| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Facts about slavery |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Facts about slavery |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 |
|
|||||||||||||
| Facts about slavery | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 03:31 pm |
|
21st Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
The Kentucky state legislature never approves a secession convention. The secession 'government' exists on paper and as part of the Army of Tennessee, it never exerts any authority. Governor Magoffin is as strong a pro-secession supporter as can be. He says: "The people of Kentucky will never stand by with folded arms while those States are struggling for their constitutional rights and resisting oppression and being subjugated to an anti-slavery government." The seceded states declarations of secession are their 'Declarations of Independence', carefully crafted and including the reasons for secession targeting both their constituents and posterity. The reasons for secession are plainly stated and slavery dwarfs the list...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 03:44 pm |
|
22nd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
Hank C- You can try to discredit the Kentucky Ordinance if you wish to. I brought it out as explaining the Constitutional argument for the right of secession. The statement of Governor Magoffin that you presented talked about: "Struggling for Constitutional rights", and: "Resisting oppression," before mentioning an: "Anti-slavery government" being forced upon them. As you stated, Governor Magoffin believed in the right of the states to secede, while attempting the impossible task of preserving the neutrality of the state. My position has been that protecting the institution of slavery was not the sole reason for the secession of the various states. It was less so in some than in others. If you wish to believe that slavery was the only reason for the conflict between the sections, that is your right. Last edited on Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 04:14 pm by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 04:44 pm |
|
23rd Post |
|
Doc Ce Member
|
TD After the Constitutional Convention, the next compromise was the selection of DC as the new capitol and the federal govt. taking over states revolutionary war debts. And the list of further compromises goes on and on. Doc C
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 04:58 pm |
|
24th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Doc Ce- Absolutely right. The Founding Fathers had a difficult task trying to make a nation out of what was in the 18th Century a hodge podge of 13 different little kingdoms of sorts. It took years to get it together and even then the idea of a strong central government was scary to a lot of people. This necessitated the addition of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in order to reassure the people by limiting the powers of the new Federal Government. Last edited on Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 04:59 pm by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 09:14 pm |
|
25th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
The Kentucky Ordinance is ratified when, where and by whom? A typical Iowan or Pennsylvanian is no less freedom- and constitutional rights-loving than a Georgian or Texan. I believe it's more than a random coincidence that all the seceding states are slave-holding  HankC
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 10:15 pm |
|
26th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Hank C- I advanced the Kentucky Secession Ordinance as giving a Constitutional justification for secession. I never said that it was ratified. The secessionist faction did not control a majority of the state legislature at the outbreak of hostilities. To Mr. Lincoln, it would not have mattered if it had been ratified or not. In 1860, he believed that the threat of the states to secede was all bluff. In 1861, his position was that they had never actually left the Union, regardless of what their legislatures did. As for the attitudes of those in the different regions toward the Constitution, there were obviously different views of what the Constitution said in the majority in different places. Generally speaking, most southerners believed that the Constitution allowed the states to leave the Union, that it had been a voluntary compact of the states that would not necessarily last forever. To most in the north, the Union was perpetual, and the states could not choose to leave it. During the history of the Republic, it was not only the southern states that at one time or another , considered secession as a possible course of action. During the war of 1812, some in the north had a different view of states rights and secession than they exhibited in 1860. The Hartford Convention The difference of opinion between those who maintained that secession was legal and those who maintained that it wasn't was not resolved by the Supreme Court until 1869. However,it was resolved by the bayonet in 1865. We're in agreement that it was no coincidence that slavery was legal in all of the states that seceded. Due to westward expansion of the Republic over some decades, north and south had had to make various agreements (Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, etc) to keep the pot from boiling over at an earlier time than it did. The south favored expansion of slavery into the territories in an attempt to keep from losing political power. Obviously different conditions of soil and climate in different places made large scale practice of slavery less practical in some places, but the southerners though it critical that slavery be kept legal regardless. In the north, slavery on a large scale wasn't practical, but it continued to be practiced even in some of the original northern states into the 1840s. There were still a few slaves in NJ until they were freed when the 13th Amendment was ratified in December of 1865. (Six months after slaves in Texas were told that the war was over and they were now free). Slavery also remained legal in some of the border states after hostilities ended. Slavery in the North Last edited on Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 11:25 pm by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jun 3rd, 2011 12:27 am |
|
27th Post |
|
Mark Member
|
I always found it very interesting that supporting the Hartford Convention effectively killed the Federalist party by 1819 but the Democratic party survived and flourished with the tacit approval of the constitutionality of secession from the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions through the nullification crisis in 1832 (although oddly that fight was between a southern and western Democrat) to 1860. Perhaps it was because by the War of 1812 the Federalists were a fairly small, localized party. Any other ideas? Mark
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jun 3rd, 2011 12:40 am |
|
28th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Mark- The Treaty of Ghent completely undid the Federalists. They were totally discredited because they had been opposing the war and, whats more, predicting that the British would triumph.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jun 3rd, 2011 01:04 am |
|
29th Post |
|
Mark Member
|
That would seem to make sense... advocating secession during a time of war is likely more problematic. Mark
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jun 3rd, 2011 01:58 pm |
|
30th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
The Kentucky Ordinance mentions 'fifteen States of this Union'. what do these fifteen states have in common that the others do not? HankC
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 04:54 pm | Page: 1 2 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Facts about slavery | Top |
