BF2S Forums was the American civil war, really a civil war?

Reciprocity wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Except for that danged old [i]necessary and proper clause[/].  It's a good thing the south had all those "workers" to fill the census.  how else would they fend off the big bad north in congress.

You need to elaborate. Please use a complete sentence.

article one, section eight, clause eighteen: 

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

It's the blurry line between state and federal dominion.  to avoid abuse by the much more populous north in congress, slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a citizen which would keep the south's representation artificially high.  the first half of the 19th century was a series hissyfits any time a new state was proposed.   would it be a slave state or a free state?

the civil war was the result of 80 years of compromise between two very different cultures.  it was the inevitable result of our victory in the war of independence.  much as WWII was the inevitable result of WWI.

Kmarion wrote:

That simply covers the duty of congress in it's federal role.

Reciprocity wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That simply covers the duty of congress in it's federal role.

if only. 


there's a reason it's called the elastic clause.   it's got a lot of stretch.

Reciprocity wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

wow, i had no idea.  what a revelation.  It couldn't have been that he was giving a calculated, political speech.  that he was cutting the remaining ties between the CSA and abolitionist great britian.  that he was rallying his abolitionist supporters.  no, he was just being crazy old Lincoln, saying crazy contradictory stuff for the hell of it.

not like the south, fighting for free men everywhere.

You sure as hell wouldn't think you knew it with that misinterpreted moral high ground rubbish you vomited up in your last post. Here is a way to rally abolitionist support. Free the slaves in your own fucking territory. That's just crazy old me.

that thing you quoted was an objective dissection of a famously subjective speech.  that's what i was pointing out.  lincoln climbed onto the abolitionist movement whenever it suited him, he took the spurs to it during the gettysburg address.

Reciprocity wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

if only. 


there's a reason it's called the elastic clause.   it's got a lot of stretch.

That's a convenient reply now isn't it....lol

just because i'm discussing this doesn't mean i'm a huge, gaping federalist.

Reciprocity wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Really, and he never once mentioned the word slavery? I'm doubtful.

who? lincoln?

Reciprocity wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

who? lincoln?

In the Gettysburg address.

he didn't have to.  he'd already "freed" the slaves, essentially fulfilling the notion that all men are created equal.  and then finishing up the speech suggesting the new birth of freedom.  it's a rather shrewd speech in that on the surface he's simply dedicating a cemetary, but the very clear undertone of abolition and human rights are there to please the right people.  even the way the speech is structured (ideology)(dead heroes/consecration)(ideology) is very well thought out, everyone remembers the beginning and the end.  the reporters focused mostly on the beginning and the end.  he was a helluva politician.

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The question is.. Did they have the right to secede?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Their reasons for seceding (see the last paragraph) is pretty much the things lowing said they were already freely doing. If lowing is right and their rights were not being infringed upon why did they secede?

In their eyes their rights ( states rights) were being infringed upon.

I know. That's what I have been saying the entire thread. My question is were they actually being infringed upon?

Last edited by Reciprocity (2009-06-17 21:28:09)

There was no constitution prohibition on secession, nor was there a constitutional sanctioning of any kind of federal coercion to force a state to obey a federal law because to do so was to perpetrate an act of war on the offending state by the other states, for whom the federal government was their agent.