Confederate Legacy

Lincoln definitely wanted a war, but the south fired the first shot.

They were not property.

South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860. The civil war began on April 12, 1861.

The confederacy emphasized over and over again that they were fighting to preserve a way of life (IE, slavery).

 

Dunno where you get that idea, but it sure as hell isn't from the Confederate Constitution.

So how well do you figure the Confederate Constitution stacks up against those values? Hmmmmmm?

 

A manifest absurdity. It is the axiomatic legal document of an independent American state signed and passed by the Continental congress.

Your legal theories are not supported by a shred of valid legal construction or legal philosophy. It's nothing more than a ham-fisted regurgitation of "might makes right" nonsense.

 

No, not at all. The constitution is the governing legal document in this country. The DOI is merely a statement of principles and a list of complaints against King George. It has no legal force and there's a reason they call it 'constitutional law' and not 'DOI law'.

 

From the changing moral perceptions and advancements in technology that were happening at the time. It's basic history. Every western country was in the process of abolishing chattel slavery peacefully. Obviously, some countries and areas would take longer than others, but the process was largely inexorable given the prevailing trends at the time. Economically speaking, machinery is far more profitable than chattel slaves, who need to be housed, fed, and looked after, so even if there was no political will to abolish slavery among the slavers in the south, a strong economic incentive in the form of the industrial revolution would have provided effective means to accomplish that end.

A political document penned by the elites and slavers. Certainly not broadly representative of the southern people or the prevailing economic reality.

Largely comparable, since slavery was perfectly constitutional and legal, at least, according to Republicans like William Seward.

 

Indeed it does, but the context makes it clear the Founders considered the legitimate exercise of that right to be contingent on certain criteria; and if any entity failed to meet those criteria it was surely the Confederacy.

 

And on what lawful or moral authority does it profess to rest? Why does the US Constitution have any more legitimate authority over Americans than the deluded scrawling of a hobo?

A statement of FIRST principles that are the professed lawful basis upon which any government, to include the US government, may exist.

It was signed and passed by the continental congress, a representative governing body of the American people.

If the DOI has no legal authority, then neither does the USC.

 

I'm sorry, I can't take that question seriously.

Which doesn't actually make it a governing legal document, as any authority it might have had, if ever, was replaced by the constitution, which is actually outlines the manner and structures which will form the gov't, the specific rights of the citizens and the powers the gov't has. The DOI simply doesn't do any of that.

Tell me, when a judge rules against a law, is it found 'unconstitutional' or 'undeclarationofindependenceal'?

 

The DOI expresses or implies no such thing, and even if it did, the last entity who would make such a determination is the entity which they are attempting to declare independence from, otherwise King George would have had some kind legitimate input on whether or not the founding fathers had met such "criteria".

Consent of the governed, which the federal government did not have.

 

Because you do not have a legitimate answer to the question. You simply subscribe to the "government is magical" theory of politics which doesn't require the supporters of a state entity to morally justify its authority. You simply assume, with absolutely no use of reason or morality, that the state is inherently justified, and that whatever authority it exercises is similarly justified. You cannot explain how such a state comes into existence legitimately without running into a dozen contradictions and inconsistencies in your own thought processes.

Nothing in the constitution can possible supersede the first principles enumerated in the DOI, and any lawful authority the USC professes to have is based entirely on the first principles that were enumerated in American's founding document.

 

And I consider your inability to form a coherent explanation of your political philosophy to be absurd and irrelevant.

You don't seem to have any other justification for your position. Feel free to produce one.

So far you have produced absolutely nothing in the way of a substantive position and are just wasting everyone's time.

 

What we're interested in, of course, is evidence that such moral perceptions were changing in the seceding states. Where the hell is it?

With the implied consent of the southern populace.

So you've assured me many a time; but alas, you have yet to vouchsafe me a shred of evidence to this effect.

Which is of no moment whatsoever, since the question was about the values in the DoI, not anything in the US Constitution. Care to try again?

It most certainly does, and I'll be happy to connect the dots for you if you're interested.

Hell, I'll even do it if you fake being interested, as long as you're not too obvious about it.

 

I haven't been asked to explain my political philosophy, so please spare me your straw men and try to peddle them off on someone dumb enough to fall for them.

My position is that the DOI is not a governing legal document. The entire history of US case law backs up my claim.

Coming from a poster who makes nothing but bare assertions and unjustified assumptions, you'll forgive me if I laugh at the obvious fact that you're desperate to be taken seriously, and really upset that you're not.

 

Why don't you start with the fact that even as early as the late 1700's southern leaders like Thomas Jefferson were speaking out against the institution of slavery, and that George Washington emancipated his slaves after his death? Or perhaps you can conduct some research into southern abolitionists like Moncure Conway? Or perhaps you can look at the fact that slavery was being abolished all throughout the west, albeit on varying timelines. But even without such changing perceptions, the industrial revolution would have provided an irresistable economic incentive to abandon the institution in favor of industrial farming techniques which are far more profitable than chattel slavery.

In what way was their consent "implied"?

You're the one who is alleging that such documents are representative of the southern people and not just the elitists who wrote them, so the onus is actually on you to demonstrate that, otherwise, your position begins to fall apart because I can simply cite the FACT that most confederate soldiery did not own slaves and did not even really benefit from the institution in a direct manner, as many of them were small scale hunters and farmers who had to compete with larger plantations.

But your entire position rests on the legitimacy of the US Constitution as a governing document.

There are no dots to be connected, and even if there were, the last entity in the world who would legitimately make such a determination is the entity from which a people are declaring their independence. In other words, even if such a criteria for the legitimate declaration of independence did exist, which it doesn't, then it would not be King George III or Abraham Lincoln making the determination.

 

That is precisely what I'm challenging you to do when I defy you to explain on what lawful or moral basis the US Constitution professes to rest. The fact that you cannot do this proves that you don't actually have a well-thought out, consistent political philosophy and are just making it up as you go along.

Your position isn't backed up a shred of logic or evidence, and all logic and evidence dictates otherwise.

And the "entire history of US case law" is a massive jumble of contradictory rulings and opinions that include rulings like Dredd Scott v. Sandford which uphold the legality of slavery and the secondary status of African Americans.

More wasting people's time. Why don't you say something halfway truthful or intelligent for a change?

 

LOL! I accept your non-stop bluster and grandstanding as your surrender.

A word of advice: when you clearly don't know what you're braying about, stop braying.

 

You need to ask a rather obvious question. If slavery was on the way out why was it still the basis of just about all the profitable Southern plantations? If it was no longer economically viable then why wasn't whatever the alternative was already replacing it, instead of being completely nonexistent?

You are indeed right that manumitting one's slaves on one's death was becoming common in Washington and Jefferson's day. The custom stopped in about 1810 though, with the invention of the cotton gin, Slavery increased precipitately after that and by 1860 slaves comprised the largest single asset in the United States.

You need to read Kenneth Stampp's Peculiar Institution. First written in the late 1960's it remains the standard reference on the subject of the unique form of slavery that evolved in the American South between 1790 and 1861.

 

My opinions on this matter have changed drastically.

I was a bit blinded by my distaste for the type of person that typically advocates for state independence. I mistakenly viewed it as being good only for the type of bigotry that it's so often used as a cover for.

 

Pro tip: SC seceded from USA the year before the war started. Go check it out. I'm not bull cheesing you.

 

Because nothing from that period is going to tell me a damn thing about the societal consensus in the South circa 1860. You're welcome.

For what purpose? Should I also think better of Vichy France on account of incipient French resistance?

What would that tell me about the attitude towards slavery in the South?

This is speculation, not evidence.

By their failure to revolt against the "elites and slavers" instead of the Union, obviously.

Certainly that's one way of looking at it. The other is that you're the one alleging that slavery was a minor issue from the southern perspective, so the onus is actually on you to demonstrate that. In either case, it's plain that I've done a helluva lot better job of supporting my allegation than you have of supporting yours.

Which might be interesting if that necessarily translated to anything like antipathy to slavery by the peasant class, but it doesn't.

Be that as it may, my entire position is not the issue at the moment. The issue is how well the Confederate Constitution stacks up against the values enunciated in the DoI.

Guess some ideas are just too scary.

 

Good post.

I have trouble understanding what Etherial is trying to say.

In point of fact, slavery had been in decline in the South throughout the late 18th century

None the less, Southerners fought hard to keep any discussion of it OUT of the US Constitution in 1789.

The introduction of the cotton gin reversed the decline and led to a huge increase in slavery in the South.

The largest decade for slave imports was the first decade of the 19th century.

One has to remember also, that slavery was the key issue in every debate regarding the expansion of the Union before 1861, also.

 

Actually it was four months.

 

I said "Pro tip: SC seceded from USA the year before the war started." Pop quiz: What was THE YEAR before the war started? Hint: The war started in 1861. Let me know if you are having a rough time with 1861 - 1 on your calculator. I can shoot you a link to a calculator app for your droid phone if need be.