causes of the American War Between the States

[Oleg Volk]

How the British dealt with slavery in 1834 (in the words of Arthur Conan Doyle)

And the separation soon became more marked. There were injudicious tamperings with the local government and the local ways, with a substitution of English for Dutch in the law courts. With vicarious generosity, the English Government gave very lenient terms to the Kaffir tribes who in 1834 had raided the border farmers. And then, finally, in this same year there came the emancipation of the slaves throughout the British Empire, which fanned all smouldering discontents into an active flame.

It must be confessed, that on this occasion the British philanthropist was willing to pay for what he thought was right. It was a noble national action, and one the morality of which was in advance of its time, that the British Parliament should vote the enormous sum of twenty million pounds to pay compensation to the slaveholders, and so to remove an evil with which the mother country bad no immediate connection. It was as well that the thing should have been done when it was, for had we waited till the colonies affected had governments of their own it could never have been done by constitutional methods. With many a grumble the good British householder drew his purse from his fob, and he paid for what he thought to be right. If any special grace attends the virtuous action which brings nothing but tribulation in this world, then we may hope for it over this emancipation. We spent our money, we ruined our West Indian colonies, and we started a disaffection in South Africa, the end of which we have not seen. Yet if it were to be done again we should doubtless do it.. The highest morality may prove also to be the highest wisdom when the half-told story comes to be finished.

But the details of the measure were less honourable than the principle. It was carried out suddenly, so that the country had no time to adjust itself to the new conditions. Three million pounds were ear-marked for South Africa, which gives a price per slave of from sixty to seventy pounds, a sum considerably below the current local rates. Finally, the compensation was made payable in London, so that the farmers sold their claims at reduced prices to middlemen. Indignation meetings were held in every little townlet and cattle camp on the Karoo. The old Dutch spirit was up-the spirit of the men who cut the dykes. Rebellion was useless. But a vast untenanted land stretched to the north of them. The nomad life was congenial to them, and in their huge ox-drawn wagons-like those bullock-carts in which some of their old kinsmen came to Gaul-they had vehicles and homes and forts all in one. One by one they were loaded up, the huge teams were inspanned, the women were seated inside, the men, with their long-barrelled guns, walked alongside, and the great exodus was begun. Their herds and flocks accompanied the migration, and the children helped to round them in and drive them. One tattered little boy of ten cracked his sjambok whip behind the bullocks. He was a small item in that singular crowd, but he was of interest to us, for his name was Paul Stephanus Kruger.

[roo_ster]

Oleg:

Now THAT is something new I learned today!  The UK taxpayer freed slaves in UK colonies...and financed the voertrekkers wanderings in one act.

Now, how to apply this to the US?

Pay off the sons of the South below-market rates for their slaves, and hte platation-owners do...what?  I doubt they would head into the Great American Desert, as they are already established as an aristocracy in the South.

[richyoung]

Still, the questions must be asked: odius as the institution of slavery is, the fact remains the slaves were their owner's legal property - under the law, no different from a herd of cattle, land, etc.  As such, freeing slaves is a taking of property, and the Constitution prohibts taking property without BOTH due process of law AND/OR just compensation.
1.  What provision of the Constitution gives the executive branch the authority to free slaves, at the time of theEmancipation Proclamation?
2.  What provision gives the executive branch the authority to do so (remember, under the legal theory by which the North opposed secession, all the residents of the South were still American citizens...) WITHOUT due process AND without compensation?

All of this, of course, AND, given the wording of the 9th and 10th Ammendments, by what right did the North resist secession at all?

[Strings]

rich: the problem you're going to run into with those questions is that you must ignore the humanity of the slaves in order to give a legitimate answer. Since most Americans can't do that (ignore that major point to answer a theoretical question), you're doomed from the start...

 The really unfortunate part is, I seriously doubt that such humanitarian thoughts were involved in Lincoln's actions.

[The Rabbi]

Still, the questions must be asked: odius as the institution of slavery is, the fact remains the slaves were their owner's legal property - under the law, no different from a herd of cattle, land, etc.  As such, freeing slaves is a taking of property, and the Constitution prohibts taking property without BOTH due process of law AND/OR just compensation.
1.  What provision of the Constitution gives the executive branch the authority to free slaves, at the time of theEmancipation Proclamation?
2.  What provision gives the executive branch the authority to do so (remember, under the legal theory by which the North opposed secession, all the residents of the South were still American citizens...) WITHOUT due process AND without compensation?

All of this, of course, AND, given the wording of the 9th and 10th Ammendments, by what right did the North resist secession at all?

The Emancipation Proclamation was valid only for states in rebellion against the U.S.  They were not then subject to the protections of the USC.  I presume the president was acting as commander in chief in charge of occupied territory under military law.

[richyoung]

Still, the questions must be asked: odius as the institution of slavery is, the fact remains the slaves were their owner's legal property - under the law, no different from a herd of cattle, land, etc.  As such, freeing slaves is a taking of property, and the Constitution prohibts taking property without BOTH due process of law AND/OR just compensation.
1.  What provision of the Constitution gives the executive branch the authority to free slaves, at the time of theEmancipation Proclamation?
2.  What provision gives the executive branch the authority to do so (remember, under the legal theory by which the North opposed secession, all the residents of the South were still American citizens...) WITHOUT due process AND without compensation?

All of this, of course, AND, given the wording of the 9th and 10th Ammendments, by what right did the North resist secession at all?

The Emancipation Proclamation was valid only for states in rebellion against the U.S.  They were not then subject to the protections of the USC.  I presume the president was acting as commander in chief in charge of occupied territory under military law.

Even property commandered in war-time is supposed to receipted for, and paid for.   Not to mention being physically taken into custody and used for the war effort - at least customarily.  Also please note, it was the "states" in rebellion - again, under the theory the North fought under, the PEOPLE down there were still US citizens.  Lastly, if the Founding Fathers had intended for the President to have unlimited discretionary powers as the Commander in Cheif, it would say so.  It doesn't.  How does freeing the slaves in any way become a military necessity, especially since the proclamation was worded in such a way that it only applied to areas wherer the North was complettely unable to enforce it.  Lastly, there is supposed to be equal protection under the law: if citizens in southern states are to have their property taken without compensation, so should the citizens of states NOT in rebellion - and remember, there were slaves in states as far north as New Jersey at the time of the Civil War.  None of htem were freed by the proclamation....

[The Rabbi]

I dont understand your response.  Nor do I understand why this is an issue for you.  Are you seeking compensation for losses?  The Union did not confiscate anything.  No slaves were taken.  Their status was simply changed to freemen.
Southerners were barred from voting or holding office if they had served with the Confederacy.  I dont know what part of the USC that is in either.  But that's what happened.

[richyoung]

I dont understand your response.  Nor do I understand why this is an issue for you.  Are you seeking compensation for losses?  The Union did not confiscate anything.  No slaves were taken.  Their status was simply changed to freemen.

And no guns were taken in New Orleans - their status was just changed from "private citizen John Doe's property" to "City of New Orleans property"...,

Or to put it another way, there is no way to get around the fact that legally owned property was confiscated, "status changed", whatever,...with NO Constitutional authority to do so, nor any compensation.  Not only that, it selectively applied - if slavery is so wrong that such extreme measures have to be taken to end it, was was it not JUST as evil in the slave areas that hadn't seceeded?

[Perd Hapley]

was it not JUST as evil in the slave areas that hadn't seceeded?

Sure, but perhaps the EP was more pragmatic than moral in its intentions.  Freeing the slaves of the border states would only push them toward succession.  It was an incentive for slaves to help the Northern side or at least not help the South.  It helped to disrupt the economy and social system of the conquered areas, thus demoralizing whites therein.  

In any case, one cannot be said to have property rights in human beings.  Southern slaveholders might have disagreed, but they were simply wrong.

[The Rabbi]

I dont understand your response.  Nor do I understand why this is an issue for you.  Are you seeking compensation for losses?  The Union did not confiscate anything.  No slaves were taken.  Their status was simply changed to freemen.

And no guns were taken in New Orleans - their status was just changed from "private citizen John Doe's property" to "City of New Orleans property"...,

Don't be an ass.  Of course they were taken.

[roo_ster]

Amendment 5:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service
in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

According to the COTUS in effect at the time of the Civil War, Lincoln's actions were unConstitutional.  As vile a practice as it was, slavery was both Constitutional and legal and slaves were property.  The POTUS can not (Constitutionally), with the wave of a hand, do as Lincoln did, and deprive citizens of their property without compensation or due process.  

But, wars attenuate civil rights and restrictions on governemntal power...or our perception of them.

Now, the post-Civil War amendments were on the up & up.

[richyoung]

was it not JUST as evil in the slave areas that hadn't seceeded?

Sure, but perhaps the EP was more pragmatic than moral in its intentions.

The question isn't pragmatic or moral, its LEGAL...not that this was the ONLY illegality on the part of the North - attacking vessels in neutral ports, for one....another example is the formation of West Virginia...

Freeing the slaves of the border states would only push them toward succession.  It was an incentive for slaves to help the Northern side or at least not help the South.  It helped to disrupt the economy and social system of the conquered areas, thus demoralizing whites therein.

...except there WEREN'T any conquered areas to speak of at the time.  The truth is, it was a foreign relations gambit, to attempt to prevent Great Britain from aiding the South.

In any case, one cannot be said to have property rights in human beings. Southern slaveholders might have disagreed, but they were simply wrong.

You are quite simply, WRONG.  Not only was slavery legal inthe South at the time, but the North had "indentured servants" and instituted the DRAFT - which continues today in the form of Selective Service.  Of course, slavery still exists today in africa and "white slavery" pretty much all throught the world.

[Perd Hapley]

Rights transcend law.  That is why the American Revolution defied British law in defense of their rights.  The legality of slavery has no bearing on whether slave-owners had a right to their slaves.  What does modern slavery have to do with the question?

[richyoung]

Rights transcend law.

Slaves don't have rights.

[richyoung]

The legality of slavery has no bearing on whether slave-owners had a right to their slaves.

Uh, that pretty much IS the definition of "right to", hence the somewhat redundant expression "the legal right".  You may be attempting to make a MORAL argument - but thats why we have a LEGAL system, as "morality" is defined differently from person to person, and even a majority of people are supposed to be unable to trample a minority.  For current examples, please see: abortion clinics, gay bathhouses, brothels, strip clubs, casinos, pornography stores, bars,  - all examples of property, all examples that at least SOME people would assert no one has a "right" to own - yet we don't see the FedGov"emancipating them - heck, the IRS even owns a cathouse.

[Perd Hapley]

Wow, you agree with Rabbi again.

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/viewtopic.php?id=3269

[Oleg Volk]

All this begs another question: if a person owns himself, can he sell himself to another (or rent himself for life), assigning the purchase/rental price as a benefit to a third party? If so, then slavery should be legal.

The origins of the American slavery -- purchases of forcibly abducted people from their captors -- were less defensible ethically.

[richyoung]

The origins of the American slavery -- purchases of forcibly abducted people from their captors -- were less defensible ethically.

Compared to what?  Summary execution?  Being eaten?  The Africans sold into slavery were sold by other Africans - they were captured prisoners from other tribes, or criminals who had violated a law or custom.  For the most part, they would have been dead, had not the ability to  trade them for otherwise unobtainable goods arose.

[richyoung]

All this begs another question: if a person owns himself, can he sell himself to another (or rent himself for life), assigning the purchase/rental price as a benefit to a third party? If so, then slavery should be legal.
.

If slavery is illegal, then the following should also be illegal:

The NFL draft
The Selective Service registration
Using convicts for labor, either n the "Cool Hand Luke" mode or 'Prison Industries" mode.
FAILURE to provide school vouchers for students
Refusing to allow enlisted servicement to resign
Taxes on wages
Garnishment of wages
involuntary jury duty

If you have no problem with one or more things on the list, then your position is, "SOME amount of slavery, for SOME reasons, is OK" - and that position cannot be considered consistant with "ALL slavery is bad."

Also tobe examined, IF slavery is "BAD", why is it bad?  What basis, other than, "I just know it is", does one base this on?

[Perd Hapley]

It is true that the US catches too much grief for participating in an institution that was common and accepted in most cultures throughout history.  That doesn't make it right.  

richyoung, do you actually want to say that slavery is morally neutral or that moral convictions against slavery are arbitrary and optional?  

Oleg, I don't know what's illegal about the type of slavery you describe.  Whether that is actual slavery is questionable.

[richyoung]

That doesn't make it right.

What makes it wrong?

richyoung, do you actually want to say that slavery is morally neutral or that moral convictions against slavery are arbitrary and optional?

More the second.  One can't object to slavery on relgious grounds, as we are a Judeo-Christian country, and the Bible has specific guidance for both owners and slaves alike.  Can't object based on precedent, as you've noted.  Can't even really object based on current practices - otherwise there could be no Selective Service, and we could only punish criminals by fines or execution, rather than "involuntary servitude" in the pen.

To restate, the CURRENT position of the United States is:
Slavery is wrong, UNLESS:

You want to start playing professional sports.
We need you to go fight a war, and are unwilling to pay you enough salary and benefits for you to volunteer.
You are already in the military, but want to quit.
You broke a law, and aren't rich enough to wiggle out of it.

[Perd Hapley]

rich, your definition of slavery is laughably broad.

You seem to be of the opinion that my Christian religious beliefs can't hold anything to be immoral unless the Bible specifically says so.  That's silly.  The Bible never says that American Congressmen can't send yucky e-mails to teenagers.  But we can apply other things that it does say.  

Slavery is similar.  That the Bible never specifically condemns it in all instances doesn't mean that it approves of it.  That the Bible accepts it as a reality of human society doesn't mean that it approves of it.  We see this with the subject of divorce.  According to Christ, God "hates" divorce, yet he allows it because of "the hardness of your hearts."  

Additionally, you are blinded by your unwillingness to seperate one brand of compulsory servitude or even voluntary servitude from another.  While it might well be that God approves of a form of slavery as a consequence of debt (which was common in Biblical times) it doesn't follow that he must also approve of slavery in early America.

[richyoung]

rich, your definition of slavery is laughably broad.

For those whose positions are, to put it charitably, inconsistant, yes, I suppose it would be easier to call it "laughably broad" than to reconcile the unreconcilable in your own stand...

You seem to be of the opinion that my Christian religious beliefs can't hold anything to be immoral unless the Bible specifically says so.  That's silly.

I would submit that if you can't find support for it in the Christian Bible, it can hardly be part of your "Christian religious beliefs".  A beleif, yes.  Christian, no.  Of course, all kinds of things, from Inquisitions, to wars, to Prohibition have falsely claimed to be based on Christian beleifs, so you are hardly alone...

The Bible never says that American Congressmen can't send yucky e-mails to teenagers.

I think you will find several condemnations of homosexual behavior in both Testaments...as well as admonitions against fornication and adultery, HOWEVER expidited.

 But we can apply other things that it does say.  

Slavery is similar.  That the Bible never specifically condemns it in all instances doesn't mean that it approves of it.  That the Bible accepts it as a reality of human society doesn't mean that it approves of it.  We see this with the subject of divorce.  According to Christ, God "hates" divorce, yet he allows it because of "the hardness of your hearts."

Got any verses like that about slavery?  No?  How many other things are you feeling free to "interpret" into God's word?  Youhave a promising future ahead of you as a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court, should you choose to read the Constitution with the same rigorousness as the Bible....

Additionally, you are blinded by your unwillingness to seperate one brand of compulsory servitude or even voluntary servitude from another.

No, I'm just not a hypocrite - I think they are ALL bad.  Having stipulated that, I find immense irony  in the fact that the North, in the course of an illegal war to end "involuntary servitude" instituted a...military draft.  And income tax.  And worthless fiat money.

While it might well be that God approves of a form of slavery as a consequence of debt (which was common in Biblical times) it doesn't follow that he must also approve of slavery in early America.

God is not shy - when He forbids something, he comes right out and says it.  "Thou SHalt NOT..." - ring any bells?  Or to follow your "logic"., it also does NOT follow that He would NOT approve.

[Strings]

ok, I missed something: when did this become a theological discussion?

 I'd say something more, but I don't think my brand of theology would really have any relevance... :neener:

[CAnnoneer]

Methinks richyoung is fundamentally right.

Even our own contemporary society considers certain obvious violations of freedom to be "normal", even "desirable", the most egregious one having to do with the military, the "justice" system, taxation, and gov appropriations of private property. If there is any difference, it is in the extent of indenture rather than in its ethical or legal "justification".

And yes, I must agree that from a legal perspective, what Abe & co. did was mostly unconstitutional. Logically, there are only two possibilities - CSA were still union territory or CSA were a sovereign country. In the first case, they would be subject to union law, ergo the unconstitutionality. In the second case, the war was a "northern aggression". Pick your poison, then stick with it.