered in Providence, Rhode Island and Boston, Massachusetts.

The Northern financiers of the war who lent millions to the Lincoln government did not do so for "any love of liberty or justice," wrote Spooner, but for "the control of [Southern] markets" through tariff extortion (p. 118). Mocking the argument of the "lenders of blood money" as they addressed the South he wrote: "If you [the South] will not pay us our price [i.e., a high tariff] . . . we will secure the same price (and keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets . . ." (p. 118).

In return for financing a large part of Lincoln’s war machine, Spooner noted, "these holders of the debt are to be paid still further – and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid – by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves" (p. 118). The war had led to "the industrial and commercial slavery" of all Americans, North and South.

Spooner was right about this: The Morrill Tariff, which initially doubled the average tariff rate from approximately 15% to 32%, first passed the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1859-60 congressional session, long before Lincoln’s election and any secession. Lincoln then signed no fewer than ten tariff-increasing bills so that the average tariff rate was escalated to 50–60 percent. These were not war tariffs; the average tariff rate remained in that historically high range until the income tax was finally adopted in 1913.

Lincoln’s National Currency Acts ushered in the era of central banking and Northern protectionists were ecstatic; they fully understood that dollar depreciation caused by inflation was a kind of backdoor protectionism since it made foreign goods sold in the U.S. more expensive. Spooner understood all of this perfectly well, even if too many contemporary libertarians do not.

Referring to President Ulysses S. Grant, Spooner also noted that the Northern business interests who controlled the Republican Party had "put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war," who at the time was hypocritically saying, "Let us have peace" (p. 118). Spooner interpreted the crushing of the Southern secessionists at the hands of "murderers" like Grant as essentially saying: "Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery [i.e., via tariffs and inflation] we have arranged for you, and you can have peace" (p. 118).

The Republican Party rhetoric of "saving the union" and "abolishing slavery" was all a sham, said Spooner. "The pretense that the ‘abolition of slavery’ was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of ‘maintaining the national honor,’" the famous abolitionist wrote (p. 119). It was the U.S. government that established and enforced slavery, he noted. The U.S. flag flew over an American slave society almost twenty times longer than the Confederate flag did.

Spooner believed Abraham Lincoln was speaking the truth when he said that whatever he did with regard to slavery was not because of any sympathy for the slaves, but to secure his goal of crushing the secessionists. And, Spooner would add, to then use the apparatus of the U.S. state to politically dominate and financially plunder the South. They did not abolish slavery "as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only as ‘a war measure,’ and because they wanted his assistance . . . in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery . . ."(p. 119).

If the Northern regime really wanted only to abolish slavery, Spooner argued, then they could have followed the road to emancipation taken by all other nations on earth in the nineteenth century and ended it peacefully through compensated emancipation and by declaring slavery to be unconstitutional. The war was unnecessary to end slavery, said Spooner.

Spooner also ridiculed Lincoln’s ridiculous and absurd statement in the Gettysburg Address that he was waging war for the principle of "a government of consent," or government of the people, by the people, for the people, as his flowery rhetoric put it. In reality, the type of "consent" created by Lincoln’s war was: "everybody must consent, or be shot" (p. 120). This idea "was the dominant one on which the war was carried on." (Another libertarian icon, H.L. Mencken, was of the same opinion).

"All of these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,’ of having ‘saved the country,’ of having ‘preserved the union,’ of establishing a ‘government of consent,’ and of ‘maintaining the national honor,’ are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats," the great abolitionist declared (p. 121).

Lysander Spooner vigorously attacked the Lincoln regime and defended the Confederacy’s right to secede with the libertarian language of natural rights, consent, and social contract. He recognized that this was also the language of Jefferson Davis’s First Inaugural Address, and that the war was not initiated to "free the slaves," something that neither Lincoln nor the U.S. Congress ever said or thought, even if grossly uneducated Americans do today. After the war, writes George Smith, Spooner’s (and Davis’s) natural rights rhetoric "was no longer popular among Northern intellectuals, for this had been the language of treason and secession" (p. xix). The voluntary confederacy of states that was established by the founding fathers gave way to "the nation," by which was meant the consolidated, monopolistic, and tyrannical government in Washington.

Abraham Lincoln was deified after the war, with New England ministers comparing him to Moses, Abraham, or Jesus Christ himself (just as Jesus died for the sins of the world, they said, Lincoln supposedly died for America’s sins). The presidency itself and ultimately, the American state, also became deified. Smith quotes the Unitarian minister Henry Bellows as announcing after the war, "The state is indeed divine, as being the great incarnation of a nation’s rights, privileges, honor, and life" (p. xix). Essayist Walt Whitman expressed his own version of Spooner’s "consent or be shot" by writing, "the war taught America that a nation cannot be trifled with" (p. xix).

With the death of states’ rights, the creation of a consolidated, monopolistic state, and the disposal of the natural rights philosophy of the founders, Smith writes (p. xx) that Spooner could not have been at all surprised in the postwar years as he "watched the power of government accelerate at an astonishing rate" (see Stephen Skowronek, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capabilities, 1877–1920; and Terry Anderson and P.J. Hill, The Birth of a Transfer Society).

Squeegie, this one is for you, there are several quotes from an intellectually honest abolitionist in it.
Oh, but it is was just about slavery.  Right.  It was about money, and greed, the South's money and the North's greed.  Again, I want to reitterate, that I find slavery disgusting, but I'm also intelligent enough and know enough about history to know that slavery wasn't the real issue.  If you think Lincoln gave a darn about the slaves, then you need to read more about him.  He was a white supremisist.  His whole motivation for the war was to keep the income producing South, so that he could continue to impose tarriffs upon it.
[right][snapback]626745[/snapback][/right]

The only people you ever hear anything about him from are Republicans.
Lincoln didn't start the war. The South was hardly an "economic crutch" of the North. Other than that, he was opportunistic, and had he not been killed in office by an assassin, he probably wouldn't have been quite so revered.
[right][snapback]626729[/snapback][/right]

You said income producing South.   
[right][snapback]626754[/snapback][/right]

Prior to the Civil War, the South's economy was thriving, even with the unfair tarriffs that were being forced upon to subsidize the North's industrialization.  After the Union army marched through the major cities burning them to the ground, and killing women and children, it took a major toll on the econmy, which it is just now beginning to recover.  Hey skins, since you are a lawyer, do you think that I as southerner could seek reperations from the federal goverment for this?
[right][snapback]626770[/snapback][/right]

To say Lincoln didn't start the war is dealing a little in semantics, I think.  The union said they wanted out of the contract, which was totally within their rights, as I understand it ([matlock voice]I'm certainly not a big city lawyer, though [/matlock voice]).  Lincoln refused to vacate government installations, so the CSA attempted to vacate them by force.  You know, the whole "war of northern agression" thing?  The existence of my dear state is Virgina's punishment for taking part in that little "nation-building" exercise...
[right][snapback]626764[/snapback][/right]

I never said Lincoln gave a darn about the slaves.  It is the powerful Southern slaveowners who gave one great big darn about slavery.

Contrary to the implication above, the North did not say to itself "Slavery is wrong - let's invade the South and abolish slavery." 

The South said "Those fawkers are going to try to take away our right to have slaves.  We'd better get out of this country before they do it."  In response to this, Lincoln said "I don't give a darn about your slaves, but once you joined this union, you're in for good.  Take up arms against the federal government, and the shiit is on."
[right][snapback]626760[/snapback][/right]

Jackson had the military invade Charleston in 1832, to enforce tarrifs that were aimed primarily at southerners.  The South was being forced to pay higher taxes than the North, and couldn't do anything about it, because North had more votes.  I know that you love this kind of socialism, so I know it is hard for you to wrap your mind around why this would outrage people.  I'm not saying that slavery wasn't an issue, but when only 5% to 6% of Southerners owned slaves, it was a relatively small issue with regards to why the South wished to leave the union.  The real issue was taxation, whith inadequate representations.  The taxes being levied were pointed directly at the South, not at the nation as a whole.
[right][snapback]626783[/snapback][/right]

when they ratified the 13th amendment, did they have to repeal the fifth amendment?  if they didn't, i guess that means the 5th doesn't protect the right to own slaves, does it?  the 3/5 clause assumes slavery, but it doesn't protect it.
[right][snapback]626743[/snapback][/right]

So why did it take until it got specifically mentioned to get rid of it?

I'm not going to educate myself on the specific legal grounds for it, but I'm assuming from a societal and political standpoint, it was legally acceptable and protected (to what degree is open to interpretation I realize) from inception of the US until the 13th & 14th ammendments.

Otherwise, it wouldn't have existed.

Ick, why are we arguing about this? Don't we have shopping to do?
[right][snapback]626817[/snapback][/right]

   Please show me where the Constitution says that you can leave the union once you've joined it - where it says anyone has the right to void the contract, if you will.
[right][snapback]626781[/snapback][/right]

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
....
A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state.
....
Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

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; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue. ...
But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
....
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
....
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.
...
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
....
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.

Perched, it is wonderful to watch you develop yer arguments as you research the issue throughout the progression of this thread. That said, they suck.

Why is the South on the welfare affirmative action teat now?
[right][snapback]626810[/snapback][/right]

10th Ammendment.  "ALL rights not EXPRESSLY given to the federal government remain with the sovereign states".  The right to decide how to opt out of the union was not expressly mentioned in the constitution.  Therefore, it HAD TO HAVE remained with the individual states to decide if, and when, they wanted to extracate themselves from an oppressive federal government...
[right][snapback]626831[/snapback][/right]

The Constitution neither protected nor prohibited the institution of slavery until the 13th Amendment was ratified.  It was an issue left up to each individual state,

Don't know, could it be that it was because a generation of our men were killed, their wive and children murdered, our cities burned, and had to put up with carpet baggers assuming roles of promonance during reconstruction. 
[right][snapback]626837[/snapback][/right]

Nice try.
[right][snapback]626839[/snapback][/right]

So, legally protected?
[right][snapback]626845[/snapback][/right]

what did georgia say about the reasons for seceding?
sure sounds like it was all about slavery as far as they were concerned.  how about south carolina, the first to secede?
sure sounds like it's all about slavery as far as they're concerned.  go ahead and read through those and try and find a gripe that isn't related to slavery.

edit to add mississippi:
all this talk about slavery and not a whisper about this newly concocted "taxation without representation" argument.  this from the very people who themselves seceded.

now, tell me again how it wasn't all about slavery?
[right][snapback]626832[/snapback][/right]

what did georgia say about the reasons for seceding?
sure sounds like it was all about slavery as far as they were concerned.  how about south carolina, the first to secede?
sure sounds like it's all about slavery as far as they're concerned.  go ahead and read through those and try and find a gripe that isn't related to slavery.

edit to add mississippi:
all this talk about slavery and not a whisper about this newly concocted "taxation without representation" argument.  this from the very people who themselves seceded.

now, tell me again how it wasn't all about slavery?
[right][snapback]626832[/snapback][/right]

No. Neither protected nor prohibited.  If the Constitution had protected slavery, the acts of the Northern states of abolishing slavery within their borders would have been unconstitutional.  But it wasn't.
[right][snapback]626852[/snapback][/right]

The 10th ammendment cannot be denied and your arguement did not refute mine..
[right][snapback]626848[/snapback][/right]

"ALL rights not EXPRESSLY given to the federal government remain with the sovereign states".

So, people who make the same arguments about abortion are right?
[right][snapback]626862[/snapback][/right]

What are you talking about?
[right][snapback]626867[/snapback][/right]

No. Neither protected nor prohibited.  If the Constitution had protected slavery, the acts of the Northern states of abolishing slavery within their borders would have been unconstitutional.  But it wasn't.
[right][snapback]626852[/snapback][/right]

Your argument presuposes that there was any right to withdraw from the union.
[right][snapback]626863[/snapback][/right]

Prom dresses with stars and bars.
[right][snapback]626869[/snapback][/right]

No. Neither protected nor prohibited.  If the Constitution had protected slavery, the acts of the Northern states of abolishing slavery within their borders would have been unconstitutional.  But it wasn't.
[right][snapback]626852[/snapback][/right]

you (we) are right that slavery as a constitutional property right was not extended or denied (thus not expicitly protected) before dred scott in 1857.
[right][snapback]626875[/snapback][/right]

why did the South leave?  It wasn't because of the slavery issue, it was because the slavery issue was being used to unite the north to continue the practice of protective tarriffs that were helpful to the North and harmful to the South.
[right][snapback]626872[/snapback][/right]

First off, I'm not being argumentative, I'm trying to understand....

Prior to Dred Scott, what was the legal basis for the practice of slavery? The fact that there was no legal basis against it?
[right][snapback]626896[/snapback][/right]

10 pages of thread over a tacky sequined prom dress? Holy crap.
[right][snapback]626906[/snapback][/right]