Title: Judge Napolitano: Lincoln Set About On The Most Murderous War In American History Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Mar 9, 2015 Author:Judge Andrew Napolitano Post Date:2015-03-09 12:57:06 by James Deffenbach Keywords:None Views:1779 Comments:92
"Do I contradict myself...very well...I contradict myself...I am large...I contain multitudes..."
t's called moral high ground and integrity. We comment here constantly about how our liberties at home have been trounced and quenched, as we "fight for liberty" around the globe.
Um...uh...in the 19th century we had no such policy as we weren't in to Empire Building. I may *judge* history, as I sit here today, only if I limit my judgement to the *events* of history and not the *ethics* of it.
Ethics belong to the philosophers not the historians.
We also comment here, from time to time, about what the Framers and Founders *envisioned* and *created*. Some were drunkards and some were elitists, fornicators, slave holders, and some were corrupt businessmen who gained their wealth through the Black Market. Should I reject what they have created based upon my 21st century *sense* of morality?
No matter how you slice it, if the war was primarily about slavery, then freeing only slaves in the Confederacy would make zero sense.
Non-sequitur...had Lincoln made the EP universal, he most likely would have lost the support of the border states. Most of those States had their own internal *hot* wars going on.
You really need to ask yourself this question: If there was NO slavery in the US, would there have been a Civil War?
There is no way that the question can be answered *yes* with a high degree of probability.
When you add slavery and the political and legislative conflagrations that the issue had been causing since the FOUNDING then the *probability* rises to near certainly.
I had a bad tag in this post which is why it was *EDITED* but neither of your links work.
You really need to ask yourself this question: If there was NO slavery in the US, would there have been a Civil War?
There is no way that the question can be answered *yes* with a high degree of probability.
I'm not sure what to say.
The Civil War was fought primarily, and initially entirely over the South's decision to secede.
A number of people, many in fact, have written and stated that slavery would have been worked out over time anyway, just as women's voting rights and black civil rights were in the 1960's for example.
No fool would start a war over just slavery. You need to review real history. You're wrong, flat out wrong.
Slavery was a tool, brought into the conflict to gain favor from certain parties, least of which was not public opinion. And look how well it has worked.
Kind of like everyone thinking that Hitler was responsible for WWII or that Germany was responsible for WWI, nonsense. It was much more Britain in both cases.
Again, I'm not sure what to say, but if you believe that then no doubt you believe that Oswald actually shot Kennedy too, or worse yet, that 911 wasn't an inside job. It's essentially the same thing.
A number of people, many in fact, have written and stated that slavery would have been worked out over time
Good for them...what was it that made them *think* that? The total lack of willingness of the Slave States to *negotiate* a diminishment of the institution up until Lincoln's election when they decided to secede?
The cSA's constitution forbade manumission and clearly established slaves as property. That alone makes that *observation* moot.
...just as women's voting rights and black civil rights were in the 1960's for example.
The Civil Rights movement required the presence of the US Military to enforce. It required the ABSOLUTE force of government to institute.
Again, I'm not sure what to say, but if you believe that then no doubt you believe that Oswald actually shot Kennedy too, or worse yet, that 911 wasn't an inside job. It's essentially the same thing.
Well...that's just kind of a silly conclusion...
I believe neither and neither of those are tied to what I believe about other unrelated events...
This is well-reasoned document concerning the reasons the Civil War occurred.
Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.
The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred.
I know for many years, we have been taught that the Civil War was all about the abolition of slavery, but this truly did not become a major issue, with the exception of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1862, when Abraham Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort. The war had been in progress for two years by that time.
Most southerners did not even own slaves nor did they own plantations. Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. They were fighting for their rights. They were fighting to maintain their lifestyle and their independence the way they wanted to without the United States Government dictating to them how they should behave.
Why are we frequently taught then, that the Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States, or whatever you want to call it, was solely about slavery? That is because the history books are usually written by the winners of a war and this war was won by the Union. However, after following my family around since I was just a year old to Civil War Living History scenarios in Gettysburg and elsewhere, I have listened to both sides of the story, from those portraying historical figures, both Union and Confederate. Through listening to these people and also reading many different books, including some of the volumes of The Official Records of the Civil War, Death in September, The Insanity of It All, Every Day Life During the Civil War, and many others, I have come to the conclusion that the Civil War was about much more than abolishing the institution of slavery.
It was more about preserving the United States and protecting the rights of the individual, the very tenets upon which this country was founded. I personally think that the people who profess that the Civil War was only fought about slavery have not read their history books. I really am glad that slavery was abolished, but I don't think it should be glorified as being the sole reason the Civil War was fought. There are so many more issues that people were intensely passionate about at the time. Slavery was one of them, but it was not the primary cause of the war. The primary causes of the war were economics and states' rights.
Slavery was a part of those greater issues, but it was not the reason the Southern States seceded from the Union, nor fought the Civil War. It certainly was a Southern institution that was part of the economic system of the plantations, and because of that, it was part and parcel of the economic reasons that the South formed the Confederacy. The economic issue was one of taxation and being able to sell cotton and other raw materials where the producers wanted to, rather than where they were forced to, and at under inflated prices. Funny, it sounds very much like the reason we broke from Great Britain to begin with. The South was within their rights, but there should have been another way to solve the problem. If they had been willing to listen to Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the war could have been avoided. Lincoln had a plan to gradually free the slaves without it further hurting the plantation owners. He also had a plan to allow them to sell their products anywhere they wanted to and at a fair price. They did not choose to listen to the President, however, so they formed the Confederacy and the Civil War began.
Here's an excerpt from the summary, and IHR is a tremendously well researched site.
In waging war to force southern states back into the federal union, President Lincoln for example suspended the constitutional rights of free speech and habeas corpus by shutting down anti-war newspapers and jailing without trial anti-war political figures. Although slavery did end as a consequence of the conflict, it was not the cause of the war, nor was it Lincoln's goal.
An excerpt, and about the most concise accurate summary I've seen of the CW;
Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter.
Slavery factored into, but was hardly the primary reason, why the Confederate states wanted to secede. The northern states, with DC at its core, had been taxing the daylights out of them too.
Slavery was simply the piece of the bigger picture that was highlighted due to its emotional volatility, you can understand that, right? I mean it's the same as how the FFs of 911, OKC, Waco and the BDs, Israel via the Palestineans, etc. etc. are sold. It could just as easily have been the south not "paying its fair share" or some other shit like that.
It's clear that you won't be swayed and have your viewpoint cemented in your head, I did once too on this topic insofar as I cared, so let's simply part ways on this topic each thinking what one will.
BTW, that HuffPo piece is hardly apologetic for the South. I disagree with the author's final premise, or the notion that the welfare of the United States is or should be more important than the individual rights of each and every state, a huge issue today even, but he gets the cause of the war correct.
I just wanted to state that I do not agree with the underlying premise of the author, I merely agree that he's done an accurate job of laying out the background behind it.
I'll save myself some major hits here by stating all that. LOL
If there was NO slavery in the US, would there have been a Civil War?
There is no way that the question can be answered *yes* with a high degree of probability.
Yes, with a high degree of probability because swarms of warmongers agitated methodically then, before that and as they still do now to achieve their massive slaughters and destructions. The only difference to them would have been that they couldn't have instigated for slave revolts to massacre Southerners like they were doing, even though there were northern slave-holding states throughout the entire war and even D.C. had some there.
Neither secession or the war started over slavery. Lincoln's election and attempted takeover of South Carolina's property, Fort Sumter, caused all of that. Even so, 8 slave States didn't move to secede when South Carolina did first and then 6 others. Months later, 4 of the 8 decided to secede, too -- in objection to Lincoln's use of force when it was clear that he was going to invade the South. So, do the math and that'll give you the answer to how many Union slave States there were.
Btw, northern states were the first to move for secession in America's history and, until the American Revolution ended, slavery on this continent was the business of Britain and other nations. General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves before going to war. General U.S. Grant didn't free his until after the war when he had to. South America had more slaves than we did and Native Americans were the last slaveholders here.
Here is a link that explains some the THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE CIVIL WAR: States' Rights, taxation/tariffs enriching the North and impoverishing the South, Northern domination politically and of electoral votes, the new Republican Party of Lincoln excluding Southerners, federal protectionism and subsidies for Northern business interests...
Edited spelling and punctuation.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Well...you're basing this on a false premise...I never stated that slavery was the only issue...but what I did state was that slavery was at the root of every issue.
Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.
States don't have *rights* they have power; only people have rights. The power that they sought was to determine the status of a human as free or property.
Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority.
Can you cite a compelling casus belli circa 1840-50 that was not linked to Slavery and that would have resulted in state secession?
...even though there were northern slave-holding states throughout the entire war and even D.C. had some there.
The border states were not *Northern* states but were all below Mason-Dixon. There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery.
Neither secession or the war started over slavery. Lincoln's election and attempted takeover of South Carolina's property, Fort Sumter, caused all of tha
Fort Sumter was US government property. When South Carolina seceded they declared their sovereign soil. So, yea, secession was at the root of Sumter.
States' Rights, taxation/tariffs enriching the North and impoverishing the South
Those taxes and tariffs were *punishment* for slavery...again...read the statements of secession...
Most southerners did not even own slaves nor did they own plantations.
Why is that point relevant? I've been asking that question for over 30 years and have never gotten a decent answer...
Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. They were fighting for their rights. They were fighting to maintain their lifestyle and their independence the way they wanted to without the United States Government dictating to them how they should behave.
Again...what *rights* did the small farmer *think* that he was fighting for? Taxes and tariffs were aimed at what, today, would be corporate farms...
Well...you're basing this on a false premise...I never stated that slavery was the only issue...but what I did state was that slavery was at the root of every issue.
John Casor (surname also recorded as Cazara and Corsala),[1] a servant in Northampton County in the Virginia Colony, in 1655 became the first person of African descent in Britain's Thirteen Colonies to be declared as a slave for life as the result of a civil suit.[2][3] In an earlier case, John Punch was the first man documented as a slave in the Virginia Colony, sentenced to life in servitude for attempting to escape his indenture.[4]
In one of the earliest freedom suits, Casor argued that he was an indentured servant who had been forced by Anthony Johnson, a free black, to serve past his term; he was freed and went to work for Robert Parker as an indentured servant. Johnson sued Parker for Casor's services. In ordering Casor returned to his master, Johnson, for life, the court both declared Casor a slave and sustained the right of free blacks to own slaves.
Link edit.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
No it was not. The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territories. US government property would be like office supplies donated to it by businesses and not purchased with our taxes. Even D.C. isn't the property of "the government" but all of the United States plural.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
...even though there were northern slave-holding states throughout the entire war and even D.C. had some there.
The border states were not *Northern* states but were all below Mason-Dixon. There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery.
Did I say "border states"? No, I didn't. You did. We're not discussing the Mason-Dixon line's colonial border disputes of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware but the war between the Union and the Confederacy aka "The North" and "The South". Go ahead, though, and read the "northern" phrasing as "Union slave-holding states" instead, if that helps to clarify. Btw, the Mason-Dixon line extended into what was part of Confederate Virginia until that region of it seceded to the Union and became West Virginia -- its 5th slaveholding border State, which does span well north of the supposed "cultural boundary" between the North and the South. The other four slaveholding border States of the Union were Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. New Jersey and New Hampshire were two more slaveholding Union States that were well above the Mason-Dixon line.
Most northern states passed legislation for gradual abolition, first freeing children born to slave mothers (and providing for them to serve indentures to their mother's masters, often into their 20s as young adults). As a result of this gradualist approach, New York did not free its last slaves until 1827, Rhode Island had five slaves still listed in the 1840 census, Pennsylvania's last slaves were freed in 1847, Connecticut did not completely abolish slavery until 1848, slavery was not completely lifted in New Hampshire and New Jersey until the nationwide emancipation in 1865.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
States don't have *rights* they have power; only people have rights. The power that they sought was to determine the status of a human as free or property.
Power is a right of the States, which are more than government "powerhouses" on land. They are representatives of the rights and powers of the people. For example, the first 13 original States had the right to join the Unions of the Articles of Confederation and then that of the Constitution or not. They had the right to delegate some of their power to the Federal government for purposes of the common defense and such. They had the right to retain all of their State powers which weren't so delegated. Just as rights of the people are inherent, so are rights of the States inherent with their statehood for the necessary and proper administrative duties as protectorates of their citizenry and territory -- rightfully empowered, not tyrannically empowered or limited to "mightfully" empowered if they can muster enough clout.
A plaque at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery describes states’ rights as a doctrine that “protected the institution of slavery.”
This conventional history provides a handy rhetorical weapon for liberal commentators, who accuse states’ rights conservatives of embracing a doctrine historically identified with “pro-slavery ideologies and . . . the disenfranchisement of African-Americans,” as the Nation puts it.
But what if the lessons of history are wrong, and the doctrine of states’ rights was actually an antislavery ideology?
Federal law guaranteed the return of fugitive slaves to their masters. [...] Congress did prohibit international slave trade in 1808; but by that time, every Southern state except South Carolina had already passed laws banning or restricting the slave trade.
[A] major states’ rights issue leading up to the war concerned the right of free states and territories to exclude slavery within their borders.
The Confederate Constitution was a nearly verbatim copy of the U.S. Constitution —except that, when it came to slavery, it gave more power to the central government and less to the states.
contrary to many such arguments you hear today, the Civil War was not sparked by federal efforts to abolish slavery: there were no such efforts before the South seceded. The war arose from Northern assertions of states’ rights [...]. After the war, however, it became irresistible for federal politicians—eager to justify an expanded role for the national government—to associate states’ rights with the Confederacy and, therefore, slavery.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Four of the eleven Southern states did not join in the first wave of secession and did not secede over slavery. Those four states—Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia—only seceded months later when Lincoln made it clear he was going to launch an invasion. In fact, those states initially voted against secession by fairly sizable majorities. However, they believed the Union should not be maintained by force. Therefore, when Lincoln announced he was calling up 75,000 troops to form an invasion force, they held new votes, and in each case the vote was strongly in favor of secession. Thus, four of the eleven states that comprised the Confederacy seceded because of their objection to the federal government’s use of force and not because of slavery.
Virtually no history textbooks mention the fact that each Confederate state retained the right to abolish slavery within its borders, and that the Confederate Constitution permitted the admission of free states to the Confederacy. In his analysis of the Confederate Constitution, historian Forrest McDonald says the following:
All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains, and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed—the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy. (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204)
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains
Nope. 100% wrong.
ARTICLE IV
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
That is a separate, independent clause and states quite clearly that according to the law...once a slave always a slave...
, and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed—the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy. (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204)
Again...once they joined the confederacy their constitution established slavery within their borders.
Four of the eleven Southern states did not join in the first wave of secession and did not secede over slavery.
Virginia did not secede at first because it debated declaring itself a free, unitary state. That said, it most certainly did sight slavery in its secession ordinance...
It's fully on record that numerous Union generals had multiple slaves.
I'm well aware of Grant et al marrying Southern women who had slaves and because of sexist laws the *property* defaulted to their husbands. It's a meaningless bit of moral relativism. I'm also aware of his alleged ownership of William Jones whom Grant manumitted not long after *acquiring*....
I'm unaware of Sherman owning any slaves. I have seen it alleged but have never been shown proof.
I'm suprised that you don't also believe that 911, OKC, and JFK are all according to government history books as well.
I witnessed 9/11 first hand to the point of being at the corner of Liberty and Church/Trinity when the second plane went in...so...I'm not sure what your point there is...do I believe there was a controlled demolition? No. I do believe that flight 93 was shot down.
OKC, I find it hard to believe that the conspiracy wasn't wider...
Please. Both owned slaves. Again, it's sophistry to promote the idea that Grant owned slaves (which he did via his wife) and state that Lee did not but his wife did.
Lee wasn't a landowner until he married...
Jackson owned several slaves and apparently leased them to local business.
Committee on Federal Relations In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R." "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territorie
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:
"Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock- Yards and other needful Buildings."
Four of the eleven Southern states did not join in the first wave of secession and did not secede over slavery.
Virginia did not secede at first because it debated declaring itself a free, unitary state.
Virginia seceded to the Confederacy after Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter. West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Me: Did I say "border states"? No, I didn't. You did
You: And I was correct when I *said* it.
Me: Btw, the Mason-Dixon line extended into what was part of Confederate Virginia until that region of it seceded to the Union
You: IRC, the Line did not include what is now the WVA panhandle...
No, you weren't correct when you said at #22: "There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery." Even though you misinterpreted my point at paragraph 1 of #20 in regard to the Union's slaveholding States (northward of the Confederacy but see also the westerly U.S. territories) throughout the entire war, as if that pertained to border states only, you should easily be able to confirm that WVA still spans well above the Mason Dixon line -- as does New Jersey and New Hampshire referenced at #30, which were two more northern slaveholding States of the Union all during the war and not border States only (which you seemingly overlook as excusable). Those slaveholding States (one of them -- New Hampshire -- squarely in New England) in addition to the 5 border States amount to fully 1/3 of the Union being slave States and Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" freed none of them from slavery. It was a year into the war before slavery in the Union's own capitol-city of Washington D.C. was monetarily facilitated towards being ended there by the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. Even with that, the fugitive slave laws still applied and D.C. was reportedly among slaveholders after the war until slavery was officially abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment [Ref. Slavery in the United States: The end of slavery - Wikipedia].
You've also been provided evidence that Blacks were slave owners here too. Native Americans were the last to free their slaves after the war, Military personnel of the Union were among the last and Lincoln himself was married to the daughter of a slave owner. As I recall, we even had to abolish slavery in America again after we acquired Alaska from Russia. At the time of the "Civil War", America was still a new nation struggling to become strong enough to free itself from the business of slavery that other nations had entrenched here. Even so, a quarter of a million lives could have been spared by a Compensated Emancipation transition for less than it cost financially to wage that war. Your compulsion to exonerate "the North" and blame "the South" by arguing against the encompassing evidence in a narrowed misfocus on Slavery as "righteous justification" or whatever for the slaughter and carnage very nearly borders irrationally on the absurb but is rather worse than that, imo. More like barbarous in a "horrific ends justify the annihilative means, however unnecessarily" sort of way.
Contextual edits at paragraph 1.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You can do your own research but that's just one source citing census data for the "Civil War" era. In New Orleans alone, 3,000/28% of free Blacks were slave owners. Many black slaveowners had numerous slaves. Your racial blood level speculations are like grasping at straws but do suggest that slavery here was mostly an economics-based problem and on that I wouldn't disagree.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
From the source at my post #32: All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains
Nope. 100% wrong.
ARTICLE IV
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
That is a separate, independent clause and states quite clearly that according to the law...once a slave always a slave...
Also from the above linked source at my post #32: and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed— the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy. (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204)
Again...once they joined the confederacy their constitution established slavery within their borders.
You have misread your own Article IV example of the Confederate Constitution, which actually doesn't prohibit the abolition of slavery in those States nor does it prohibit the admission of new States without slavery. It's simply a citizenry rights clause, inclusive of their interstate travel and property protection rights, which is also inclusive of slaves as property. By stipulating all of that, it extends protecton of travel and property for slave owners (of any race) within existing States of the Confederacy and/or new ones which might choose to be independent of whatever slave-commerce entanglements and such were still extant among the others. It doesn't even go to the enforcement extent there of the U.S. Constitution's Article IV fugitive slave clause. [Edit to add also that a two-thirds majority vote in agreement for the admission of new States, with or without slaves, was nothing unusual. Compare to the U.S. standard operating procedure so.]
There were many freed Blacks within the Confederacy, so your assertion of perpetual slavery is ostentatious as well as 100% wrong, as is your assertion about an establishment of slavery intra-territorially as a condition of Confederate statehood. The U.S. Constitution established slavery lawfully within its domain. Slavery was notoriously even a legality Biblically. Not only did South America have more slaves than we did, there's problaby no realm on earth that didn't have slavery at some point and likely more of it longer. The most unusual thing about it here is that it ended much quicker after America's nationhood than it did in virtually all other places throughout history.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territories
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:
"Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings."
That's the wrong clause from which to argue your contention because it's about the establishment of D.C. (not exceeding ten Miles square) as the positional seat of Federal government under Congressional authority and upon its locality acceptance of land(s) granted for that construction project by one or more of the States; as well as structural appropriations therein requiring consent of the State legislature(s) wherein "the Same" D.C./District of Columbia was to be situated for administrative purposes -- not for a monarchal ownership of the United States. Better for you to cite the actual so-called "Property Clause", which is the 2nd at Section 3 of Article IV:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.[8]
That amounts to a "power of attorney" for Congress to act regulatorily as needed on behalf of the States and per agreed land zoning for Indian tribes too -- not a title transferance of State Property to "the government" or even to the Congress of it. As I said before, "government property" arguably amounts only to donated supplies not purchased with our taxes and a strong case could be made against even that much being "unduly" considered joint-property of all the States as acquired in the course of duties for the Constitutional Union. It does not have the power, for example, to dispose of the Constitution's Union by disposing of our States if it wants to (secessionist though they leaningly may be, like Hawaii and Texas).
Edited formatting + 1st and last sentences of comment paragraph 1.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Virginia seceded to the Confederacy after Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter...
When Virginia voted to secede it did not agree to join the confederacy. What it did do was enter in to a temporary military treaty with it. They had called a May 1861 plebiscite to determine if they should join the confederacy or remain an independent republic. About 10 days after the secession vote and after intense negotiations with the provisional government of the confederacy led by the VP, Alexander Hamilton something(his last name escapes me and I'm too lazy to google at this time) they decided to join IF Richmond was made the capital.
West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.
You're a microcosm of exactly why we'll never get anywhere in this country by anything close to a majority.
Okay thanks for that...
You'd rather be right than accurate and factual.
You can't be *right* unless you are accurate and factual. Nor can you be *right* simply by stating your beliefs in the broadest of terms while offering no support whatsoever for them. That's why religion is so screwed up.
PS: Now would be a good time for you to make an argument.
"There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery."
There was one...Delaware...sorry...I stand corrected...
You've also been provided evidence that Blacks were slave owners here too.
Can you point out where I have disputed that?
America was still a new nation struggling to become strong enough to free itself from the business of slavery that other nations had entrenched here.
Huh? You sound like my neighbor. He's a high end general contractor who seems to be on a mission to educate everyone about the *evils* of illegal immigration. 75% of this *workforce* is itinerant Hispanic labor. So It Goes.
The subject of ending slavery was contemporary to just about every eve3nt that led to the Revolution. America did that to itself. We cannot blame other nations.
Even so, a quarter of a million lives could have been spared by a Compensated Emancipation transition for less than it cost financially to wage that war.
Legal manumission was free. You, yourself, stated that states could determine if slaveholding was legal or not.
Your compulsion to exonerate "the North" and blame "the South" by arguing against the encompassing evidence in a narrowed misfocus on Slavery as "righteous justification" or whatever for the slaughter and carnage very nearly borders irrationally on the absurb (sic) but is rather worse than that, imo.
I haven't exonerated anyone. What I have done is state, factually, that slavery was at the root of the issues that have been cited that caused the Civil War.
That's the wrong clause from which to argue your contention because it's about the establishment of D.C....
That particular clause was quoted directly to you and it clearly establishes the power to acquire property for forts. IF we were discussing speech and I cited the First Amendment would you state that I was *wrong* because 1A was the *religious* amendment?
But giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you did not read the *entire* clause:
Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever...over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings...
Better for you to cite the actual so-called "Property Clause", which is the 2nd at Section 3 of Article IV:
Art IV (3) assumes that the property is already purchased and grants the government the power of rule making over their assets or *management* and *control* over it.
As I said before, "government property" arguably amounts only to donated supplies not purchased with our taxes
You were wrong *before*, too.
and a strong case could be made against even that much being "unduly" considered joint-property of all the States as acquired in the course of duties for the Constitutional Union.
See: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 143 (1937).
Only when the state makes a clear claim of concurrent governance. South Carolina, as I showed above, did not when it deeded Sumter to the Fed Gov...