Plausibility check: Pro slavery putsch instead of Secession in the United States

[SWS]

I really don't see it for reasons already discussed.

 

[dfl_90]

That’s not my point at all. My point is that the only interest in “state’s rights” the south ever had was in regards to slavery, protecting slavery, and expanding slavery. Any issue which threatened slavery if the federal government took it was shouted down by “state’s rights” claims. While any state issue that threatened slavery was trampled by the national government in support of slavery. Slavery alone was the issue. And if states rights was the best way to serve it the south jumped on it. BUT if trampling state’s rights was the best way to serve it then the South ALSO did that.

I'm sorry but you're absolutely wrong. Slavery was an important issue and ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back, but there were many issues related to states' rights that came to the fore in the early history of the United States. I already explained in great detail the Nullification Crisis, which had next to nothing to do with slavery. That was a game of chicken over tariffs in which South Carolina almost seceded. I can also point to Worcester v. Georgia, in which states' rights were invoked to justify ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Native American sovereignty within Georgia. That never reach the level of a crisis because Jackson was largely supportive of Georgia, but it tested the limits of federal authority. Once again, not a matter of slavery. Looking farther back, we have the example Jacob referenced, in which Virginia and Kentucky claimed that the Alien and Sedition acts were unconstitutional and thus null, creating the precedent that fueled the later Nullification movement. Once more, nothing to do with slavery. It's a disservice to assume you can sum up half a century of political events as merely the consequence of slavery, as if there were no other pressing concerns within the nation at the time.

 

[mrmandias]

That kind of implies Lee had any kind of scruples whatsoever when it came to protecting slavery. He did not.

That's not true whatsoever. The only problem that Davis and his ilk had was when the federal government got involved with something that might oppose slavery. His government was far more centralized and powerful than that of the supposedly more centralized Union they were trying to leave. States rights was, and always had been, a fraud which the slavers only grasped onto as a means of protecting slavery. This was true going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.

Beautifully polemical and ahistorical.

 

[jacob ningen]

I'm sorry but you're absolutely wrong. Slavery was an important issue and ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back, but there were many issues related to states' rights that came to the fore in the early history of the United States. I already explained in great detail the Nullification Crisis, which had next to nothing to do with slavery. That was a game of chicken over tariffs in which South Carolina almost seceded. I can also point to Worcester v. Georgia, in which states' rights were invoked to justify ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Native American sovereignty within Georgia. That never reach the level of a crisis because Jackson was largely supportive of Georgia, but it tested the limits of federal authority. Once again, not a matter of slavery. Looking farther back, we have the example Jacob referenced, in which Virginia and Kentucky claimed that the Alien and Sedition acts were unconstitutional and thus null, creating the precedent that fueled the later Nullification movement. Once more, nothing to do with slavery. It's a disservice to assume you can sum up half a century of political events as merely the consequence of slavery, as if there were no other pressing concerns within the nation at the time.

However, there is a disturbing trend in which States' Rights activists either forget it in the service of slavery as @wcv215 points out. Or there's a silent "my" present as in the case of New Jersey vs New York(from Gibbons vs Ogden to the current can New Jersey break the Port Authority cooperation with NYC and who owns liberty island(the federal government solved the Liberty Island issue by saying I own it not either of you) or the Colorado Water Compact.

 

[Crazymachines]

I'm sorry but you're absolutely wrong. Slavery was an important issue and ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back, but there were many issues related to states' rights that came to the fore in the early history of the United States. I already explained in great detail the Nullification Crisis, which had next to nothing to do with slavery. That was a game of chicken over tariffs in which South Carolina almost seceded. I can also point to Worcester v. Georgia, in which states' rights were invoked to justify ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Native American sovereignty within Georgia. That never reach the level of a crisis because Jackson was largely supportive of Georgia, but it tested the limits of federal authority. Once again, not a matter of slavery. Looking farther back, we have the example Jacob referenced, in which Virginia and Kentucky claimed that the Alien and Sedition acts were unconstitutional and thus null, creating the precedent that fueled the later Nullification movement. Once more, nothing to do with slavery. It's a disservice to assume you can sum up half a century of political events as merely the consequence of slavery, as if there were no other pressing concerns within the nation at the time.

The 1832 nullification crisis and Worcester v. Georgia were very old hat by the time period we're discussing. By the 1860's, the past two decades of states rights retoric had been utilized in service of the protection and expansion of the institution of chattel slavery. All of your examples stem from an earlier era of American politics where enslavement hadn't yet become the singular monolithic issue of the day.

 

[dfl_90]

The 1832 nullification crisis and Worcester v. Georgia were very old hat by the time period we're discussing. By the 1860's, the past two decades of states rights retoric had been utilized in service of the protection and expansion of the institution of chattel slavery. All of your examples stem from an earlier era of American politics where enslavement hadn't yet become the singular monolithic issue of the day.

I'm not sure if 30 years is enough call those situations irrelevant. Lincoln famously harkened back to Jackson's response to the Nullification Crisis when deciding how to respond to the states of the South seceding. That said, I'm largely in agreement with your point. My argument is that the states' rights view was an established political stance that existed long before the Civil War and influenced numerous events in early American history. Calling it nothing more than a facade for promoting slavery is projecting the politics of the 1850s and 1860s back inappropriately.

 

[Tannenberg]

The entire war was based on the (obviously bullshit) belief that the States were exercising their legal right to own slaves backed by state legislation. When the Federal government allegedly tried to "infringe" upon that right (again: bullshit) by implementing legislation that would have banned slavery, the Southern States annulated their accession to the United States under the argument that state law was being violated.

By making a coup d'etat of the democratically elected government of the United States, the slavers have no legal argument to keep slavery: they would be forcing the rest of the country to accept their pejoratives. A lot of the propaganda that the Rebels tried to send abroad was based on the fact that the South was fighting against a tyrannical government that wanted to force their rule upon the poor helpless slave owners, who were just defending their homes. If they force the President out of office by military force, they would be telling the world they are a bunch of crazy people trying to take over the country. I don't even think they would be up for such a plan. A lot of the Confederates were under the delusion that their cause was backed by the US Constitution and that it would be what the Founding Fathers would have wanted. Even them would realize that entering with armed men into the Capitol and forcing Senators at gunpoint to keep slavery wouldn't be a good look.

 

[von Adler]

That kind of implies Lee had any kind of scruples whatsoever when it came to protecting slavery. He did not.

That's not true whatsoever. The only problem that Davis and his ilk had was when the federal government got involved with something that might oppose slavery. His government was far more centralized and powerful than that of the supposedly more centralized Union they were trying to leave. States rights was, and always had been, a fraud which the slavers only grasped onto as a means of protecting slavery. This was true going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.

Yep. The same "states' rights" people were a-ok with the Missouri Compromise, which denied states the right to choose for themselves if they wanted to enter the union as a free or slave state. They loved the Fugitive Slave Act, which suspended Haebus Corpus in the free states and allowed any slave owner to point at any black person in any free state, claim that person was his slave and the free state was forced to apprehend that black person and deliver said person to the slave owner - with no due process at all. Sometimes in violation of the state constitution.

And they were happy as clams with the Dredd Scott decision, essentially making all free states slave states by supreme court decree, as it was ruled that the property right of a slave owner trumped the constitution and laws of a free state.

States' rights my pasty lily white arse.

 

[Lusitania]

Has anyone seen the Confederate States of America movie? It was set in the scenario that you are discussing.

 

[jacob ningen]

Yep. The same "states' rights" people were a-ok with the Missouri Compromise, which denied states the right to choose for themselves if they wanted to enter the union as a free or slave state. They loved the Fugitive Slave Act, which suspended Haebus Corpus in the free states and allowed any slave owner to point at any black person in any free state, claim that person was his slave and the free state was forced to apprehend that black person and deliver said person to the slave owner - with no due process at all. Sometimes in violation of the state constitution.

And they were happy as clams with the Dredd Scott decision, essentially making all free states slave states by supreme court decree, as it was ruled that the property right of a slave owner trumped the constitution and laws of a free state.

States' rights my pasty lily white arse.

What was the reaction to the Hartford Convention?

 

[Crazymachines]

I'm not sure if 30 years is enough call those situations irrelevant. Lincoln famously harkened back to Jackson's response to the Nullification Crisis when deciding how to respond to the states of the South seceding. That said, I'm largely in agreement with your point. My argument is that the states' rights view was an established political stance that existed long before the Civil War and influenced numerous events in early American history. Calling it nothing more than a facade for promoting slavery is projecting the politics of the 1850s and 1860s back inappropriately.

Seems like you're splitting hairs, as by the 1860s a facade is what it was

 

[Crazymachines]

By making a coup d'etat of the democratically elected government of the United States, the slavers have no legal argument to keep slavery: they would be forcing the rest of the country to accept their pejoratives.

That's the thing about Lawyers and Lawmakers though, they're always able to bend the truth of the letter of the law to work in their favor. I'm quite certain they could come up with some sort of justification after the fact to remove a radical republican from office.

 

[dfl_90]

Seems like you're splitting hairs, as by the 1860s a facade is what it was

I think you're projecting modern criticisms of the "Lost Cause" ideology backwards. In the 1860s, states' rights was one of, if not the most prominent justification for the continuation of slavery. We may find that logic morally abhorrent, and with good reason, but that's what those people believed and acted upon. They weren't shy about it either, expressing it in speeches, letters, state constitutions, legislation, and so on. So to call it a facade, some elaborate distraction to disassociate themselves from slavery is to assume that they had the foresight to know it would be a stain upon the South's history. That's the exact opposite of what these people believed at the time. By selectively picking which parts of their words and actions to take seriously, you're guilty of the same mistake that Southern apologists use when whitewashing their history.

 

[Elfwine]

We may find that logic morally abhorrent, and with good reason, but that's what those people believed and acted upon.

The problem is that states' rights were thrown out with great force when it interfered with protecting slavery. The Compromise of 1850 is all about saying that the admission of a free state is itself such an unacceptable state of affairs that massively interfering with states' rights is perfectly okay, and it's not the only example.

It's hard to say that they (in the sense we are talking about something less than a hive mind) were acting on any belief in states' rights being sacrosanct.

 

[Crazymachines]

They weren't shy about it either, expressing it in speeches, letters, state constitutions, legislation, and so on. So to call it a facade, some elaborate distraction to disassociate themselves from slavery is to assume that they had the foresight to know it would be a stain upon the South's history.

Dude we literally just went over this, and you even admitted that they were pretty much solely using states rights rhetoric to further the preservation and expansion of slavery by the 1860s. You seem to be hung up on this idea that for something to be a facade or a opportunistic and cynical political move it cannot also be partially believed in.

 

[dfl_90]

The problem is that states' rights were thrown out with great force when it interfered with protecting slavery. The Compromise of 1850 is all about saying that the admission of a free state is itself such an unacceptable state of affairs that massively interfering with states' rights is perfectly okay, and it's not the only example.

It's hard to say that they (in the sense we are talking about something less than a hive mind) were acting on any belief in states' rights being sacrosanct.

Politics is hardly a science, so interpretation and understanding are very much up to the individuals involved. To Southerners, the Constitution didn't explicitly ban slavery in the territories. That was a consequence of the Missouri Compromise, which was merely an act of Congress, meaning it could be repealed or modified. The idea of popular sovereignty, that incoming states would decide whether to allow slavery, seemed like a means of reverting that unenumerated power back to the states. Fugitive slave laws were viewed similarly. The Constitution, specifically Article Four, makes certain guarantees regarding property rights for US citizens crossing between states. To Southerners, this was a legal basis for asserting that escaped slaves were still property and were obligated to be returned. Any attempts by the federal government, which did acknowledge these people as property at the time, to impede that process would be a infringement of the guaranteed protections of specific state property laws.

To be very clear, I'm not defending any of these lines of thinking. They're morally deplorable. That said, it was a legitimate political and legal conversation at the time. The Constitution was a flawed document that provided the mechanisms for these people and these states to claim certain protections, which they leveraged a means maintaining slavery as an institution. Once again, my point is that states' rights was very much a political language that was utilized in a lot different ways and for different causes. One of causes was slavery. The two are related, most closely in the 1850s and 1860s, but they're not the same thing under a different name.

 

[jmc247]

Politics is hardly a science, so interpretation and understanding are very much up to the individuals involved. To Southerners, the Constitution didn't explicitly ban slavery in the territories. That was a consequence of the Missouri Compromise, which was merely an act of Congress, meaning it could be repealed or modified. The idea of popular sovereignty, that incoming states would decide whether to allow slavery, seemed like a means of reverting that unenumerated power back to the states. Fugitive slave laws were viewed similarly. The Constitution, specifically Article Four, makes certain guarantees regarding property rights for US citizens crossing between states. To Southerners, this was a legal basis for asserting that escaped slaves were still property and were obligated to be returned. Any attempts by the federal government, which did acknowledge these people as property at the time, to impede that process would be a infringement of the guaranteed protections of specific state property laws.

Interestingly both Calhoun and Davis thought the hot heads on their side were brain dead to go forward with the fugitive slave act. Davis argued that New England was turning against slavery it would only piss them off further and they would renig on the terms claiming states rights to do so and that would only cause southerners to further mistrust any deals with New England.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Interestingly both Calhoun and Davis thought the hot heads on their side were brain dead to go forward with the fugitive slave act. Davis argued that New England was turning against slavery it would only piss them off further and they would renig on the terms claiming states rights to do so and that would only cause southerners to further mistrust any deals with New England.

It is always interesting to be that the fire-eaters and such did not come to power in the CSA, but the more moderate guys did.

 

[Elfwine]

To be very clear, I'm not defending any of these lines of thinking. They're morally deplorable. That said, it was a legitimate political and legal conversation at the time. The Constitution was a flawed document that provided the mechanisms for these people and these states to claim certain protections, which they leveraged a means maintaining slavery as an institution. Once again, my point is that states' rights was very much a political language that was utilized in a lot different ways and for different causes. One of causes was slavery. The two are related, most closely in the 1850s and 1860s, but they're not the same thing under a different name.

These people and these states claimed certain protections and did not care whether it was consistent with or inconsistent with states' rights when demanding more protection for slavery and more extension of slavery into the territories. That is my point. Whether or not it was constitutional or not would take legal training that I do not possess to answer.

I don't think that makes arguments on say, any of the issues Jefferson Davis had with Georgia's governor during the ACW just a facade for slavery - that doesn't even make sense - but that "states' rights" was something that the pro-slavery people of the day were willing to respect when that interfered with what they wanted doesn't hold up either.

 

[raharris1973]

Funny you should mention Calhoun in relation to the tariff because he himself said: “I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union.”

Ie the tariff issue was ALSO about slavery.

States rights were only invoked in the defense of slavery. And if slavery and states rights conflicted the former won out. Every. Single. Time.

Well before nullification, there were the Virginia and Kentucky resolves of the 1790s, about state 'interposition' against unconstitutional federal acts. Not about slavery by the way. Nope, against the Alien & Sedition Acts.

Tannenberg:
they would be forcing the rest of the country to accept their pejoratives

to quote Inigo Montoya - "I do not a think that word means what you think a that word means"