Let's talk Civil, shall we?

[Hope6]

contrary to popular opinion, three-fourths of the whites in the south DID NOT own slaves on the eve of the Civil War! so what do you think they were fighting for?

[K.Snyder]

Hoss;976153 wrote:

It would have caused me great pains to fight against my own people. I don’t think I could have done it.


I couldn't have equipped faster.

[Accountable]

Hoss;978009 wrote: Back to the civil war and the constitution:



Try reading article 4 section 3 but define ‘state’ as a body of government and not a geographical territory, does the article give Lincoln his basis to not allow secession then?Sorry I wasn't clear. If I (we) read the article correctly, both the state in question and Congress have to consent to changes in status. IMO, the territory and gov't go together. No territory could be able to have two competing governing bodies, so they'd have to decide on one somehow, or split up the land. Anyhoo, the states didn't petition Congress for consent, or if they did Congress wouldn't have given it anyway. Therefore, constitutionally:



secession never happened.

SC didn't have the right to attack Ft Sumter because it was still US land.

The US was justified in attacking because, legally speaking, they were dealing with rebellion, not secession.

Again, I'm no expert, and haven't really read beyond the sources sited in this thread, but that's how I interpret the information I have. The question for me now becomes a list of "what ifs".

[spot]

Hoss;978335 wrote: By what right did the Colonists feel they could leave King and Country to form their own country, was this not legally GB's territory and the colonists his subjects?
They explained themselves at the time:when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.Given the current train of abuses and usurpations evincing a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it's about time they did it again. It's still their right and their duty to throw off such Government even if it's home-grown.

[chonsigirl]

By what right did the Colonists feel they could leave King and Country to form their own country, was this not legally GB's territory and the colonists his subjects?


It was legally the Native Americans..................

[K.Snyder]

chonsigirl;978891 wrote: It was legally the Native Americans..................


I do not believe in borders.

It readily expresses a peoples' willingness to kill to preserve them. If said peoples were not ready to kill other human beings to preserve those borders there wouldn't be any.

All one need do is observe a pride of lions for a bit of perspective(Not implying Native Americans were savages in the least)...

[K.Snyder]

Hoss;978014 wrote: If I read you right, you’re saying that you'd have fought your brother over the issue of slavery?

I would be extremely reluctant to do that.


Anyone to whom is for the preservation of subjecting another people(s) to torture by virtue of enslavement and separation of family is not my brother. And I'd put a slug in their head.

[K.Snyder]

Hoss;979030 wrote: Cross the wrong imaginary line and someone is going to make you a believer in borders.

KSnyder I think you are far more idealistic than I am. Reality is such a hard taskmaster. You ought to be more careful what you say. You may not believe in borders but they still exist. And people are willing to fight to protect them kill if necessary and most certainly torture and cause great pain in the process.


What are you talking about?...

Careful in what I say how?...Why should I be careful in what I say?...What about my moral competence makes you believe I should be careful about what I say?...

Perhaps you're of no mind that I'd take a bullet to the head to stand up for what I believe in.

What about ""I do not believe in borders.

It readily expresses a peoples' willingness to kill to preserve them. If said peoples were not ready to kill other human beings to preserve those borders there wouldn't be any.

All one need do is observe a pride of lions for a bit of perspective(Not implying Native Americans were savages in the least)..."" do you disagree with?...

And where is your justification for ""You may not believe in borders but they still exist. And people are willing to fight to protect them kill if necessary and most certainly torture and cause great pain in the process.""?...

And I am idealistic except I back it up with realistic fortitude...I don't know why anyone needs the word "idealism" in their vocabulary without accompanied such.

Beyond aptitude and intelligent foresighted reasoning.

[K.Snyder]

Hoss;979038 wrote: I’m no expert on killing, but I’ve heard enough of my fathers friends talking about it to know that it's far more difficult than one imagines. I think we ought to be very reluctant to kill in all circumstances.


This is the entire problem Hoss.

If at any time you're unsure about killing anyone then you are wrong to do it my friend.

Far worse be it to allow one to suffer in the hands of thine evil than it is to eradicate said behavior.

[K.Snyder]

Hoss;979032 wrote: Was it?

As I understand most Native Americans believed that no one owned the land? I think that was their downfall.


No, Hoss.

It was one of their best achievements.

[K.Snyder]

Hoss;979059 wrote: You use a lot of big words but don’t say much, and talking isn’t backing anything up. Talking is just talking. No, you just prefer smaller words and are content with an average intellect. leading to ""You use a lot of big words but don’t say much"". You're ability to comprehend English is not my problem.

Hoss;979059 wrote:

If by saying you’re willing to take a bullet in the head for a cause then you made your point. You feel strongly against slavery. So what? Slavery in the US ended in the 1860's with the emancipation proclamation. So what?...I'll tell you "so what?"...What if any justification can you think of during the period of April 12, 1861 - April 9, 1865 to be due cause for the declaration of war by virtues of both parties?...

Hoss;979059 wrote:

For all your talk on this thread so far you’ve only managed to box yourself in a corner with Accountable so deep you look foolish, and your using big words again against an 18 year old kid barely out of high school and all you’ve said is that you'd fight anyone that enslaved anyone else when there isn’t any slavery in the US. And you’d allow any means to achieve something that you feel is right. You my friend are an arrogant little 18 year old kid who has no clue what you're talking about because you've never been able to think for yourself. Go get your own mind kid.

Hoss;979059 wrote:

Ease off a bit on the passion and step into reality and talk there. You're ignorant.

Hoss;979059 wrote:

I hope I didn’t tick you off, I meant no offense, and it’s difficult to discuss things with you. I’m probably not smart enough to figure out what you’re saying, so it’s probably more me than you. Yes. Finally you're smarting up...

Now that you've blatantly voiced how ""so it’s probably more me than you"", ""and it’s difficult to discuss things with you"" is or is not entirely the fault of your own?

[Accountable]

Generally, the proper response when offered an olive branch is not to smack the offerer across the face with it. :yh_frustr

[chonsigirl]

Hoss;979032 wrote: Was it?

As I understand most Native Americans believed that no one owned the land? I think that was their downfall.


It was owned communally, just a different system of ownership. Their downfall was the colonists.

They had definite borders, and there where you are Hoss in CA, all the tribes had defined borders. The Spanish or Russians just didn't know them, as the Native Americans did not know the European systems either.

But back to the Civil War......

[Hope6]

okay first let me say that i hate the idea of slavery! it's always been the one thing i have been ashamed of in my region of the country. I also bear the burden of knowing that my ancestors actually owned slaves, that has always been worrisome to me!

I also feel like many people in other parts of our country and in other countrys as well, tend to look down on southerners because of our past, as well as the impression that we are all ignorant rednecks, which is far from the truth!

but the fact is that many of the people who fought in the civil war did not own slaves, and they did fight for the idea of states rights. but mostly it was probably because they perceived an outside threat and their southern pride wouldn't let them back down!

one question i always had though, if the union army was trying to help the slaves, why did they burn down everything when they passed through an area, even the slave quarters and left them homeless? where did they expect them to go?

[Hope6]

Hoss;979232 wrote: I 100% agree with you!

The military doctrine of slash and burn during the civil war and in other wars was to keep the enemy from using anything to help their cause. I think had the north left the 'slave quarters' intact, then the owners (sorry for the term) would simply take their homes to live in.

Hope6 I would never hold you personally responsible for an action of your ancestors. I would never even place a charge against you that you'd have to answer for, not guilty, not even an accusation to bring forward.


Thank you for that Hoss! many people may not think twice about what there ancestors may or may not have done but it does bother me that a branch of my family actually owned other human beings! but in contrast i have another branch of the family who had to become indentured servants just to get to this country and then there's my Native American ancestors, i think the Native Americans have gotten the worst treatment of anyone!

[Hope6]

Hoss;979249 wrote: In the old testament God warned Israel of laws regarding the keeping of slaves, so in Gods economy slaves we ok, but treating them badly wasn't, and they were to be offered full release after 7 years of servitude. The bible records that some of the slaves were treated so well that they served their masters as bond servants, which was to be accepted as part of the household in their occupations as slaves but willingly and not out of law, they just chose to stay. I don’t know how many, maybe not many, but as bad as slavery is some may have lived happy lives.

A relative on my father’s side came here about 1780 from Germany, he was a wanted man there. He escaped and started fresh here. We call my dads side of the family the criminal side!

LOL


:wah::wah::wah:

i have a branch of my family that comes from Germany too!

[Accountable]

Hoss;978335 wrote: That’s how I read it; I was trying to find us a loop hole. Talking further along rights and not allowing situational ethics, can I ask a deeper more bothersome question then?



By what right did the Colonists feel they could leave King and Country to form their own country, was this not legally GB's territory and the colonists his subjects?Like Spot pointed out, there are legal rights and moral rights. The colonists claimed a moral right. I don't think the confederacy could claim a moral right to secede. They had economic reasons, I spose..... well, no. If I remember right, there was no real push to eliminate slavery from established slave states, only to prevent the spread into new states. Off the top of my head - without legal claim, I don't think the secessionists had a leg to stand on.

[Accountable]

Hoss;979464 wrote: I agree about the southern states. But does the US really have a leg to stand on? Or are we rebels from the crown? I can't imagine how a nation built upon Godly principles and standing on basic biblical principles can still be here if we started out in rebellion?
Moses led a rebellion.

[Accountable]

Hoss;980222 wrote: Not from his king, but from Egypts king. He was enslaved against authority. His birthright was Hebrew.



Come to think of it he didn't rebell at all, he went to Pharoah and asked to let his people go. He got permission.
'kay fine :yh_doh

[koan]

With a brief reminder that the war is over...

This thread is now open for the saving.

[gmc]

JAB;979815 wrote: Do you think all rebellion is wrong?


Only if you lose. The winners get to write the history.

[koan]

"Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former. Real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries."

--Thomas Jefferson: Report on Spanish Convention, 1792.

I'm not very familiar with the details of the civil war, though I had G-man go over some basics with me and, though I'm glad the South lost, I feel they were justified in trying to separate. It seems they lost faith in the government's commitment to look after their best interests. They had a group of people who all agreed that their safety and well being and prosperity was in jeopardy.

[K.Snyder]

koan;981685 wrote: "Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former. Real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries."

--Thomas Jefferson: Report on Spanish Convention, 1792.

I'm not very familiar with the details of the civil war, though I had G-man go over some basics with me and, though I'm glad the South lost, I feel they were justified in trying to separate. It seems they lost faith in the government's commitment to look after their best interests. They had a group of people who all agreed that their safety and well being and prosperity was in jeopardy.


You don't feel the South's readiness to separate was driven primarily of greed?...

[koan]

K.Snyder;981688 wrote: You don't feel the South's readiness to separate was driven primarily of greed?...


It seems they got a lot of support from the citizens of the area. That many people were solely motivated by greed?

As I've said, I'm not informed of the sordid details so I'm currently viewing it from the perspective of a people's right to protect themselves against a government that they feel is jeopardizing the best interests of the people. If they felt their government was not serving them then I can understand their leap in logic to separate.

We do have Quebec here in Canada that has been after separation for a long time and I personally voted to let them have a go at it.

[K.Snyder]

I've read the sentiment of John H. Reagan who'd lived within the time of the civil war...I thought some could read it and add a bit to the thread...

Why the South Seceded

By John H. Reagan, 1903

[...]

During the war, 1861 to 1865, and ever since there has been a studied, systematic effort on the part of those who were our adversaries to pervert and falsify the history of the causes which led to that war, and the conduct of the war, and to educate the public mind to the belief that it was a causeless war, brought about by ambitious Southern leaders. And it is much to be regretted that this policy has had a very large measure of sticcess. This has been brought about largely by the baseless assumptions in acts of Congress and the doings of the Executive Department, iu the action of State Legisla tures and of political conventions, the declarations of public speakers, and by the writers in newspapers and magazines.

It will be the purpose of what I shall say to-day to show the great wrong and injustice done to those who supported thc Confederate cause, by this systematic falsifying of the great facts of history on this subject.

In proposing to do this we must recognize the fact that that great war ended nearly forty years ago, and that we are now fellow-citizens with those who occupied the other side, living in the same government, under the same Constitution, laws, and flag, and interested as they are in the peace of the country and the welfare of all its people, with no desire to revive the passions and prejudices of the war, and with an earnest wish for the best fraternal relations between the people of the two sections of the country. While this is our earnest wish, we cannot consent to a perversion of history which would brand the defenders of the Confederate cause as rebels and traitors, and teach that falsehood to our children and to posterity. And we are led to hope that in after times, when the passions of the war have subsided, and when the prejudices engendered by it have died out, that none of the people of this great republic will wish such a stain to be attoched to any part of their fellowcitizens. However this may be, iL is a paramount duty on our part to preserve and perpetuate the real history of the causes of that greatest war of modern times, as those causes are witnessed by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, by the history of the action of the Congress, of the courts of the country, of the messages of Presidents, by the acts of the Governors and Legislatures of States, by the declarations of political conventionsùin fact, by the political history of the United States down to the time when that political crusade was actively commenced which led up to that bloody conflict. Fortunately for the truth of history, these facts appear in the imperishable records of the Federal and State governnients, and in the entire history of this country which preceded the war, and it is to these facts, which cannot be successfully controverted, that I shall appeal to-day.

It has been to a large extent assumed that negro slavery was the cause of that war. This is not strictly true. It was the occasion of the war, but not the principal cause of the war. The real cause of the war was sectional jealousy, the greed of gain, and the lust of political power by the Eastern States. The changing opinions of civilized nations on the subject of slavery furnished the occasion which enabled political demagogues to get up a crusade which enabled them in the end to overthrow, in part at least, the Constitution of the United States, and to change the character of the Federal government by a successful revolution.

This sectional jealousy was strongly developed at die time of the purchase of the Louisiana territory, in 1803. That purchase was bitterly opposed, especially by the people of the New England States, one of the grounds of opposition being that it would add to the power of the agricultural States and be opposed to the interests of the manufacturing States, for then, as ever since, they desired to control the policy of the Federal government, and to use it as an agency for the promotion of individual and sectional interests. And in their opposition to this measure they threatened to secede from the Union. This jealousy was still further manifested at the time of the war of a war which was gone into more for the protection of the shipping interest of the New England States, and for free trade and sailors' rights, than for any other cause. They denounced that war and gave encouragement to the enemies of the United States, furnishing signal lights to the enemy. Their Members of Congress, their Governors of States, their State Legislatures, and a convention called for the purpose threatened to secede from the Union. This jealousy again manifested itself when Missouri was admitted as a State, because, as they assumed, it would increase the power of the agricultural States and be against the interest of the manufacturing States. And on like grounds they opposed the acquisition of Texas and or the territory of Mexico, acquired as a result of the war with that country. And in their greed to levy tribute on the South by means of high protective tariffs they drove South Carolina into nullification in 1831, and an armed conflict was only averted by a compromise reducing the duties on imports.

Up to 1820 there had been no serious trouble over the question of African slavery, and, as shown by Mr. Bancroft, New England's great historian, in his history of the United States, slavery in some form then existed in every civilized government in the world. It had been planted in the American Cobrues by the governments of Great Britain, France, and Spain, and by the Dutch merchants, all of them participating in the African slave trade. And it was defended and justified by the Churches and the priesthood on the ground that it was transferring the Africans from a condition of barbarism and cannibalism to a country where they could be at peace, learn something of the arts of civilized life and of the Christian religion. And the New Englanders became largely engaged in the African slave trade, and they, to some extent, as their history shows, made slaves of the Indians and shipped them off to the West Indies. And African slavery existed in all the colonies at the date of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and it existed in all the States except Massachusetts in 1787, the date of the formation of the Constitution of the United States.

The question of slavery was first brought seriously into our Politics in 1820-21, when Missouri was admitted as a State.

Public opinion in this and other countries began to change on this question, and Great Britain and France abolished slavery in their West India possessions and the question began to be agitated more extensively in the United States in 1852.

The great number of immigrants from Western Europe made white labor cheap in the Eastern States, and slave labor was not regarded as profitable there, and those who owned slaves then sold them to the rice, cotton, and sugar planters of the South, where their labor was more profitable. In this way the States which contained a majority of the population of the United States became what were called free States, and the politicians, to secure advantage of the South in legislation and to secure offices by popular favor, appealed to this sectional majority, and aroused and cultivated hostility to the people of the South because of the existence of slavery in those States. In 1856 the agitation of this subject developed a political party strong enough for a national organization, which nominated John C. Fremont for President and William L. Dayton for Vice President, and this ticket received one hundred and fourteen votes in the electoral college, all from the free States, as against one hundred and seventy-four for Buchanan and Breckenridge, who were elected---all the Southern States and the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey voting for the Buchanan ticket, making nearly a strict sectional division. This demonstration of sectional strength caused an increase of the aggressiveness of the politicians of the North, and their appeals in favor of the liberty of the slaves greatly fired Northern sentiment and led to the national success of the anti-slavery party four years later, when Mr. Lincoln was elected President and Hannibal Hamnlin Vice President, by a purely sectional majority. In these appeals to the sentiment in favor of popular liberty no consideration was given to the question of race and the capacity for self-government and for the duties of freemen. A reference to the British and French West India Islands, in which the blacks have been in a condition of chronic revolution ever since they were set free, was calculated to have given pause to a people not blinded by partisan zeal.

The leaders of that party, including President Lincoln and Mr. Seward, insisted that this country could not remain half free and half slave, and their party leaders proclaimed that there was a higher law than the Constitution of the United States. They claimed that their mission was to liberate the slaves, and, without the consent of the Southern States, they could only do this by substituting a popular majority of the people of all the States in place of the Constitution, with its limitations on the power of the Federal government, and by a revolutionary movement in plain violation of the Constitution.

Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution recognizes the persons bound to service, in defining the free people of the country. Article I., Section 9, of the Constitution provides that the slave trade shall not be prohibited before the year 1808, twenty years after its adoption. Article IV., Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution provides for the return of fugitive slaves escaping from one State and found in another. So it is seen that in this solemn compact between the States and the people of the Union African slavery and the right of property in such slaves was recognized and protected. In bringing to your view these great facts I am not doing so for the purpose of saying that slavery was right or wrong in itself, nor for the purpose of condemning those humane feelings which favored its abolition. And 1 say for myself, and I think I speak the sentiments of the great body of the Southern people, that I would not restore slavery if I had the power to do so. I am calling attention to these facts to show that the unconstitutional and revolutionary methods adopted by the Republicans to secure its abolition, involving as it did the breaking up of the social and industrial system of fifteen States of the Union, the confiscation of three thousand million dollars' worth of what the Constitution and the laws held to be property, the risk of a servile war (then much feared by the Southern people), the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of human lives, the making of countless widows and orphans, and the sacrifice of many billions of dollars' worth of property, attended with all the sufferings and horrors of the greatest war of modern times.

When the American colonies came to be formed into States, as the result of the Revolutionary war, warned by the oppressions and denial of rights imposed on them by the crown of Great Britain, each of them accompanied their State Constitutions with a "Bill of Rights" in which it was declared that the people possessed certain inalienable rights of which they could not be deprived, which they specified; so when the American people came to form the Constitution of the United States, animated by the same jealousy of the unlimited power of government, they created a government with delegated and strictly limited powers only, and for greater security for their liberty and rights they provided that the powers not therein delegated were reserved to the States and to the people respectively. The Federal government was given jurisdiction over questions of a national and those of an inter-State character, while the States retained jurisdiction over all the local questions and domestic institutions. This is the authority for the doctrine of State rights. Slavery was from the first treated by all the States as a domestic institution, to be controlled or disposed of as each State might choose for itself. And this is the reason why the Northern States abolished slavery without asking the sanction of the Federal government. And when the people of the Northern States commenced their crusade for the abolition of slavery by the numbers and powers of their people where slavery did not exist, and in the States where it did exist without their consent, they commenced a revolution in distinct violation of the Constitution and laws; they made themselves a lawless, revolutionary party, and became rebels against the Government of the United States. And when they levied war to carry out their policy they became traitors. But the minority could not try and punish the treason of the majority. Their pretense was that They were fighting to save the Union, and they made thousands of honest soldiers believe they were fighting for the Union. Their leaders knew that the Union rested on the Constitution, and that their purpose was to overthrow the Constitution. The Union the soldiers fought for was the Union established by the Constitution. The Union the leaders sought was only to be attained by the subversion of the Constitution, the annulment of the doctrine of State rights, the making of a consolidated central republic, abolishing the limitations prescribed by the Constitution and substituting a popular majority of the people of the whole Union in their stead, and to open the way for individual and corporate gain through the agency of the government.

In the face of these great historic truths that party has habitually and constantly charged that the war was causeless and brought about by ambitious political leaders of the South, and that the Confederates were rebels and traitors. Can any one conceive of a greater departure from truth, or of a more audacious attempt to falsify history? And that, too, in the face of the Constitution and laws, in the face of the imperishable public record of the country and of the public history of their own actions.

I have thus endeavored to give some of the facts and reasons which justified the Southern people in attempting to withdraw their allegiance from a government openly hostile to the rights of their State and people in order to form for themselves a government friendly to those rights.

Our people were not responsible for the war; it was forced on them. They were not rebels or traitors. They simply acted as patriots, defending their rights and their homes against the lawless and revolutionary action of a dominant and reckless majority.

I refer those wishing fuller reliable information on this subject to President Davis's "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government," and to Vice President Stephens's "War Between the States." http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/2008/0 ... th_seceded

[koan]

I'm much more inclined to start with the actual declarations of secession.

here

[Accountable]

koan;981737 wrote: I'm much more inclined to start with the actual declarations of secession.



here
Cool! Thanks, Koan. I'm bookmarking this one.

[spot]

That's actually a very interesting read, the John H. Reagan statement, I can well believe it's making valid points.

I've seen several bills of rights. This one's got a certain interest to it, I wonder whether it would get any support here?Neither Speech, Press, Religion, nor Assembly shall be infringed, nor shall such be forced upon any person by the government of the United States.There shall be no standing military force during peacetime, (this) to include large bodies of federal law enforcers or coalitions of these officers that would constitute a military force, with the exception of sea-based maritime forces.The Executive Office shall hold no power to unilaterally alter Constitutional rights.No person shall be subjected to any form of direct taxation or wage withholdings by the Federal government.No person's life or liberty shall be taken without due process. Any government employee circumventing due process rights shall be punished with imprisonment. Citizens shall not be subjected to invasions of their homes or property by employees of the Federal government. Property or other assets of United States citizens shall not be subject to forfeiture to the Federal government.Personal activities that do not infringe upon the rights or property of another shall not be charged, prosecuted, or punished by the United States government. Any crime alleged will be prosecuted by the jurisdiction most local to the alleged crime, respectively. No person shall be twice tried for an offense alleged and adjudicated in another jurisdiction. No person shall be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, nor shall the Federal government hold power to execute any individual as punishment for a crime convicted, or contract to another entity for this purpose. No person shall be held to account for the actions of another, unless proven by more than one witness to be the principal figure.All currency shall be redeemable in a globally recognized material of intrinsic value, such as silver.Legislative members shall earn no more than twice the current poverty level and shall not be subject to any additional pay, bonuses, rewards, gifts, entitlements, or other such privileges, as holding such office is meant to serve the people and should not be looked upon as a capitalist career opportunity.Where non-violent checks and balances fail to remedy government abuse or tyranny, the common people reserve the right to rebellion. Inherent with this right, the common people maintain the absolute right to own and possess those weapons which are used by any level of government for domestic policing.Any rights not enumerated here belong inherently to the people or the states respectively, and shall not be assumed by omission (to be) delegated to the jurisdiction of the federal government.

[K.Snyder]

spot;981740 wrote: That's actually a very interesting read, the John H. Reagan statement, I can well believe it's making valid points.




My interpretation from Mr. Reagan's perspective is that the South were states that were actually the law abiding states whereas the Northern states broke the rule of thumb associated with the constitution in interfering with the states' "right"(Sorry I cannot morally believe anyone has the right to retain slaves) to retain individual slaves as proprietorship thus making the North in the wrong...Obviously, as defined by the Constitution of the United States of America at the time...

Being as how it's so easily accepted that slavery is morally wrong the North has a much better beginning point in swaying public opinion ultimately giving credence to a South's proneness to be labeled "rebels"...

The North was morally wrong in not dealing with slavery within the constitution pragmatically and the South was just as morally wrong in harboring it.

The North is the mighty hero because they've won whereas the South is just up **** creek without a paddle!!!...:wah:...

End of thread!!!...:wah:

(only joking)...

[K.Snyder]

spot;981740 wrote: No person's life or liberty shall be taken without due process. Any government employee circumventing due process rights shall be punished with imprisonment. Citizens shall not be subjected to invasions of their homes or property by employees of the Federal government. Property or other assets of United States citizens shall not be subject to forfeiture to the Federal government.I'm wondering if slaves were actually considered US citizens at the time...

spot;981740 wrote:

Personal activities that do not infringe upon the rights or property of another shall not be charged, prosecuted, or punished by the United States government. ...at the same time it's to my knowledge that slaves were actually considered private property as well...

[spot]

K.Snyder;981757 wrote: Being as how it's so easily accepted that slavery is morally wrong the North has a much better beginning point in swaying public opinion ultimately giving credence to a South's proneness to be labeled "rebels"...Those in the North who wanted - for whatever reason - to prevent the secession of the South needed to take public opinion with them before they could act. Slavery was a populist topic. Press the right button and you have a crowd seething with patriotic fervor queueing to join up and fight. We had the same thing with "The War On Terror" this decade as an excuse to invade Iraq.