Hey Q9!!! Calling Q9!.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, I'm back from mowing grass.

TM made some excellent points in sharing these quotes with us. I enjoyed them
and they show us a frame of mind from leaders of that era.

On these five quotes, I've looked for them off and on. I'm not convinced that they
are indeed exact quotes. But they may be, and I just haven't found them.


John C. Calhoun (1782-1850) was pro-slavery southern plantation owner, also
credited with the first voice of minority rights. His definition of minority rights was
not the same as today. He wanted equal rights for the southern states--the minority.
Not a "all people are equal kind of thing." His his world, people of color were property.
Not citizens.

The quote TM has shared with us is attributed via the internet to a speech Calhoun
gave July 31, 1831 in South Carolina noted as the Fort Hill Address. However, the
complete text of this speech is also online, and that quote is not in the speech.


Thomas Jefferson (1723-1826). Surely we all know who this man was. The quote TM
shares comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to the govermment of Virgina in 1825, with
the Declaration and Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Following is the paragraph
with the actual quoted lines.

While the General Assembly thus declares the rights retained by the States, rights which they have never yielded and which this State will never voluntarily yield, they do not mean to raise the banner of disaffection or of separation from their sister States, co-parties with themselves to this compact. They know and value too highly the blessings of their Union, as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves, to consider every infraction as to be met by actual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions OF those possessing the same rights under the same instrument to make every difference of construction a ground of immediate rupture. They would, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them, but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a government of unlimited powers. It is only when the hope of avoiding this shall become absolutely desperate that further forbearance could not be indulged. Should a majority of the co-parties, therefore, contrary to the expectation and hope of this assembly, prefer, at this time, acquiescence in these assumptions of power by the federal member of the government, we will be patient and suffer much, under the confidence that time, ere it be too late, will prove to them also the bitter consequences in which that usurpation will involve us all. In the meanwhile we will breast with them, rather than separate from them, every misfortune save that only of living under a government of unlimited powers. We owe every other sacrifice to ourselves, to our federal brethren, and to the world at large to pursue with temper and perseverance the great experiment which shall prove that man is capable of living in society, governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace, and further to show that even when the government of its choice shall manifest a tendency to degeneracy, we are not at once to despair but that the will and the watchfulness of its sounder parts will reform its aberrations, recall it to original and legitimate principles, and restrain it within the rightful limits of self-government. And these are the objects of this Declaration and Protest. . . .


*One of the interesting things to note about Thomas Jefferson was that he himself
owned slaves, up and until his death. At the same time, he was also supported abolition.
Just not to the extent that he wanted to free his own slaves. He NEEDED them.



Joesph Story (1779-1845) was a United States Supreme Court Justice. He wrote the decision
on Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, giving U.S Courts rights and powers over state
courts. Anti-slavery, he remains one of the best known Justices, defining federal law v. state
rights. Several of his cases still stand today in defining Federal Law v. State Law


Jefferson Davis....was indeed, President of the Confederate States of America.


Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America...

Again, unable to confirm or deny this quote. Attributed to the Cornerstone Speech,
Savannah Georgia, 1861. But does not appear in the only version I could find. However,
that was a 1861 newspaper article and credited with being an incomplete text. Does anyone
have a better answer?


In these five quotes, note that three of the people died well before the America Civil War
began. Their quotes being no less important.
 
Great visual aids, Gamebirdboy.

Right one the money...the South wanted very little uniform goverment,
with states having the majority of the power.

But I don't know if I can totally agree with the the North wanting a bigger
Federal goverment just yet. It comes to that point, and you're absolutely
correct in the years after the war. But I don't know about the early war years.

The North had a greater population that the South. Therefore, the North had
a larger voting block. That being a given, the North had more influence in the
decisions of the federal goverment.

But a larger, stronger Federal Goverment is coming in the post-war years.
Such are the spoils of war.

*I really should edit this is respect to "stronger" federal goverment verses
a "bigger" federal goverment. They are different words, with different meanings.
The goal was to form a stronger United States.

As I type this, I'll have to ponder at what point did the federal goverment become
too big, too powerful?
 
Last edited:
Quote:
It started out fairly minor - a desire for internal improvements and the like. Still, it was a violation of the Constitution. However, the real problems started during the Nullification Crisis. Andrew Jackson threatened to use force against South Carolina if it did not cooperate with the tarriff. I will need to double-check this, but I believe the Constitution states that such an action would be an act of treason. It went downhill from there, and when one looks at Lincoln's campaign promises... (paraphrase here - same words, probably a different order
lol.png
) "I am in favor of a national bank, a high protective tarriff and the internal improvements system." The national bank and the internal improvements are not permitted by the Constitution (President Madison was in favor of internal improvements, but said clearly that it would require an amendment), and a high tarriff is explicitly prohibited by the General Welfare clause - ironic, since most interepretations of that clause tend to mutilate it to the point that people claim it allows basically anything, when it's really a very tight restriction.
 
Quote:
--------------------------------

John C. Calhoun :

The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States … formed the compact, acting as sovereign and independent communities.

The Bill or Rights said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America :

If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity.


"The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State." Murray N Rothbard
http://mises.org/rothbard/Ethics/twentyfour.asp

States were brought into the union under a voluntary agreement between the given state and the federal govt. Any voluntary agreement can be ended.
And for those that would say the "Civil War' (wasn't very civil if you ask some) "settled" the argument whether this particular voluntary agreement can be ended I would have them look through the history of empires and answer how many of them were permanent. Did Rome's transition to an official empire from a republic "settle" the argument? Well, it probably did in that it ended Rome, just as the US behaving in largely the same way will end the US.​
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Of course there were more nations - lots more. But those were the major powers involved. France was taken out during the war, though they did put up a good fight.

A strong central government... Yeah, right. It's been pointed out many a time that, first of all, a strong central government is more likely to abuse its power than a more local state government, and second of all that an abuse of power by the central government would be far more damaging than an abuse of power by state governments.

Mom's folly - so much in that post is completely ridiculous. You seriously think that the Confederacy, which could only launch effective DEFENSIVE campaigns, would have for some bizarre reason invaded and somehow conquered the United States?

President Davis summed it up this way - "All we ask is to be let alone."

Let's put this as simply as possible - which do you value more? Union, or liberty? I, for one, choose liberty. Union by voluntary agreement can aid liberty. Union at the point of a gun guarantees tyrrany. We live, not in the voluntary Union that the Founders created, but in the forced union established by the sword under the direction of Abraham Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.

I agree Q9, the Confederacy had no intentions of conquering the United states, they just wanted to be left alone. A strong central government is the last thing we need. Have you ever seen the United State's government NOT abuse power they recently gained? Every time they gain power they abuse it and continue to do so. Anyone who says it is a good thing needs to look how far it got us, the government is bailing out major companies, racking up debt, and the people are against all of it. I don't believe in complete popular sovereignty, but the will of the people has to matter. This would never happen if the government didn't have as much power...
 
The term "civil war" derives from the latin phrase "Bellum Civile".
A civil war is defined to mean a war between two organized partys
within the same nation, in which one hundred or more soldiers from
each side lost their life.

There have been many civil wars fought throughout history.

The proper name of the civil war in America?

"The United States of America Civil War" This war was fought from
1861 through 1865, with a reconstruction period lasting until 1877 or so.

I am an American. Perhaps somone from another country can tell us
how this war is called in their land, if it was studied at all?

This Civil War began on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter located in Charleston,
South Carolina when the South fired the first cannon shots at a Union fort.
This is a FACT. Until that point there had only been talk, states seceded with
no action taken. The North was not the aggerssor--they did fire until fired upon.

There were no casualties in this battle until after the North surrendered the fort.
I believe two Union soldiers were killed when their own cannon blew up on them
as they were leaving. ( fired in a salute to their own flag as they were leaving.)

For those who care, there has been a National Debt as long as there has been
a United States going as far back as the Articles of Confederation and the Revolitionary
War. Debt is nothing new. In 1860, before the war the national debt was at 65 million.
Expensive war in many ways, the national debt was over 1 billion in 1963, climbing to
2.7 billion by 1877.

I believe Andrew Jackson was the only President to have actually have paid the national
debt off. That would be worth of another discussion, but his actions as president will later
shadow issues leading the nation to a civil war.

There were several different, yet related, issues that led to this war. One of the prime
reasons were state rights verses the federal goverment. " A soverign state" as Q9 signs
his name, or a state that rules within it's borders as supreme without regard to federal
law. Or is FEDERAL law to be supreme and the states forced to follow suit?

For me the answer is, as decided by the United States Supreme Court, that there are issues
in which the states are supreme, and issues in which the federal goverment must be supreme.
Refer to Chief Justice John Marshall, McCullock verses Maryland. (1819) Just as in some areas,
our local goverment is the ruler....each goverment has it's functions and together they make a
whole.

The right to issue money and a federal banking system is one.

I'm old enough to remember what a coal camp is, and my daddy being paid in script. In that world,
"script" was the money paid to the employee and could only be spent at the company store. My parents
could not take their script-money and spend it anywhere else. Certainly it wasn't good in another state.
So is it fair and just that all states in America use the same form of money today? I live in Ohio, and I'm free
to take my money and vacation in Florida. My parents couldn't do that.

**sidenote** Although states were forbidden to coin their own money, the same rules did not apply to
companys....thus was script money in my childhood.

Slavery was a sidebar to the war...The South wanted their economy to thrive, but their same economy was
based on a slavery workforce, with as much as 43% of the southern "whites" owning slaves. Times have
changed. As a nation, we have changed. Again, I am glad that we have. A person, because of the color of
their skin is not inferior to anybody else. Because of the color of their skin, they should not be denied an
education. I am glad that slavery is no more. I can not stress to you how much I feel that slavery was
wrong. And I hope that everyone reading this agrees with me on at least that one single point...Slavery
was wrong.

Lincoln is regarded as one finest presidents because of the decisions he made while in office. And that is
to hold this United States of America together as one nation. Nobody goes to war lightly.

I can understand the South, wanting to perserve their way of life. And many fought to the death for that
right. Just as I can understand President Lincoln believeing that our country was worth fighting for.

Worth saving.

It's easy to second guess people. It's not quite as easy when it's your decision. Our forefathers made thier
choices a long time ago. Some of those choices have proven to be wrong. And many of those choices, tried
by time, have proven to be right. They made those decisions for theirself, their children, and their childrens
children. Right down to my own child. Right down to each of you...

That this nation, The United States of America, would endure.

We can't go back and change history. No second guessing, no do-overs. Real life doesn't work that way.
But we can only study the past, learn from our mistakes and plan for the future. There was both good and bad
in our civil war. But without that yesterday, we would not have our today. And without our today, we can
not have that tomorrow.

So even as we discuss our civil war, or any other period in history...let each of us go forth wiser, more prepared
with the wisdom to make the decisions that influence our lifes and the lifes of those around us. That we can make
those difficult decisions without malice, without hatred, without prejudice. That in our time, we leave this a better,
more stronger nation.

Spookwriter.


As as we continue to discuss things that matter, even as we share their quotes, I would like to see your words,
your thoughts on the matters as you form your own tomorrows.
 
Quote:
This is the part I'm a pest about.
tongue.png
IMHO, calling The War a civil war is wrong. It was not a war between "two organised parties within the same nation". It was a war in which one nation (the USA) invaded another nation (the CSA), and ultimately defeated it. Kinda like the revolutionary war, or the war when Texas gained it's independence from Mexico. The only difference lies in who won. Regardless of who won, it was a war between two nations. That's not a civil war by any definition of the term.

Interesting note: for quite a while after the revolutionary war, the British still persisted in calling it a civil war.
wink.png
That didn't make it one, and neither does calling the war for southern independence a civil war make it one.
 
It was a civil war. The confederacy was only a country in their eyes, not the world's or the rest of the US. The confederacy was not recognized by a single country, it was not seen a a legitimate country by anyone in the world. The North was fighting to preserve the Union, the South was fighting a rebellion.
 
LOL...I didn't get to name the war. I just get to talk about it.

But yeah...Had the South of won, the war would of had another name
for sure.

As it stands the U.S. Goverment (congress) never recognized the states
rights to seceed from the union. Somthing about the Preamble and that
pesky word...perpetual.

*I live just off the Ohio River, near part of the Underground Rairoad. There's
a home with 'hidden" rooms still, (summer tours) Same home has a hidden
room underground out in a field.

Makes a man think...I can only wonder how many of those slaves may of
even crossed my own land those many years ago. Would I of fed them, would I
of turned them in?
 
And thus we come back yet again to the assertion that the south would have been a legitimate country only if it had won the war.
duc.gif


With that reasoning there sure are a bunch of illegitimate countries on the globe today...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom