Go Home People

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Dec 27, 2013.

  1. Gatormb
    Offline

    Gatormb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,376
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Bradenton, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +1,145
    World sentiment had already turned against slavery (thank you Christianity). The North was afraid that France and England would come to the aid of the South. The EP was a brilliant political move to make it appear the war was being fought over slavery (as opposed to states rights) thus France and England would appear to be pro-slavery.

    A brilliant move by Lincoln.
  2. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,603
    Likes Received:
    5,292
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,444
    while slavery was certainly an issue it was not the only issue

    States Rights was also an issue

    and the fact that most of the goods sold in the US were produced in the South but refined in the North was also an issue

    and finally so was the election of Lincoln an issue

    Northern States had slaves and the EP did not free all slaves, just all the slaves in the south-Lincoln issued the EP because he thought it would cripple the South and it certainly was a good part of it
  3. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,841
    Because it was the end of the country the way it was intended to be governed. We now have more fed power and less state sovereignty than the constitution calls for
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    Eh, every "northern" state had abolished slavery by 1804. Border states were most affected. By the war's start there were ~ 4M slaves and by the enactment of the 13th Amendment fewer than 50k were left.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,603
    Likes Received:
    5,292
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,444

    40 years after the EP
  6. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,980
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,557

    This has always been the big question for me. We're talking about something that was agreed to voluntarily (becoming a state in the first place) creating a nation whose keystone was individual rights, and yet once entered into there is no "choice" when it comes to succession? I'm no Constitutional scholar, but where does it say that once the southern states signed on there was no going back (getting out)?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,824
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +851
    The only states right that mattered enough to the south to secede over was the right to have slavery. As for the EP only freeing southern slaves, so what? It was quickly followed by the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery in the US. Lincoln fought hard for the 13th Amendment.
  8. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    Check your math on that one.
  9. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    45,021
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +4,586
    I doubt he would have fought so hard for it if the South had stayed with the Union.
  10. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,880
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,177
    Sure, had war been avoided, the Northern Democrats rather than the Radical Republicans would have been the power brokers and deal makers in gov't. But as it were, the South decided to fire shots at Ft. Sumter so there was a war. As the war grew longer and uglier, the Democrats became increasingly marginalized, and the agenda of the Radical Republicans grew in popularity.
  11. harwil
    Offline

    harwil Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,806
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +159
    And that's indicative of the fact that he didn't believe he had the executive power to do so.The EP was a wartime measure.And the South had to ratify the 13th and 14th Amendments to be "readmitted" to the Union.So you have the irony of States who believed they had the right to secede asking to be readmitted while the Union states who said there was no right to secede, required them to be readmitted. Very Curious
  12. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,980
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,557

    That, I believe, is Irony folks.
  13. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,980
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,557

    Nevertheless, nobody has explained why states who voluntarily joined a union would subsequently not be allowed to choose to remove themselves from that union. Just like slavery, it seems to go against the concept of a free society.
  14. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,824
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +851
    Of course not. He ran for president on not allowing slavery to expand to new states, not abolishing it entirely. Lincoln's long term goal was to starve slavery until it went away. By creating more free states, the slave states would be more and more isolated and have less power in Washington.
  15. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,824
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +851
    So if you voluntarily enter into a contract does that mean you can cancel the contract any time you want? There was nothing in the Constitution granting the right of secession.
  16. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,980
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,557
    Depends on the circumstances. Certainly I could legally challenge it and if I have grounds, have it dissolved. Also, contracts typically have a defined ending point, the Constitution does not. Your last point is, however, probably the best argument against it. Still, intellectually, it puzzles me. Also, and given the cultural differences between the regions, why did Lincoln and the North care?
  17. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,824
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +851
    It's all quite moot anyway. The question of whether states can unilaterally voluntarily leave the union was settled by the Civil War. The answer is no.
  18. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,535
    Likes Received:
    458
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,617
    That's right. If the wife wants to leave, just beat the bitch into submission. Knock that thought right the hell out of her head. Marriage is forever.

    Did I get that right? ;)
    • Like Like x 1
  19. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    45,021
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +4,586
    Actually it wasn't settled, at least not in entirety. It only stopped those states at that time from leaving by the use of force. The legality of it is still not settled and it may be tested again one day. I hope it doesn't but it is far from a given that it won't.
  20. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,824
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +851
    The south seceded knowing that it would very likely lead to war. It did, brought on by the south's own zealousness in firing upon Sumter. Since there's nothing in the constitution that covers secession, historical precedent is what we have to go on.

Share This Page