Was the Confederacy constitutional?

[Good Luck]

What gives previous generations the right to impose such an arrangement, to make decisions for future generations? What good is any social contract if it is not consensual and cannot be discarded (for reasons obvious and unforeseen) in the future?

Does your "can't decide for future generations" apply to all laws? Do you see the need to rewrite murder laws every generation? How about laws against theft? If not, by what authority do previous murder laws carry on across generations unless there is a GOVERNMENT that also carries on across generations? For that matter, how often do we define a generation?

It is ludicrous in the extreme to expect each generation to recreate their own government because the previous one was not specifically agreed to by that generation. There is a difference between liberty and chaos. Assuming that a government and its laws agreed to by the founding generation of said government do NOT automatically apply to subsequent generations (unless deliberately changed) is chaos.

There is a specific provision available for any generation who wants to change it. The confederacy chose a different way, a way contrary to the laws agreed to, and lost their bid to force their change.

 

[Minister of Truth]

They definitely would have been at a disadvantage, but I doubt they would have lost ALL claims to settling the western territories. The Union would have gotten the far greater share, that is certain, which is one of the reasons that a split nation back then would have resulted in additional conflicts in the alternate future.

The south probably would have been able to spread into New Mexico Territory (or at least some of it) and Oklahoma. The North would have had the additional advantage of being able to push eastward from California and Oregon. In any case, I believe any push westward by either side would have been bitterly contested by the other, which would have led to more conflicts if not outright war, and delayed the development of the West significantly, as well as taken a large portion of the industry that was used to build the United States and put it to keeping the CSA "in their place".

Meanwhile, the CSA would have been faced with the competition of industrialized agriculture against their slave economy - and lost big time. They would have ended up every bit as dependent on Northern industry but instead of forced reconstruction (what some to this day call "occupation"), it would have taken the form of severely lopsided trade agreements and forced concessions to the point that they'd be faced with either starting yet another war, or allow themselves to be kept at 3rd-world status.

There are actually a whole bundle of possible alternate histories from a split Union in 1861. The outlooks are entirely different depending on whether a civil war was fought and won by the south, or whether secession was granted rather than fight a war. The latter would have left a far stronger South which in turn would have led to greater westward expansion by the CSA until the first conflict over the unsettled territories. And believe it, there WOULD have been conflicts, and probably a full blown war even if they'd avoided the Civil War.

But the point is the comparative alternate history, had the Union been permanently split, is not very pleasant to contemplate.

Yes, I have always considered conflict over territories to have been a probable outcome, but as it was, all of the Western lands were territories/states of the USA. The CSA could never have contested this, and its possible they would have agreed not to try to fight for it.

 

[Minister of Truth]

What gives previous generations the right to impose such an arrangement, to make decisions for future generations? What good is any social contract if it is not consensual and cannot be discarded (for reasons obvious and unforeseen) in the future?

So we can discard the Constitution and old laws, then?

 

[Minister of Truth]

I really think things would've been entirely different without the treaty of Versailles.

One of the biggest things Hitler and other conservatives was able to rally around was the "betrayal" that Germany had endured by the people who had signed the treaty. Without that, conservativism could've been quashed, and we wouldn't have had a conservative uprising in Germany at all. We'd probably be colonizing Mars at this point.

I was taught to distain the Treaty of Versailles, and have read many scathing rebukes of it. However, there was a period of time when I was considering writing my senior thesis about the Paris Peace Conference, and I directed my required readings for one European history class at Versailles. I came accoss a book called The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years, which is a compilation of skeptical academics. I'm not sure that its changed my mind, but it will open yours a little. Pay particular attention to the schedule of reparations if you do ever choose to read it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is a specific provision available for any generation who wants to change it. The confederacy chose a different way, a way contrary to the laws agreed to, and lost their bid to force their change.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

I have highlighted important words and phrases for your comprehension.

The Confederates were doing exactly what the Preamble to our Founding Principle says we are REQUIRED to do! Not that we have the option of doing, not that we have the legal justification to do, but what we are REQUIRED to do, if we hold the truths to be self evident and believe in our founding principles.

The reason people have a difficult time comprehending this profound point, is because in 2010, we just can't wrap our minds around the prevailing "intellect" of the day! We tend to presume that people could look at a black person and see a person who is black, because that is what we see today, we can't imagine how anyone could have seen something different in 1860. It doesn't seem like that long ago, really... 150 years? In the scope of humankind, that isn't too very long ago. So it doesn't 'compute' in our brains, just how far we have come.

In 1860, a black person was not seen as a person. They were called "Negros" and the prevailing intellectuals of the day, argued they were not of the human species, they were not "people" but more like "missing links" in the evolutionary chain... much of this is thanks to a young scientist named, Charlie Darwin. White people, by and large, viewed them as "black savages" and not people, certainly not as advanced as white society. So, the liberties and freedoms spoken of in the Constitution, simply did not apply to these "creatures" from African jungles, any more than it would apply to Gorilla's in a zoo!

Now, certain liberals here will have us believe this view was only among people of the South, and the more sophisticated Northerners were akin to the liberal elites of today, and didn't have any prejudice toward black people whatsoever! This is simply a false perspective, and ignorance of the way people thought in 1860. During that time, slaves were thought of as property, because the courts said they were property, not people... property! With the exception of a few Mormon's and Quakers, most white people didn't even consider them humans.

When you take into context this prevailing thought and the law of the day, the Southerner's did have a legitimate complaint with regard to what the Constitution says. If that was "wrong" the Constitution should have been changed, or the courts should have ruled differently regarding slaves being property, but that wasn't the case. There had been plenty of opportunity for someone to have changed things, but they didn't. So when things came to a head, the Confederacy did precisely what our founding documents compelled them to do. It wasn't unconstitutional, it was their obligation.

 

[Minister of Truth]

No, they did not have any legitimate complaints, at all.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, they did not have any legitimate complaints, at all.

From a 2010 perspective, they certainly didn't! It was totally reprehensible!

 

[Minister of Truth]

From a 2010 perspective, they certainly didn't! It was totally reprehensible!

Even the bullshit they whined about (but chose not to address in their secession documents, oddly enough) that didn't involve slavery was un-scholarly, to say the least...

Also, the truth is NOT relative.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Even the bullshit they whined about (but chose not to address in their secession documents, oddly enough) that didn't involve slavery was un-scholarly, to say the least...

Also, the truth is NOT relative.

Everything is relative, Einstein proved it.

You have your opinions, and I have mine. The law said what the law said, and the courts ruled how the courts ruled. People did not see "black people" they saw slaves, savages, property, chattel, anything BUT equals. You can live in denial of that until the day you die, but that is the truth. So long as you have the inability to understand the perspectives of the day, you will remain in ignorance, never understanding or realizing the truth. You are blinding yourself from it because you don't want to face it, because to face it, would mean you could no longer blame it off on people you are bigoted towards and do not like.

You're really not much different than a sheet wearer.

 

[ironhead]

Does your "can't decide for future generations" apply to all laws? Do you see the need to rewrite murder laws every generation? How about laws against theft? If not, by what authority do previous murder laws carry on across generations unless there is a GOVERNMENT that also carries on across generations? For that matter, how often do we define a generation?

It is ludicrous in the extreme to expect each generation to recreate their own government because the previous one was not specifically agreed to by that generation. There is a difference between liberty and chaos. Assuming that a government and its laws agreed to by the founding generation of said government do NOT automatically apply to subsequent generations (unless deliberately changed) is chaos.

There is a specific provision available for any generation who wants to change it. The confederacy chose a different way, a way contrary to the laws agreed to, and lost their bid to force their change.

I should have been more specific. It applies to the Federal government as the States are sovereign entities. The States, at the time, entered into a contractual agreement in the form of the Confederation, and later, the Federal government in its current incarnation. In other words, if States can enter into an agreement to form a Union, then they can also break from that Union if they feel the terms of the agreement are no longer being upheld.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Everything is relative, Einstein proved it.

You have your opinions, and I have mine. The law said what the law said, and the courts ruled how the courts ruled. People did not see "black people" they saw slaves, savages, property, chattel, anything BUT equals. You can live in denial of that until the day you die, but that is the truth. So long as you have the inability to understand the perspectives of the day, you will remain in ignorance, never understanding or realizing the truth. You are blinding yourself from it because you don't want to face it, because to face it, would mean you could no longer blame it off on people you are bigoted towards and do not like.

You're really not much different than a sheet wearer.

Einstein proved that time is relative, which is constantly being challenged as time (ironically enough) goes by.

As for relativism, it is the last refuge of the evil-doer.

 

[Good Luck]

I should have been more specific. It applies to the Federal government as the States are sovereign entities. The States, at the time, entered into a contractual agreement in the form of the Confederation, and later, the Federal government in its current incarnation. In other words, if States can enter into an agreement to form a Union, then they can also break from that Union if they feel the terms of the agreement are no longer being upheld.

This has already been addressed ad nauseum. Read the thread before bringing up the same, tired argument.

NO, the states do NOT have the right to unilaterally dissolve the union. First, because the agreement entered into creating the union was not unilateral. Second because the union created was agreed to be perpetual. Yes, perpetual binds subsequent generations to the same agreement, and YES, previous generations DO have the authority to make that kind of agreement. It does not matter the level of government - no society can survive if governments, laws, and agreements have to be renegotiated every generation.

As hass been said before, the argument should not be whether secession is constitutional or not (it is not.) Any argument claiming secession IS constitutional is nothing more than an attempt to justify the actions of the South (and continue to whine like babies about the outcome.) The FACT is secession is not constitutional, nor legal.

However, neither was the American Revolution "legal", nor was it within the strictures of the prevailing "constitution" of the time (ie: Magna Carta). Yet very few Americans believe this day that the Revolution was not justified. So the REAL question is, was the Southern rebellion JUSTIFIED, in SPITE of secession being unconstitutional?

 

[Good Luck]

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

I have highlighted important words and phrases for your comprehension.

The Confederates were doing exactly what the Preamble to our Founding Principle says we are REQUIRED to do! Not that we have the option of doing, not that we have the legal justification to do, but what we are REQUIRED to do, if we hold the truths to be self evident and believe in our founding principles.

The reason people have a difficult time comprehending this profound point, is because in 2010, we just can't wrap our minds around the prevailing "intellect" of the day! We tend to presume that people could look at a black person and see a person who is black, because that is what we see today, we can't imagine how anyone could have seen something different in 1860. It doesn't seem like that long ago, really... 150 years? In the scope of humankind, that isn't too very long ago. So it doesn't 'compute' in our brains, just how far we have come.

In 1860, a black person was not seen as a person. They were called "Negros" and the prevailing intellectuals of the day, argued they were not of the human species, they were not "people" but more like "missing links" in the evolutionary chain... much of this is thanks to a young scientist named, Charlie Darwin. White people, by and large, viewed them as "black savages" and not people, certainly not as advanced as white society. So, the liberties and freedoms spoken of in the Constitution, simply did not apply to these "creatures" from African jungles, any more than it would apply to Gorilla's in a zoo!

Now, certain liberals here will have us believe this view was only among people of the South, and the more sophisticated Northerners were akin to the liberal elites of today, and didn't have any prejudice toward black people whatsoever! This is simply a false perspective, and ignorance of the way people thought in 1860. During that time, slaves were thought of as property, because the courts said they were property, not people... property! With the exception of a few Mormon's and Quakers, most white people didn't even consider them humans.

When you take into context this prevailing thought and the law of the day, the Southerner's did have a legitimate complaint with regard to what the Constitution says. If that was "wrong" the Constitution should have been changed, or the courts should have ruled differently regarding slaves being property, but that wasn't the case. There had been plenty of opportunity for someone to have changed things, but they didn't. So when things came to a head, the Confederacy did precisely what our founding documents compelled them to do. It wasn't unconstitutional, it was their obligation.

Nice try, but the Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution. But at least you're getting to the right track.

The purpose of the Declaration was to justify the Colonies BREAKING THE LAW in declaring independence from the British Empire. If you want to use the Declaration to justify the Southern rebellion, that is a legitimate argument. Using the principles of justification as laid out in the Declaration still does not make their actions constitutional, it simply attempts to justify their actions as the actions of the revolution were justified - which is where the argument should be.

And, as to that, you conveniently left off Jefferson's very next statement:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

In that, Jefferson is cautioning that people NOT rebel against their government for "light and transient causes". And THAT is where the Southern rebellion failed to account for before calling for secession. The actions giving them cause were, to that point, still "transient" in nature - most had not been in place long, many within the most recent congress. Certainly many pieces of legislation enacted while the North maintained a house majority were unfair at best, and outright unconstitutional when looked at closely. But the South did not take anywhere near the steps the Colonies made in trying to address those injustices they were faced with.

The Colonies had, over a significant period of time, sent delegates to England to argue against the actions of the crown, and to demand proper representation in the Parliament under the Magna Carta. Benjamin Franklin crossed the Atlantic no less than 3 times in the effort to demand redress and equal treatment for the Colonies. It was only after being repeatedly rebuffed, along with increased actions against the Colonies by the Empire, in retribution for the Colonies have the gall to complain, that the Colonies decided working within the system was getting them only worse treatment.

The South had taken very few of the steps allowed under the Constitution before they gave up and decided to toss it all out. Very few trade laws, which were (supposedly) the chief gripe, were challenged in the legal system. This was a significant failing considering that, in many cases involving slavery and associated issues, the courts had decided in favor of the South. A couple, more recent cases had gone against them, but not nearly enough to establish anything resembling a "long train of abuses" as described by Jefferson against the Crown.

Jefferson listed the "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" taken by the Crown against the Colonies to show the justification of "throw(ing) off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

So, why don't you do what Jefferson did. List for us the "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" taken by the federal government against the Southern slave states that justifies rebellion instead of working through the system that was set up. Did the federal government "refused ... Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good"? (NOPE) Did they "forbid... (the) Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance"? (NOPE) Or maybe "refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature" (No, we know they didn't do that. Southern representative and senators were present right up to, and beyond, the official start of the Civil War.)

So, let's have it. List the grievances that justify secession. And then compare them to what King George was doing to the Colonies.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

In that, Jefferson is cautioning that people NOT rebel against their government for "light and transient causes". And THAT is where the Southern rebellion failed to account for before calling for secession.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Federal government confiscating or rendering useless, your personal private property, is NOT light or transient, it is an outright violation of your fundamental rights under the Constitution. Granted, it was not right to consider slaves personal property, but that WAS the law, the courts had deemed slaves to be personal property. At the time, the southerners did have a legitimate Constitutional argument, whether they were morally justified in their views of the time, is beside the point. It's easy for us to judge them today, by today's standards, laws and views, but that is not intellectually honest or fair.

 

[Good Luck]

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Federal government confiscating or rendering useless, your personal private property, is NOT light or transient, it is an outright violation of your fundamental rights under the Constitution. Granted, it was not right to consider slaves personal property, but that WAS the law, the courts had deemed slaves to be personal property. At the time, the southerners did have a legitimate Constitutional argument, whether they were morally justified in their views of the time, is beside the point. It's easy for us to judge them today, by today's standards, laws and views, but that is not intellectually honest or fair.

So, if you think there were justifications, list them.

But "They won't let us keep slaves" does not cut it. It does not matter that we have since declared slavery a heinous practice. A single, even though major, disagreement between economic practices is not justification for splitting a nation. If it were, we'd be a world of city-states, as no one ever agrees on all principles of economic practices.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So, if you think there were justifications, list them.

But "They won't let us keep slaves" does not cut it. It does not matter that we have since declared slavery a heinous practice. A single, even though major, disagreement between economic practices is not justification for splitting a nation. If it were, we'd be a world of city-states, as no one ever agrees on all principles of economic practices.

I've already listed those several pages back, we keep going in circles. History shows a pattern of federal intervention and meddling into the economic affairs of the southern states for over 40 years before the Civil War. They passed unfair tariffs, which hindered the southern states while benefiting the northern states. "They want to take away our property" is certainly a compelling reason to rebel, and I am sorry if you don't understand the principles of our Constitution regarding that. Not arguing it was right to consider slaves as property, but then again, it wasn't the CSA who determined slaves were property, was it?

Others have argued that the Southern states should have industrialized, but that doesn't work because you would have had northern textile mills and southern textile mills, sitting idle because no one was growing the cotton to supply the textile mills. They grew cotton because the climate was conducive for growing cotton well in the south... they didn't grow grapes, it would have been stupid to do that. Because of how cotton had to be harvested, slave labor was used. This was not decided by the southern states or southerners, it was decided by the US Government, years before. It was an accepted practice and it was perfectly legal and legitimate at the time. You MUST keep that in perspective when evaluating the circumstances, and to deny that or try to hide from that, is intellectual dishonesty.

We can look back on history and say they were wrong, I've not denied that... but the "fault" lies with everyone, not just the southern plantation owners who had slaves. They were simply doing what the law allowed them to do, what our nation had condoned and accepted as common practice. It wasn't something being done under the table or against the will of the government, or in violation of the law. These people bought and paid for slaves because the laws allowed them to do so, and they were deemed legitimate private property owned by the slave owner, by the Supreme Court. This was not THEIR fault, it was the fault of the US Government.

I think it was Maryland or Delaware, they wanted to do away with slavery, this was several years before the Civil War... The Federal Gov. 'bought' the 'property' of the slave owners, and this compensation allowed them to justify outlawing slavery there. Had the government made such an offer to the southern states, we could have probably avoided a war. As it stood, they didn't want to do that, they just wanted to say, tough shit, we know we told you it was okay to spend your money buying these slaves, but now we've changed our mind and you are shit outta luck, you wasted your money! The Federal Gov. just didn't have the authority to do such a thing.

 

[Good Luck]

I've already listed those several pages back, we keep going in circles. History shows a pattern of federal intervention and meddling into the economic affairs of the southern states for over 40 years before the Civil War. They passed unfair tariffs, which hindered the southern states while benefiting the northern states. "They want to take away our property" is certainly a compelling reason to rebel, and I am sorry if you don't understand the principles of our Constitution regarding that. Not arguing it was right to consider slaves as property, but then again, it wasn't the CSA who determined slaves were property, was it?

Others have argued that the Southern states should have industrialized, but that doesn't work because you would have had northern textile mills and southern textile mills, sitting idle because no one was growing the cotton to supply the textile mills. They grew cotton because the climate was conducive for growing cotton well in the south... they didn't grow grapes, it would have been stupid to do that. Because of how cotton had to be harvested, slave labor was used. This was not decided by the southern states or southerners, it was decided by the US Government, years before. It was an accepted practice and it was perfectly legal and legitimate at the time. You MUST keep that in perspective when evaluating the circumstances, and to deny that or try to hide from that, is intellectual dishonesty.

We can look back on history and say they were wrong, I've not denied that... but the "fault" lies with everyone, not just the southern plantation owners who had slaves. They were simply doing what the law allowed them to do, what our nation had condoned and accepted as common practice. It wasn't something being done under the table or against the will of the government, or in violation of the law. These people bought and paid for slaves because the laws allowed them to do so, and they were deemed legitimate private property owned by the slave owner, by the Supreme Court. This was not THEIR fault, it was the fault of the US Government.

I think it was Maryland or Delaware, they wanted to do away with slavery, this was several years before the Civil War... The Federal Gov. 'bought' the 'property' of the slave owners, and this compensation allowed them to justify outlawing slavery there. Had the government made such an offer to the southern states, we could have probably avoided a war. As it stood, they didn't want to do that, they just wanted to say, tough shit, we know we told you it was okay to spend your money buying these slaves, but now we've changed our mind and you are shit outta luck, you wasted your money! The Federal Gov. just didn't have the authority to do such a thing.

Not once have I said the federal government was clean. In fact I have stated several time some of the legislation passed was outright unconstitutional. But that still does not make secession constitutional. There are arguments that the actions of the federal government warranted rebellion - and though I disagree with that for the reasons stated throughout this thread, I do not deny the arguments have some valid points.

What I am pointing out with the Declaration - which is the document you used to help you justify the rebellion - the listed grievances against the Crown are far more grievous than the grievances the southern states made against the federal government.

Yes, seizing personal property, especially without just compensation, goes against what we perceive as rights guaranteed by our constitution. (So what do you make of the Kelo decision?) But YOU need to realize that though pro-slave factions viewed blacks as property, it was that very definition that was being challenged. If persons cannot be claimed as property, then there was no property to compensate for.

While it is unfair to try to apply the standards of today to the situation of the Civil War, the fact is the view of slaves constituting personal property was exactly what was being challenged, thus it is not entirely today's attitudes that are being applied. Since the abolitionists had already successfully maintained in many public arenas that calling slaves personal property was a reprehensible practice, it is NOT unfair for the abolitionists of the time to apply their definition to the practice of slavery, and thereby view the situation as NOT dealing with personal property issues, but rather humanistic issues. That the South vehemently - and violently - disagreed does not mean the North was wrong in dismissing slaves as personal property deserving compensation under the 5th Amendment. Nor does it make the South right simply because they were clinging to a prior definition that was undergoing change.

And, no, the Civil War would NOT have been avoided if slave owners had been offered compensation for freeing their slaves, anyway, so that is a moot point. The reasons for secession were defined, and were broader in scope than "personal property" issues. That is why you need to list the actual grievances, instead of relying on broad and generalized descriptions. It shouldn't be hard to do, since each state made their own list. And while slavery was mentioned in each one, it was not mentioned as a matter of personal property, but rather economic liberties that did not fall under interstate commerce.

As such, the slavery (property) issue, being in flux, is not a valid justification, not just by the standards of today, but by the newly developed standards of 1861 also. The concept of slaves as personal property had changed, and NOT just in the northern U.S. The main reason England gave for not aiding the CSA was because they refused to align themselves with a nation that still practiced slavery. Slavery was on the way out, with the U.S. being the last "civilized" nation that still allowed the outright practice of direct ownership of persons.

That leaves the instances of unfair tariffs and other trade laws and practices that were weighted in favor of the North - practices that the South did not even bother to challenge as they had challenged anti-slavery laws and practices. And that lack of effort on their part to resolve those issues within the framework is exactly why any justification for secession is weak at best.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But that still does not make secession constitutional.

Again, the question of Constitutionality regarding state secession, was determined in a landmark case in 1869. It is safe to say that before the SCOTUS heard this case, there was a question of constitutionality, which is precisely WHY the SCOTUS hears cases! Had the issue not been in question, the court would have rejected the case, as they always do when there is not a question of constitutionality compelling them to hear the case. You can be stubborn and cling to some other notion if you like, but that is the fact of the matter whether you want to admit it or not. We can argue about this til the cows come home, it won't change that fact.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That leaves the instances of unfair tariffs and other trade laws and practices that were weighted in favor of the North - practices that the South did not even bother to challenge as they had challenged anti-slavery laws and practices. And that lack of effort on their part to resolve those issues within the framework is exactly why any justification for secession is weak at best.

Uhm.... Maybe you never heard about this?

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis"]Nullification Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:TJeffersonrpeale.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/TJeffersonrpeale.jpg/220px-TJeffersonrpeale.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/14/TJeffersonrpeale.jpg/220px-TJeffersonrpeale.jpg[/ame]

The Nullification Crisis was a sectional crisis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson created by South Carolina's 1832 Ordinance of Nullification. This ordinance declared, by the power of the State itself, that the federal Tariff of 1828 and the federal Tariff of 1832 were unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of South Carolina. The controversial, and highly protective, Tariff of 1828 (also called the "Tariff of Abominations") was enacted into law during the presidency of John Quincy Adams. Opposed in the South and parts of New England, the tariff’s opponents expected that the election of Jackson as President would result in the tariff being significantly reduced.[1]

The nation had suffered an economic downturn throughout the 1820s, and South Carolina was particularly affected. Many South Carolina politicians blamed the change in fortunes on the national tariff policy that developed after the War of 1812 to promote American manufacturing over its British competition. [2] By 1828 South Carolina state politics increasingly organized around the tariff issue. When the Jackson administration failed to take any actions to address their concerns, the most radical faction in the state began to advocate that the state itself declare the tariff null and void within South Carolina. In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and his vice-president John C. Calhoun, the most effective proponent of the constitutional theory of state nullification.[3]

On July 14, 1832, after Calhoun had resigned his office in order to run for the Senate where he could more effectively defend nullification[4], Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most northerners and half of the southerners in Congress.[5] The reductions were too little for South Carolina, and in November 1832 a state convention declared that the tariffs of both 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833. Military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement were initiated by the state.[6] In late February both a Force Bill, authorizing the President to use military force against South Carolina, and a new negotiated tariff satisfactory to South Carolina were passed by Congress. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 11, 1833.

The crisis was over, and both sides could find reasons to claim victory. The tariff rates were reduced, but the states’ rights doctrine of nullification had been rejected by the nation. While tariff policy continued to be a national political issue between Democrats and the new Whig Party, the low-tariff Democrats controlled the issue, and wrote the 1857 tariff.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But YOU need to realize that though pro-slave factions viewed blacks as property, it was that very definition that was being challenged. If persons cannot be claimed as property, then there was no property to compensate for.

Once again, it was not an arbitrary view held by pro-slave factions, it was a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), commonly referred to as The Dred Scott Decision, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States. It also held that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Lastly, the Court ruled that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process. The Supreme Court's decision was written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.