Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Civil war-The Causes of Southern Secession [twc01 VS Elfdude]

  1. #21

    Default Re: Civil war-The Causes of Southern Secession [twc01 VS Elfdude]

    Quote Originally Posted by elfdude View Post
    This is false, all 11 referenced slavery.
    I could believe you but the following prevent it.

    1] I have read all the secession documents in full, therefore i can only conclude your false.Since many dont mention slavery.

    2] Even if the above were not true you have shown over and over to not have even read what you posted or linked to. You even gave links to documents that were not the secession documents of the states yet claimed they were.

    3] You have ignored most of them and the fact you think there is 11, should tell anyone you dont know what your talking about. Though this would be a mistake i would expect from someone who has not read them. After all dident 11 states leave the union? However just to prove you wrong I think they wont delete if i do just two, one from my op one not. For more see op.

    KENTUCKY

    Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and
    Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government: Therefore,

    Be it ordained, That we do hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States, and in the name of the people we do hereby declare Kentucky to be a free and independent State, clothed with all power to fix her own destiny and to secure her own rights and liberties.

    And whereas, the majority of the Legislature of Kentucky have violated their most solemn pledges made before the election, and deceived and betrayed the people; have abandoned the position of neutrality assumed by themselves and the people, and invited into the State the organized armies of Lincoln; have abdicated the Government in favor of a military despotism which they have placed around themselves, but cannot control, and have abandoned the duty of shielding the citizen with their protection; have thrown upon our people and the State the horrors and ravages of war, instead of attempting to preserve the peace, and have voted men and money for the war waged by the North for the destruction of our constitutional rights; have violated the expressed words of the constitution by borrowing five millions of money for the support of the war without a vote of the people; have permitted the arrest and imprisonment of our citizens, and transferred the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive to a military commission of partisans; have seen the writ of habeus corpus suspended without an effort for its preservation, and permitted our people to be driven in exile from their homes; have subjected our property to confiscation and our persons to confinement in the penitentiary as felons, because we may choose to take part in a cause for civil liberty and constitutional government against a sectional majority waging war against the people and institutions of fifteen independent States of the old Federal Union, and have done all these things deliberately against the warnings and vetoes of the Governor and the solemn remonstrances of the minority in the Senate and House of Representatives: Therefore,

    Be it further ordained, That the unconstitutional edicts of a factious majority of a Legislature thus false to their pledges, their honor, and their interests are not law, and that such a government is unworthy of the support of a brave and free people, and that we do therefore declare that the people are thereby absolved from all allegiance to said government, and that they have a right to establish any government which to them may seem best adapted to the preservation of their rights and liberties.

    Adopted 20 Nov 1861, by a "Convention of the People of Kentucky"


    NORTH CAROLINA

    AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of government entitled "The Constitution of the United States."

    We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated.

    We do further declare and ordain, That the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.

    Done in convention at the city of Raleigh, this the 20th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the independence of said State.


    Quote Originally Posted by elfdude View Post
    No I haven't. I cited and linked them directly. You've ignored them.
    Good job. You've now proven fully that you're not only ignoring me, you're ignoring your own documents that you cite. Again I went through all 11.
    Statements like this make it very hard to wonder why you would get in a discussion you have no knowledge of. It also makes me think you still have not read post 1 or 8. I thought you were just hiding pretending you have not because you could not handle them. But me know thinks you really have not read them. Since I posted many in my op/post 8 that you did not include, its hard to imagine you would other wise claim you posted them all. Here is what you posted the following.

    Arkansas- You ignore Arkansas secession document i posted in full on post 1 and what causes there secession and instead give a quote of what caused the deep south to leave the union from the Arkansas convention that turned down secession. You would know that if you cared for historical context. Or had you read my op.

    Tennessee-You present a speech that is laden with state sovereignty [you did not read] given by one man and Tennessee rejected secession 4-1. This you would know if you know the historical context or read my op. You of course ignore there secession document that says nothing of slavery. That same man you quotes does give the reason Tennessee leaves the union see my op.

    Virginia-As I pointed out does not mention slavery, but the "oppression" of th e slave states [cotton states]. What was that oppression? well put in historical context it is clear. See my op.

    South Carolina - I made the arguments it was clearly a state sovereignty document [as I made on post 8 and know 18] that you must ignore to maintain your belief.

    Florida[post 18]

    - Mississippi, Georgia,Alabama. [that i quote in post 8] Yes they mention slavery among other issues as i agreed in my post 8. Than as i stated states rights was the major concern for the majority, not actual slavery. You cannot handle those arguments or the historical context as you have shown by ignoring them.


    But where is North Carolina? Tennessee? Arkansas? Kentucky? Missouri? Louisiana? and yes Arizona territory? That is 7 secession documents you did not post and was unaware of. Not only cant you defend the ones you post, you were ignorant of 7 of the 15 documents and yet claimed to have posted them all. All the while ignoring my posts with many secession documents in full. Why debate a subject you have not studied?


    Quote Originally Posted by elfdude View Post
    The burden of proof is on you at this point you may satisfy it by either:

    1. Defining what you mean by primary reason in a way that is not subjective and not dependent upon your interpretation in a way which is consistent with your argument thus far and inconsistent with mine

    2. Providing definitive proof that the civil war could have occurred without the issue of slavery existing in a hypothetical world, either one which the entire country agrees on slavery or the entire country disagrees with it (either will do) and divide along similar lines of demarcation.

    Anything else will almost inevitably be more worthless copy pasta and distraction from the fact you have an empty argument.

    The burden of proof is on me to show state sovereignty was the main cause of southern secession. That is the debate. That is what I have done post 1 and 8 and following.

    By allowing the states themselves and the historical context to tell us what causes secession. We can than find what caused secession. By assuming they use the english language, that has words and meanings, we can understand what they left for. Your standards as we have seen is illogical and would prove my case, that state sovereignty was the main cause.
    Last edited by twc01; August 24, 2016 at 06:49 PM.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Civil war-The Causes of Southern Secession [twc01 VS Elfdude]

    I posted links to North Carolina's documents. North Carolina is one of the most explicitly slave states. Kentucky never seceded and is irrelevant.

    All I asked for is what definition you're using to conclude your argument is correct. You refused to give one. Have fun being wrong.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Civil war-The Causes of Southern Secession [twc01 VS Elfdude]

    Quote Originally Posted by elfdude View Post
    I posted links to North Carolina's documents. North Carolina is one of the most explicitly slave states. Kentucky never seceded and is irrelevant.

    All I asked for is what definition you're using to conclude your argument is correct. You refused to give one. Have fun being wrong.
    If you pull from North Carolina's ordinance they left over slavery you can read between the lines better than me. I would rather gone on the historical context as laid out in my op to determined what causes North Carolina to leave the union. As For Kentucky, its generally well known Kentucky was accepted into the confederacy by Jeff Davis and had representation throughout the entire war in the confederate congress. A pro confederate government was set up in southern Kentucky with about 1/3 of the state pro south. There declaration gave the reasons they left the union.

    My definition of state sovereignty is generally just that, states were sovereign and self governing. They held the ultimate authority over its people and were not subject to masters in D.C The states were protected under the Constitution and if the federal government overstepped, the states retained there authority. So when the states were violated and rejected by Lincoln [see op] they revolted. Others did so earlier when the 10th amendment was violated.

    I have been warned by a moderator that we must change the tone of the debate. I hope we can do this.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Civil war-The Causes of Southern Secession [twc01 VS Elfdude]

    Ok, so we're going to be super rigorous here and I'm sorry but given the vastly different perspectives and critereon we're using for this debate to move anywhere we must do so.

    State sovreignty is not an objective qualifier. What I mean is that there's no measurable way for us to say yes, that's sovreignty, no that's not sovreignty. Furthermore as far as rigor is concerned it's a rather terrible definition to boot given it can dramatically overlap a huge host of things even completely opposite ones while still fulfilling the common definition of what state sovreignty is. In terms of our argument this broad definition would suffer the fallacy of generalization in which so many things can be called state sovreignty that when you say state sovreignty that doesn't mean much to the point of meaninglessness.

    My assumption has been operating on the idea that perhaps you meant state sovreignty OVER slavery, as in, were the question to come up states would choose sovreignty over slavery. The civil war is particularly terrible at demonstrating this because quite literally no one chose state sovreignty over slavery and throughout history many directly chose slavery over state sovreignty questioning any motivation with sovreignty at the center.

    Thus I must appeal to you to define in as rigorous as possible terms what you mean what you say Primary Reason and what you mean when you say State Sovreignty. For me the above immediately negates the potential that your thesis can be rendered as true. Thus I'm certain we're using differing critereon without examining our reasoning at the base level to ensure we're actually on the same page and not applying two entirely different definitions to the problem.

    Let's disect this a bit further:
    You said, "They held the ultimate authority over its people and were not subject to masters in D.C."

    This I find to be immediately problematic because it's a possible infinite. There's no way to measure the depth of your claim to see whether it's the same as mine in more provacative words or if it's genuinely concluding that states held absolute independence. An absolute of independence was never something the states held even from the get go so this itself poses a definitional problem. What do you mean by this?

    You go on to state, "The states were protected under the Constitution and if the federal government overstepped, the states retained there authority."

    What do you mean by retaining authority? Even under the articles, a far less binding union states ceded some authority to the central government in exchange for a more complete union which in turn benefitted them all. This collective identity existed from the get go and the idea that states were completely independent until Lincoln screwed it up (so to speak) is silly.

    You then said, "So when the states were violated and rejected by Lincoln [see op] they revolted."

    This itself is further interesting because not only do I not see how Lincoln ever "violated" them I don't understand why or to what depth you're using the term violated in the first place. If you mean to say they violated the letter of the law, this itself I further disagree with as everything they did was explicitly within the law created through the rules of the government underwritten by the constitution. Law is a bit effable and in turn arguable but it'd be a huge stretch to say that a law was violated.

    You also said, "Others did so earlier when the 10th amendment was violated."

    The US govt only possesses those powers delegated to it by the US constitution. The US constitution which includes within itself mechanisms to change the US constitution inherently making any alteration to those rules a power delegated to it by the US constitution. The 10th amendment was never violated in the first place and the only changes to US constitution occured post some disaster necessitating the change and achieving the ratification. By what metric was the US constitution ever violated?

    If we can't establish this base level of understanding there's no possibility that we could ever hope to change the tone of this debate. As such without these answers I see no point in continuing.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Civil war-The Causes of Southern Secession [twc01 VS Elfdude]

    Quote Originally Posted by elfdude View Post
    Ok, so we're going to be super rigorous here and I'm sorry but given the vastly different perspectives and critereon we're using for this debate to move anywhere we must do so.

    State sovreignty is not an objective qualifier. What I mean is that there's no measurable way for us to say yes, that's sovreignty, no that's not sovreignty. Furthermore as far as rigor is concerned it's a rather terrible definition to boot given it can dramatically overlap a huge host of things even completely opposite ones while still fulfilling the common definition of what state sovreignty is. In terms of our argument this broad definition would suffer the fallacy of generalization in which so many things can be called state sovreignty that when you say state sovreignty that doesn't mean much to the point of meaninglessness.

    My assumption has been operating on the idea that perhaps you meant state sovreignty OVER slavery, as in, were the question to come up states would choose sovreignty over slavery. The civil war is particularly terrible at demonstrating this because quite literally no one chose state sovreignty over slavery and throughout history many directly chose slavery over state sovreignty questioning any motivation with sovreignty at the center.

    Thus I must appeal to you to define in as rigorous as possible terms what you mean what you say Primary Reason and what you mean when you say State Sovreignty. For me the above immediately negates the potential that your thesis can be rendered as true. Thus I'm certain we're using differing critereon without examining our reasoning at the base level to ensure we're actually on the same page and not applying two entirely different definitions to the problem.

    Let's disect this a bit further:
    You said, "They held the ultimate authority over its people and were not subject to masters in D.C."

    This I find to be immediately problematic because it's a possible infinite. There's no way to measure the depth of your claim to see whether it's the same as mine in more provacative words or if it's genuinely concluding that states held absolute independence. An absolute of independence was never something the states held even from the get go so this itself poses a definitional problem. What do you mean by this?

    You go on to state, "The states were protected under the Constitution and if the federal government overstepped, the states retained there authority."

    What do you mean by retaining authority? Even under the articles, a far less binding union states ceded some authority to the central government in exchange for a more complete union which in turn benefitted them all. This collective identity existed from the get go and the idea that states were completely independent until Lincoln screwed it up (so to speak) is silly.

    You then said, "So when the states were violated and rejected by Lincoln [see op] they revolted."

    This itself is further interesting because not only do I not see how Lincoln ever "violated" them I don't understand why or to what depth you're using the term violated in the first place. If you mean to say they violated the letter of the law, this itself I further disagree with as everything they did was explicitly within the law created through the rules of the government underwritten by the constitution. Law is a bit effable and in turn arguable but it'd be a huge stretch to say that a law was violated.

    You also said, "Others did so earlier when the 10th amendment was violated."

    The US govt only possesses those powers delegated to it by the US constitution. The US constitution which includes within itself mechanisms to change the US constitution inherently making any alteration to those rules a power delegated to it by the US constitution. The 10th amendment was never violated in the first place and the only changes to US constitution occured post some disaster necessitating the change and achieving the ratification. By what metric was the US constitution ever violated?

    If we can't establish this base level of understanding there's no possibility that we could ever hope to change the tone of this debate. As such without these answers I see no point in continuing.

    Thanks for the post sir .

    I would suggest to you sir if you are looking for a "define in as rigorous as possible terms what you mean what you say Primary Reason and what you mean when you say State Sovreignty."

    That you would look no further than post 1 and 8. I cant reference it enough times. They wont allow me to repost it so i am at a loss unless you actually read them. But the south carolina document on secession could give you a good idea.

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


    If you want more in depth please see here

    Lincoln myth- Lincoln Saved the American Republic and the Constitution
    http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/the...e-constitution

    To your comments yes indeed I said state sovereignty was more important than slavery as i showed in my op and post 8 this is true. It is also true before the civil war no state [in the future confederacy] chose sovereignty over slavery as that would be contradictory, since slavery was a state issue. You have claimed that states chose slavery over sovereignty, i would ask you to provide and example and assure you that has never been the case. Neither was it for the CSA Constitution as some falsely claim. If you are to claim because the fugitive slave laws, than I would say that is a clear misunderstanding of state sovereignty. State sovereignty is to protect its own states citizens, that is why disunion can happen when you have a confederation of sovereign states, just the reason secession is so vital to self government.

  6. #26

    Default Re: Civil war-The Causes of Southern Secession [twc01 VS Elfdude]

    Given your definitions or lack there of, I feel this debate has concluded. If you fulfill my request I'd be happy to continue but until then it appears that this debate has entirely run its course with every point thus far responded to.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Civil war-The Causes of Southern Secession [twc01 VS Elfdude]

    Quote Originally Posted by elfdude View Post
    Given your definitions or lack there of, I feel this debate has concluded. If you fulfill my request I'd be happy to continue but until then it appears that this debate has entirely run its course with every point thus far responded to.

    I would agree this debate has long ago ran its course. I also would love to continue but moderators have told me i am not allowed to respost material from my op. All the information you need for your definitions is on my op. Also post 8. You even don't need to read that much its near the start. But given they wont allow me to repost, their is nothing i can do. For this debate to continue depends on you sir, and if your willing to read my first post. In fact, if you simply read the South Carolina declaration of causes of secession as you claimed you have, you will find your definitions. For more in depth if you uncertain or need clarification, ask or read my op and the thread i linked last post.

    But i also question someone who debates a subject without a knowledge of state sovereignty. Yet claims it did not cause the war. But even if state sovereignty was mysterious, and we did not know what it was or could not define it. We can still see that it caused secession as i showed on my op.

    If this is to be the end i thank you for accepting my challenge to debate this topic. I believe this statement has been show true.

    “State sovereignty died at Appomattox”
    -Supreme Court Justice Salmon P Chase 1864-73

    Last edited by twc01; August 28, 2016 at 06:10 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •