Most important month of Sesquicentennial of the Civil War
January thru April provide an opportunity to study why the South felt compelled to secede from the Union. The issues are many more then slavery. by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Monday, January 31, 2011
The road to secession was on issues much broader than slavery. That is not to say that slavery was not an issue. It certainly was. When you look at the ordinances of Secession, and the Resolutions of Reasons in the southern states you will repeatedly see as a cause slavery. So to deny what is incorporated in the very documents of secession would be to be as historically false, as the northerners who pretend that the "southern sin" was the only cause of secession.
Slaves were brought to America in northern ships, profits from the slave trade went to Boston and New York. And the cotton grown on southern plantations, worked by slaves, went to northern and British textile mills, where value was added by creating cotton fabric and end items. Without these markets, and the markets for tobacco and food stuffs, slavery would have withered and died an early death.
Beginning in April, 2011 with a re-enactment at Charleston, South Carolina, America will focus on the battles of the four year struggle. Tens of thousands of re-enactors and millions of spectators will remember these contests through simulations of what occurred. At that point there may be discussions between parents and children, or friends, about why...why was there a war?
The reasons for secession are many, the reasons for war, only one, Abraham Lincoln's belief that it was his job to forcibly hold the Southern States in the union. The concept of "consent of the governed" was completely abandoned. The fact that 10 of 11 Southern states conducted conventions of duly elected representative delegates to address the question of secession is ignored as an expression of the will of the people. In Texas they actually had a statewide referendum where the citizens voted to leave the Union by a vote of three to one.
War occurred because Lincoln vowed to raise an army to invade the South, conquer the South, bring it back into the Union. That is the reason why war occurred. There is no other. And Lincoln himself said that if he could end the crisis without freeing a single slave he would! So how is the war about slavery? Only later in the war, when the north was losing and northerners were tired of war, was abolition of slavery used as a political tool to excite the abolitionists.
But for secession, the reasons are almost as varied as the number of states who left, or tried to leave. (Missouri and Kentucky, through haphazard legal means, because of successful Yankee interference and invasion attempted to secede. Maryland might have, but was occupied by Yankee regiments and Pro South state legislators were jailed.)
Abel P. Upshur, a former Justice in Virginia, wrote a boring but accurate book published in 1840, which discussed the different points of view, North and South, concerning the Constitution. This book, titled "The True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government, A Critical Review of Justice Story's Commentary on the Constitution," begins by identifying the two views with respect to where the Constitution came from.
Supreme Court Justice Story argued that the Constitution came from the people of America. Thus he placed original sovereignty, the power to rule, in the hands of the American people as a single body. The sovereignty was thus transferred from the people through the Constitution to the federal government.
Justice Upshur argued that the 13 independent states were sovereign, and that it was the 13 independent states which first created the Articles of Confederation, to form a loose confederacy to fight Britain during the American revolution. Once the war was won, and Britain signed a treaty naming the thirteen nations (states) as the belligerents, the 13 nation-states than decided to hold a convention to modify the Articles to make them work better.
The delegates came together, and found it impossible to correct the Articles. It was at that point that the purpose of the gathering changed to create a new constitution. The states therefore called the convention...not the people. Throughout Upshur's book he repeatedly uses history, how things actually occurred, real documents, to prove that the northern view of how the United States came to be was false.
As the two regions moved through history and they developed under different economic systems, one industrial and one agricultural, the differences which had been paved over, began to crack. And the cracks widened with time.
Secession was first considered as a political alternative in the north only years after ratification of the Constitution. But their flirtation with the idea faded, and then shifted south.
This article cannot do justice to the struggle. But what it can do is point out that slavery has become an intellectual center of gravity for this era and crisis which has deflected serious consideration, study and recognition of an alternative American democracy, designed and implemented in the Confederate Constitution. In this constitution State's Rights, God's role in the democracy, a more powerful President, and a fiscally more conservative structure were established.
Modern issues like the line item veto, no earmarks, single issue legislation, and prohibition for money for corporate bail outs were all addressed in the Confederate Constitution one hundred and fifty years ago!
If you are interested in studying this era, from original creation of the U.S. Constitution to secession I recommend to you "Memoirs of Service Afloat" by Admiral Rafael Semmes, C.S.N.. An excellent writer and historian, Admiral Semmes uses the first five chapters of his book to discuss this period of American history, and I can gaurantee you will become aware of documents you did not know existed which will further enhance your understanding of early American history.
The Sesquicentennial provides a real opportunity to learn about America, to go deeper than your high school or college classroom. President Jefferson Davis wrote the winners of the war will write it's history. He was so right. Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative talk show hosts have only read the winner's version...or they dare not talk about a complete American history. If they did, secession might be a political option discussed today.
While you are at it, contact the Sons of Confederate Veterans if you think you have an ancestor who served the South. This organization is charged with preservation of the history and heritage of the South...which is also the history and heritage of America!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 61
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
In the fourth paragraph, did your "consent of the governed" statement consider, say in South Carolina, the consent of the majority of the population in 1861 (african slaves)? What about the consent of the slaves in the other southern states?
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: February 2, 2011 09:43:25 AM
Yes Don that was me.
To whoever, ... given your comment, should I assume you oppose abortion in this lifetime? My experience in a lifetime has provided this observation, those most angered by the slavery of 150 years ago are most comfortable with the murder of 50 million innocents through abortion today.
With respect to "consent of the governed"> There would have been no slaves in the South if northern and foreign merchants had not transported them here, sold them, and took the profits. Does that excuse the South? Or does it indict the north...where there was slavery. How many northern states outlawed slavery at the time of the writing of the Constitution? Answer one.
Slavery is an imperfection which mars the history of America, both north and south. But, because of northern arrogance we did not learn from it. We abort babies, and we never see that the South formed a more perfect government in all respects but one.
Posted By: Interested Catholic
Date: February 2, 2011 05:51:18 PM
Hi Mark.
So from your extremely hostile and absurd presumption about the unnamed commenter, I am assuming that you are not going to answer his question, but rather, ask more questions (are you a politician, by any chance?) and deflect from the main point of his/her question. Let me see if I can get this straight. Because the North brought slaves to this continent on Northern ships and sold them (to Southern plantation owners), and because the North demanded goods that the South provided (did the North not pay for these goods as well?); the South were forced to keep slaves? Pardon me, but couldn't that argument be used for any wrongdoing? For example, people bring drugs to this country from other countries, sell them to other people, and then those other people sell them to other people because there is a demand for that product. Pimps pull girls off the street, sell them to other people who buy them, and they do it because there is a demand for those girls.
I am not sure I understand your answer, except that you obviously want the North to share in the sin and blemish of slavery as much as the South. Ok, let's say that's fair enough. Maybe there were a lot of people in the North who shared in that sin, and maybe there were a lot who didn't give a hoot about slaves one way or another (another sin). That still doesn't change the focus of the Civil War, nor does it change the fact that it was an injustice, no matter who perpetrated it. Trying to lay degrees of evil on those who participated in the slavery "war" is pointless, especially in light of the fact that most people of that time didn't even believe that slavery was a wrongdoing. They didn't believe that it was wrong in any way. It was a different time and people did not have the luxury of hindsight and enlightenment that most of us do now.
What I would really appreciate seeing from you is a follow-up to your last sentence to the commenter. You say that "northern arrogance" is why we (as a Nation?) didn't learn from it. Could you elaborate on exactly what that means? How did we not learn from the concept of owning slaves and how was this the fault of northern arrogance? I hear over and over again about the war being over "state's rights." I get sovereignty and I get keeping the Federal government out of most of the business of individual states. What I do not get is why people think that an injustice to our fellow man, which has clearly been deemed a sin of the most grievous kind, is not the business of an entire nation. If it is not proper for a government to step in to prevent this kind of act against humanity, then when, exactly IS it proper? And, using your bizarre leap to aborting babies, should I assume that you think it IS proper for the government to step in to prevent that grievous act? If the Civil War had been fought over the right for individual states to abort babies, rather than keep slaves, would you have had a different view?
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: February 3, 2011 10:39:07 AM
Another anonomous commenter.
Ok, ... Secession was about alot more than slavery. It was about a compact, an agreement amongst different peoples, with different economic means, and with different religious backgrounds. Each of the thirteen states was an independent nation, surrendering a portion of its soveriegnty. All 13 agreed to enforce federal laws, but alas northern states would not do that. All 13 agreed to limited government, again, alas northern states would not do that. All 13 agreed that powers not vested or addressed in the Constitution were powers held by the respective states, or peoples, thus secession.
Northern arrogance has continued to this day. Listen to any national show, and listen to comments about the South. Never admitting to profiting from the trade. Never admitting that at the time the Constitution was written all but one northern state had legalized slavery. Never admitting that after the war Ohio passed a law telling Africans that had two weeks to pass through the state, and than they would be hung!
If you spent as much reading and studying history as you do commenting on it, you might do better.
Abortion is without doubt a national sin. The liberals in the North, including those Catholics who dont seem to believe their own faith when it comes to abortion and homosecuality, continue to attempt to dictate national policy. Secession will arise as a political option once again, but it will only become a reality when it is beneficial to the northeast.
Hope I have answered your query. Anonomity surely is a protection for the weak...
Posted By: Interested Catholic
Date: February 3, 2011 12:08:42 PM
Mark,
Thank you for responding to my comment. I have commented many times about other articles and have asked for clarification many times, and I think this is the first time you have responded to it.
I will try to respond to each of your replies. If I miss something, please let me know.
First, with regard to my anonymous status. I choose not to include my real name for my own reasons. It is clearly an option on the Nolan Chart so talk to them if you don't like it. If this means that my comments are not valid because they are not backed up with a name, so be it. I would ask you these same questions in person, face-to-face, if we were in the same room so I'm not sure cowardice even comes into play here...but whatever. I could give you a name, even a real one, and it would not change the ideas or comments. If you were speaking to a room full of anonymous people, would you have to know the identity of each person asking you a question? Would this change your answer in any way? And would they be cowards if they chose not to give their names? I'm not sure I see the importance of sharing an identity here. This is an online forum. If my name were posted, would you locate me and send thugs to beat me up? Did you want to challenge me to a dual or something? I don't see the reason for the derogatory term.
Ok, the next thing. You recommend reading history before having an opinion. Why? You put the article out here for all to read. You do not know that I haven't studied history, nor do you know the sources I used (or didn't use) to obtain the knowledge that I have. And that is all beside the point of my comment anyway. My comments were directed at NOT answering the other "anonymous" cowards question. That person asked about "consent of the governed" and how many of those governed in that case were slaves. I seem to recall your "answer" being nothing but blame for the North's part of slavery, Northern arrogance causing us all to not learn from "SLAVERY," not secession, which is how you seemed to interpret that when you responded to my first comment, and oddly how the commenter must be pro-abortion (or at least ok with it) because he/she had the audacity to question the legitimacy of "consent of the governed." That is a big leap, my friend, and quite frankly rather insulting. Not very Southern of you.
You could, if you felt so inclined, take these opportunities in the Comments discussions to answer people's questions about the "real" reasons behind the cause of the war, as I assume that you are an historian who is knowledgeable about the subject, rather than calling them out as imbeciles who should go back to school and read more. But then, I guess that would mean that you would have to know what those reasons (for the war) really were. If they weren't about the state's rights to own slaves, then what were they talking about? It's a simple question. But we all should go back to school to find out rather than listen to someone like you, who clearly knows what he is talking about. I guess this means, then, that your articles on the subject are purely subjective and too pro-South and anti-North to pay much attention to anyway. You have asked for real discourse in past articles. Why do you not participate in real discourse when presented with it? Perhaps you are one of those elitists whom you so often mention in other articles. In this case, I'd say it takes one to know one.
So I have a specific question about your answer above. You say that all 13 states agreed that powers not vested or addressed in the Constitution were powers held by the respective states, or peoples, thus secession. What do you mean by that? Was slavery one of those powers?
And to wrap up this cowardly response, I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to point out that Catholics (only Northern Catholics, of course) are among those who continue to attempt to dictate national policy on abortion and laws against homosexuality. Are none of those "liberals" in the North, who go against their faith, Protestants? As I have pointed out to you many times in other comments (that you have also ignored) I believe that there are quite a few Protestants who also believe in abortion and gay rights. You seem to have no qualms calling out Catholics who sin. Why do you not put as much emphasis on the great number of Protestants who are also on the liberal bandwagon? This is just a personal irritant that is probably a digression but you brought it up.
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: February 3, 2011 01:38:14 PM
Ma'am or sir...
I will try, but this is difficult. I presume you have not read your history because you seem unaware of the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This directly addresses the authority of states to secede.
With respect to Protestants and abortion. The separate Protestant religions each have their own understanding of the Bible which I am not aware of. But as a Catholic I do know what our church's view of both questions are. In the northeast, the Catholic faith is predominant...yet, those states are recognized nationally as some of the most liberal.
With respect to secession...the article was intended to instigate study, I recommended you read Admiral Semmes, at least the first five chapters.
But let me make one more comment. Yes the "John" is as guilty as the prostitute, and yes the user is as guilty as the drug dealer. At no point in my article did I attempt to defend slavery. Instead the effort was to place the blame where it belonged...on all. With respect to consent of the governed, even the Constitution did not recognize slaves as citizens...which is not say that it did not recognize free blacks as citizens...it did.
The history of this era is replete with inconveniences for those of the northern persuasion, whether you live in north or south. If slaves were so eager for freedom why not revolt after the men had left for war? This is not to slaves were happy with their lot, but it is to say that Uncle Tom's Cabin may have been more fair to actual state of affairs on plantations than the abolitionists were.
Posted By: Interested Catholic
Date: February 3, 2011 05:33:48 PM
Sir,
Thank you for responding again. We are on a roll here.
To respond to yet another of your insulting presumptions. Yes, I am aware of the Tenth Amendment. If you look at my question, I asked you specifically if you were saying that slavery was one of those powers that were not addressed in the Constitution, and hence grounds for secession. You are adept at avoiding a point, I'll give you that. And your tone is becoming more and more elitist as we go. Please DO address me as you would a five-year-old. Unlike you, we are not all as blessed with advanced knowledge.
And yet, you make statements like this one "The separate Protestant religions each have their own understanding of the Bible which I am not aware of." You must know that there is no such thing as separate Protestant "religions" but Protestant "denominations," right? The *religion* is Christianity. You are a Christian, I would hope you would know this. And second, I am aware of no recognized, legitimate Protestant doctrine that condones abortion. If it does exist, I have never heard of it. Gay rights? Several, and some of them very large Protestant denominations. My point about you pointing out Catholics was two-fold; first, you seem to never tire of doing this...I am at a loss as to why. There are plenty of good Catholics in the country who are actually anti-abortion and against many liberal policies, including homosexual marriage. And second, I was making the point that, regarding liberal policies on abortion and gay rights, there are plenty of Protestants to go around (North and South) who continue to push these government policies, as well as the Catholic-heavy Blue states of the Northeast. Are there no Protestants pushing liberal agendas, say in California, Washington, Colorado? That was my only point there.
So let me get this straight (to use your words, it is difficult), with regards to the consent of the governed situation. In my mind you STILL did not address the first commenter's question about consent of the governed. That person was asking you if, when you made your statement about consent of the governed, did you consider, as part of the "consent", the slaves that made up a large number of the population in Southern states. That was all. You could have easily answered this question with your comment above, that the Constitution did not recognize slaves as citizens. It would certainly have demonstrated the glaring loophole that the South was using to rationalize and legitimize secession (in essence saying "hey Yankees, y'all don't recognize all these slaves as people anyway, so they are not technically part of the "governed", so we have the right to secede!"), but at least it would have been answering the question instead of accusing him/her of being for abortion.
Your last paragraph seems to point to the North having no love lost for the blacks, hence the slaves not leaving the South after the war. There is probably a lot of truth in that idea. I am sure that there were many slaves who were content to live the lives that they did on the plantations. Many were given positions of status and even honor in many white families. I am not arguing that either. That said, it still doesn't make slavery right, in the eyes of Christians. I do not accuse you of condoning slavery. I am sure that you, being a Catholic, do not condone such a wrong. However may I point out something else? Did the majority of the marches to end segregation during the Civil Rights movement occur in the North or the South? How about segregated restrooms, lunch counters, water fountains, bus seating, schools, etc., etc.? Were the nation's eyes on the North when the Montgomery Bus Boycott occurred (that's Montgomery ALABAMA)? How about the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Was this to prevent the Northern states from implementing literacy tests and other devices to prevent blacks from voting? What about the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School, Brown vs. Board of Education (Virginia), the Selma Alabama march, and on and on and on? And how about that Ku Klux Klan? I'm sure there are Northern members, no doubt, so before you lift your saber hear me out. During the Civil Rights movement, was it the high number of race-related events committed by the klans of the North or the South? I think this chip that you carry on your shoulder about the image that many in other parts of the country have of the South is probably the result of years of serious race relations issues that probably do date back to the Civil War and prior. Again, to say that the North doesn't have a part in this ugly history would be inaccurate. However, I think throwing out these accusations that the North was bad too doesn't really solve anything. Is the point of your article to enlighten people to the fact that the Northern abolitionists were not saints and slave owners not sinners? If that is the case, ok. I just think saying things like, if the North didn't buy the products, the South wouldn't have kept slaves is kind of beside the point and really sounds like sour grapes and playground arguments, similar to "he hit me first, so I had to hit him back!" I personally believe that people who are pushing secession would be a lot better off if they would just own up to the slavery issue and realize that people are smarter than those like you think we are. If there are truly "good" reasons to secede from a union, it should be an option for all states. It should not be a mechanism for states to do whatever the hell they want just because it's their "right." Make sense?
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: February 4, 2011 12:28:51 PM
The tenth Amendment reserves powers to the states, and to the people. We seem to agree...except you think slavery is the power. No slavery is not the power, secession is the power.
The Tenth Amendment reserved the right of secession to the states, and the South thus exercised her rights. Ofcourse, Lincoln ignored the Constitution and as I said in the original story, decided to forcibly conquer the South.
Your points about Protestant and Catholic, are your points and not relevant to the discussion of Secession in 1860.
The answer to consent is no. The northerners had financed the capture, transport, and sale of slaves to people in the United States. When slaves did work in the northerm climes, and in industry, they sold them South. Or did they free them, and I missed that. So like their northern brethren who brought the slaves to the US, and than when that didn't work out in the northern states sold them South...no consent was not granted.
Does that answer your question. No.
I am glad you could grant the historic fact that the north had no love of blacks after the war. For your own edification, maybe you could use google to find where the largest KKK ralies in the United States were. When you do...you may be even further enlightened.
The original article inidcates I dont support slavery.
I will close with this, if liberals were as focused on the identification of prejudice, bias, etc. in the north, before, during and after the war, maybe we would not hear the South talked down too on most modern media, conservative and liberal.
Further, the point of the article was that the South seceded for many reasons, and that the Confederate Constitution provided an alternative American form of government which addressed many of the issues which are truly damaging the US today. Centralized, federal government is not new...its all over the world. But a real republic, with minimal federal interference in most domestic issues, from health to education, to culture, to religiong ...well that would be rare, and was the originial visiion of the Southern founders!
With respect to your last comment. The states should be free to leave if they decide to for whatever reason, on any day, whenever they want. Only this type of federal republic will restrain an activist Court or an ambitious President. If the ideas, policies, programs are really good, they will spread eventually. But what we have now is a nation of special elites who think they know better than the rest of us....and it is my hope secession will arise as a real political option for all states.
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: February 5, 2011 01:18:41 AM
May I retort?
The road to secession was on issues much broader than slavery. That is not to say that slavery was not an issue. It certainly was. When you look at the ordinances of Secession, and the Resolutions of Reasons in the southern states you will repeatedly see as a cause slavery. So to deny what is incorporated in the very documents of secession would be to be as historically false, as the northerners who pretend that the "southern sin" was the only cause of secession.
Everyone who is not an apologist understands the reasons for the Civil War were 1) economic tyranny by the North and 2) stupid, thick-skulled pride and idiotic chest beating by the South. No one gave a crap about the slaves, Abolitionists mostly wanted slavery removed to EJECT THEM FROM THE COUNTRY before they could taint the precious white gene pool.
Slaves were brought to America in northern ships, profits from the slave trade went to Boston and New York. And the cotton grown on southern plantations, worked by slaves, went to northern and British textile mills, where value was added by creating cotton fabric and end items. Without these markets, and the markets for tobacco and food stuffs, slavery would have withered and died an early death.
Very true. The slaves brought to northern America were captured by black tribes making a handsome profit, so it's not really your fault at all, North or South. Certainly, there would have been less of a market for American slavery if not for textiling. . . but let us continue.
Beginning in April, 2011 with a re-enactment at Charleston, South Carolina, America will focus on the battles of the four year struggle. Tens of thousands of re-enactors and millions of spectators will remember these contests through simulations of what occurred. At that point there may be discussions between parents and children, or friends, about why...why was there a war?
The money wasted on this idiotic exercise could be better spent feeding the poor, homeless, providing better education for children, better equipment for our troops, research on medical cures , anything but groups of people too caught up in fantasy land to let something go. There isn't anything admirable about this, and the chance of any of these people intellectually and honestly debating the causes for the Civil War are roughly on par with them explaining exactly how Nathan Forrest wasn't a racist murdering scumball.
The reasons for secession are many, the reasons for war, only one, Abraham Lincoln's belief that it was his job to forcibly hold the Southern States in the union. The concept of "consent of the governed" was completely abandoned. The fact that 10 of 11 Southern states conducted conventions of duly elected representative delegates to address the question of secession is ignored as an expression of the will of the people. In Texas they actually had a statewide referendum where the citizens voted to leave the Union by a vote of three to one.
Consent of the governed , fascinating.
There were two legal problems with succession. One, details on how it was to be accomplished were never spelled out in the Constitution, at all. Southern states claimed the 10th Amendment gave them the right, Northerners said there WAS no such right to be claimed. IF the Union was formed by mutual agreement, then one would assume it would be a pact of slightly more than convenience.
But let us set that aside. If a majority of people in a state decide they want to secede, you think that should be the case. That is the real bottom line of the Civil War , folks. The idea that All Government Must Be Bad and that you have A Fundamental Right to replace it with...whatever the hell you feel like. Is it legal? Oh, probably. Is it SANE? No.
The rest of your article dips into Confederate States of America worship, so let us present some counter points:
1) The single primary reason the CSA lost was it's inability to unify. It's government was a shambolic mess, it's individual states often refused to provide needed funding, it's President was at best a martinet and probably neurotic. It had no strong internal framework to hold off a superior economic power. It can be done -- Bolivia, the Boers, the whole Israeli mess -- a smaller , less industrialized and less centralized power with all the best generals and troops who were by nature better attuned to war, with a slave labor force that SHOULD have been repurposed to raise food and shift from textiles, could have held out or won.
2) The main beneficiaries of the CSA were not, oddly enough, the average Southerner. The average Southerner didn't own slaves, and the average Southerner didn't pay ridiculous taxes to the North. Who was hurt by the economic policies of the North were the plantation owners. Calls for abolition, for more taxes, for more government restriction, primarily enraged the propertied plantation class. The call for southern pride, and secession, and all of that, was the use of innocent people by thug-like masters, and in my mind is one of the saddest outcomes of the Civil War, that the Southern leadership caused this mess and left the Southern people to pay the price.
3) Regardless of your take on the causes of the war, or if it was legal or illegal for the South to seceed, one cannot overlook the reality that the South , unfortunately, put themselves in a corner. They actively resisted efforts to industrialize (feeling it would empower the masses) and relied solely on the utterly hypocritical 3/5ths of a vote that slaves accorded them to influence Congress. No one honestly believes the North wanted to put an end to slavery to help blacks. They wanted it for many reasons, but one important one was to remove undue Southern political influence.
As far as God in government, again -- what interpretation? Why should anyone believe YOUR opinion of what God wants? Do we VOTE on it? What if a majority of American's decide anyone adulterating should be stoned to death per Leviticus? The problem with the tyranny of the majority is is that it a tyranny, one a republic was designed to avoid.
Posted By: Interested Catholic
Date: February 7, 2011 07:58:48 AM
Mark,
Thank you (honestly) for your reasonable (mostly) reply, without arrogance or insults. I appreciate it and had a feeling that you could do it.
This will be my last response on this subject as well. I do have to point out that your first sentence is wrong and if you would have carefully read my previous reply you would know this. I did not say that I think that slavery was the power (as stated in the Constitution) but I was asking if YOU thought that slavery was the power. Please understand that I was asking you if YOU considered slavery one of the powers that the South considered being in compliance with the Constitution's understanding of "powers not vested..." It seems to me that slavery was one of the rights that the South felt they should be able to keep, and that secession was a power (which it was) that would enable them to keep it.
I want to also thank you for answering the consent of the governed question. That was my original point about your reply to the other commenter. You did not answer his/her question but threw out all kinds of accusations instead.
To reply to your suggestion for googling the largest KKK rallies, when I said "events" occurring primarily in the South (hence the somewhat jaded view of Southerners, among some) I wasn't talking about "rallies," but rather, terrorist events, such as bombings, lynchings, murders, that sort of thing (see the following list of most famous murders):
Among the more notorious murders by Klan members:
* The 1951 Christmas Eve bombing of the home of NAACP activists Harry and Harriette Moore in Mims, Florida, resulting in their deaths.[99]
* The 1957 murder of Willie Edwards, Jr. Klansmen forced Edwards to jump to his death from a bridge into the Alabama River.[100]
* The 1963 assassination of NAACP organizer Medgar Evers in Mississippi. In 1994, former Ku Klux Klansman Byron De La Beckwith was convicted.
* The 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, which killed four African-American girls. The perpetrators were Klan members Robert Chambliss, convicted in 1977, Thomas Blanton and Bobby Frank Cherry, convicted in 2001 and 2002. The fourth suspect, Herman Cash, died before he was indicted.
* The 1964 murders of three civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner in Mississippi. In June 2005, Klan member Edgar Ray Killen was convicted of manslaughter.[101]
* The 1964 murder of two black teenagers, Henry Hezekiah Dee and Charles Eddie Moore in Mississippi. In August 2007, based on the confession of Klansman Charles Marcus Edwards, James Ford Seale, a reputed Ku Klux Klansman, was convicted. Seale was sentenced to serve three life sentences. Seale was a former Mississippi policeman and sheriff's deputy.[102]
* The 1965 Alabama murder of Viola Liuzzo. She was a Southern-raised Detroit mother of five who was visiting the state in order to attend a civil rights march. At the time of her murder Liuzzo was transporting Civil Rights Marchers.
* The 1966 firebombing death of NAACP leader Vernon Dahmer Sr., 58, in Mississippi. In 1998 former Ku Klux Klan wizard Sam Bowers was convicted of his murder and sentenced to life. Two other Klan members were indicted with Bowers, but one died before trial, and the other's indictment was dismissed.
The highlights represent locations in the South. This only goes to my point about views of the South by some people.
Once again, I will point out that my comments about Catholics and Protestants, although having no bearing on secession, was brought up because you mentioned the Catholic participation in immoral legislation (in the North) and I was asking why you feel compelled to do so without indicting all Christians who participate in such things. I continue to wonder about your fixation with calling out only Catholic hypocrites. May I throw in one more of my own jabs and point out that the good Christian men and women of the KKK were predominantly Protestant? Just a thought.
And finally, your statement about states being able to leave the union any time they want for any reason. I agree, with the caveat that they should still behave in a moral fashion. Most everyone agrees that slavery is a wrong that should not be allowed in a democracy. My point was that, though individual states should be allowed to secede and govern themselves apart from a central federal government, they should not be allowed to operate outside of God's laws. If they are committing atrocities, the federal government should step in. That was all.
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: February 7, 2011 09:28:57 AM
Sir/Madame.
If you will look at each of your emails you continue to site abuse only in the South. I am sure it would not take long to develop a list of tragic acts in the north equal to the ones you sited in the South.
Second, you say the Federal government should act when state's operate outside God's laws. But it was the Federal government through Roe v. Wade that allows the murders of innocents.
And if the states, pass Gay marriage, should the Federals than step in?
If you feel I am biased to the South...Hell yes. Would never dispute that...but I assert you and most are biased towards the North and refuse to see that both sides have an equal amount of faults. Its why I answered as I did and do. If i felt I was speaking to someone who saw injustice equally in both camps, I would be able to than move on. That rarely happens. Our discussion was civil, but any progress made towards understanding the South will probably most be felt by someone reading the exchange...
The great original blessing of the Constitution was to allow people to find a place that suited them. Now, people are forced, through centralization of power to live as is suited by the Fed.s. Not the intent of the Founders at all.
Posted By: Interested Catholic
Date: February 7, 2011 10:38:30 AM
Hi Mark.
Ok, let's back up. If you look back over the entire thread of this conversation, you will see that it started with a response to your non-answer to a commenter about consent of the governed and how instead of answering the person's question, you railed against the North and its equal evils against humanity. I want to go on record as saying that I have no bias toward the North or the South when it comes to tragic events against mankind. I believe that both sides are equally guilty. I was trying to address some specific issues regarding slavery, and yes, secession...not who was most at fault. You are the one who brought that topic into the equation and felt obliged to make the discussion into an accusatory exercise that, quite frankly takes us into pointless territory.
Here is my challenge to you when discussing the issues around the Civil War with people who are, in your mind, biased toward the North. Convince them not with finger-pointing at the North's part in it, as if that makes any difference to the rightness or wrongness of slavery. I still believe that most reasonable people will concede that both sides were woefully and grossly guilty with regards to treatment of the slaves (and black people in general). Is the purpose of reexamining this history to indict the North for their part in it; or, is it to show the people of our current country legitimate reasons why secession would make sense in modern day America...and lay out a real plan, not just lofty rhetoric that sounds great on a slogan but has no real substance when it comes to the formation of a new government.
My comments may seem heavy with blame for the South because you insisted that everyone always beats up on the South and you think it's unfair. I was laying out some pretty obvious reasons why many people (not me, necessarily) have a hard time accepting Southern pride about a history so tainted with issues that are at their roots wrong. What is it that the South has to be so proud of? Their honor? Certainly. Their bravery? Most definitely. And there were many great Christian men and boys who stood beside their Southern brothers to fight for something that they believed in their hearts was right. But my question is, WHY was it right? I want to know why the South should rise again. And why do you insist that slavery was only one issue, as if it were secondary. If the right to own slaves was not one of the "rights" that the South believed to be an entitlement, then what was? What were all these states rights that we hear about time and again? That is all we are asking and why many people continue to think that people who want to secede are bigoted, ignorant blowhards. Not my feelings but yes I have talked to many people (some even in the South) who think this way. Can you prove them wrong by pointing fingers at the North and calling them bad too or setting the slavery issue aside as if it's a dirty secret that we just don't talk about in good company; OR, would it be better to rationally discuss all of the reasons behind the South's effort to secede without pretending as if the slavery issue were a non-issue. When people who are curious (and yes, even those who have an axe to grind) ask you a question such as, were you counting slaves in consent of the governed, you would garner more respect with a calm, rational answer, rather than a puffed up, chest-beating call to arms because someone dared call out your beloved Southern brethren as possibly being wrong about something. Southern arrogance (not pride) is yet another reason that some people have trouble with the South.
As for the Federal government not acting in the case of Roe vs Wade and abortion, absolutely agree with you 100 percent. However, you continue to use the government NOT stepping in to stop abortion as a parallel to them stepping in to stop slavery. I don't understand this parallel. You are simply making my point for me. The governments of this country should step in when a crime against humanity is being perpetrated. I don't disagree. If you are saying that, this same government that stepped in and prevented the South from seceding to stop slavery is the same government that has NOT stepped in and stopped abortion, and that makes them hypocritical, then we are in complete agreement. As for Gay marriage, I don't consider that in the same league as crimes against humanity and, therefore, it's moot to me. Gay people can already get married any time they feel like it if they can find someone to marry them. It's the governmental entitlement that makes that an issue at all and whether the government owes them the same privileges as heterosexual people. Is it technically against God's law to marry one's own gender? Yes. It is inhumane? No, as long as the couple are of consenting age. If a gay person wants to marry a child, time for the government to step in.
So, you say that if you felt that I were unbiased toward the South and conceded that both the North and South were at fault, you could move on and discuss the issue rationally. I am telling you that I am not biased against either one. Now can we discuss why secession is important to us and how (in detail) it could benefit us and change the direction of this sad nation in a positive way? That would be a good discussion to have, without all the fist-waving and chest-beating.
I will admit that I do tend to be biased toward Catholic bashing and the inequities between Catholic and Protestant hypocrisy. Just as there are Catholic politicians who go against their own faith day after day, there are plenty of Protestant (and Jewish, I might add) politicians who are just as guilty. All I was asking was why you insisted on continuously calling out the bad behaviors of Catholic people. Just as you have a sore spot for people beating on Southerners, I have a problem with Catholic bashing. And most especially from fellow Catholics. I can't promise I won't ask you about it in future discussions because, like you, I call it as I see it, when it happens.
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: February 7, 2011 11:30:47 AM
You want to give me advice on how to defend my position...LOL. You do it. Don't give me advice. From your response I would say you are a Democrat. You like to say that you know the motives and thoughts of others, but discreetly hide your own. Like no name, no back ground, no nothing...just anonomous comments. You have no moral authority here. You like all the rest of us are in sin up to our necks...
But to deflect any personal motive for your views you hide yourself. Very smart...but as I said, you lose credibility and moral authority.
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: February 7, 2011 11:35:24 AM
IC had a fair question .... "But my question is, WHY was it right? I want to know why the South should rise again. And why do you insist that slavery was only one issue, as if it were secondary. If the right to own slaves was not one of the "rights" that the South believed to be an entitlement, then what was? What were all these states rights that we hear about time and again? That is all we are asking and why many people continue to think that people who want to secede are bigoted, ignorant blowhards. Not my feelings but yes I have talked to many people (some even in the South) who think this way." The answer is in the original article....read the first five chapters of Admiral Rafael Semmes book!
Posted By: Interested Catholic
Date: February 7, 2011 02:55:29 PM
Mark,
Well you are wrong again. I am not a Democrat, nor do I claim to have any moral authority over anybody. As thin-skinned as you are, I would have guessed that YOU are a Democrat if you didn't spell it out. It's perfectly acceptable for you to wield your high-and-mighty presumptions about people being liberals, Democrats, cowards, abortion lovers, etc., etc. because they dare to question you or your articles. You can also give advice freely but get downright snippy about others making suggestions to you. Whatever. I know of no "personal motive" for my views except that they are a combination of my own experiences, beliefs, and study. Yours, obviously, are your pro-South/anti-North sentiments. Far be it for me or anyone else to get in the way of Johnny Reb.
I have no problem with you providing suggested reading materials for people to go to for more details about a particular subject. I do find it fascinating that you refuse to elaborate or provide more details yourself if you are, in fact, actually aware of them because of your frequent secession pushing. It does seem as if an apologist for secession would actually answer questions about the pros of secession and why it would be a viable, positive direction for the country TODAY, especially in light of your agenda for it. However, perhaps it is easier to go to the experts about it and quit hounding you for it.
Oh and one more thing, I never said that I was not up to my neck in sin. And I repeat, I never claimed to have any moral authority or any other kind of authority, for that matter. Honest discussion without name calling is what I would like to see. But like so many people with whom I have tried to have a "real" discussion about the "real" reasons behind the Civil War and secession, especially with regards to its usefulness in today's world, you choose to get all bent out of shape and redneck on me. I repeat "whatever." You continue to prove the point that there is no way to talk to a Dixiecrat about these issues. And it is another glaring reason as to why Secession, as a viable option, will probably never come to pass. I will stand corrected and will admit loudly that I am wrong if that day ever comes.
Posted By: JohnSmith
Date: February 13, 2011 05:45:43 PM
What a misleading article. The secession celebrations are an embarrassment and all of the arguments to justify the secession and the Civil War are mean-spirited apologies for a horrific institution and a horrific war . The reasons for secession were no broader than slavery.
As southerner from a family with whose family has lived in the same southern, rural county for over 250 years, as one who can name the household slaves of his ancestors, these celebrations and apologies/arguments belie the truths that we all knew here in the South as soon as we understood the Civil War:
We started the war to keep our slaves,
The North did not want slavery anymore,
We lost our slaves because we lost the war,
We lost badly and freed blacks were treated badly all the way through to my lifetime out of malice and spite (my grandmother was aghast at their civil rights struggles).
In this secession season, let us ask the question we Southerners don’t like to ask:
When would we have ended slavery and afforded the rights to freed blacks they were granted by the 13th and 14th amendments?
Why can’t it be said that the actions of the South were treasonous to our Constitution? That the South and its secession was traitorous to the US Constitution that we protect and defend today?
A better focus, and one that we can be much more proud of, would be the celebration of the sesquicentennial of the ratification of the 13th and 14th amendments.
Leave the secession behind for the dustbin of history. Lincoln said it best in his second inaugural address: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.”
Name withheld because of the retribution of family and friends
