While on my way to a separation of church and state rally at the capitol, I happened to pass by the monument on the left. It’s a monument to the Confederate dead. There are many similar monuments throughout Texas.
I paused to read the inscription:
DIED
FOR STATES RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTH, ANIMATED BY THE SPIRIT OF 1776, TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHTS, WITHDREW FROM THE FEDERAL COMPACT IN 1861. THE NORTH RESORTED TO COERCION.
THE SOUTH, AGAINST OVERWHELMING NUMBERS AND RESOURCES,
FOUGHT UNTIL EXHAUSTED.
DURING THE WAR THERE WERE TWENTY TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SEVEN ENGAGEMENTS.
IN EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO OF THESE, AT LEAST ONE REGIMENT TOOK PART.
NUMBER OF MEN ENLISTED:
CONFEDERATE ARMIES 600,000; FEDERAL ARMIES 2,859,132
LOSSES FROM ALL CAUSES:
CONFEDERATE, 437,000; FEDERAL, 485,216
“FOR STATES RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION?” That sentence made me laugh out loud. Is there a state’s right to slavery in the Constitution that I am unaware of?
Whom do they think they’re kidding? Only themselves.
-David Drumm (Nal)
“quite right, all other issues were\are a smokescreen, slavery was the one problem with which no compromise was possible”
then why didnt Lincoln end it peacefully, through compensated emancipation like every other country did between 1800 and 1860????
lottakatz—-typical of someone who cant win an argument on facts–resorting to focusing on the name-calling to completely divert away from the remaining 99% of my post, which I noticed NO ONE refuted. And then, you turn right around and name call…lol.
frank, you said:
“It becomes quite obvious that ‘states rights’ are not the issue as the South worked very hard to deny states the right to prohibit slavery (and there are many other examples). Slavery was the only issue that caused the South to start the war of rebellion.”
How could the south have control of any other state? the states are free and sovereign. How can they deny other states anything? Makes no sense. Slavery was already dying out and it would have died out completely, but Lincoln wanted a long and bloody war and force Americans at gunpoint to stay in the VOLUNTARY union. Slavery was the only issue that caused the south to start war? REALLY? It wasnt the protectionist tariffs that nearly doubled for the south? Can you explain the slaves in the NORTH then? Slavery became constitutional in 1857—didnt you read my post at all?? Or you just chose to ignore 90% of it?? War of “rebellion”?? You mean war of secession—the exact same kind of war the revolutionary war was—a war of secession. How could the Emancipation Proclaimation free a single slave when the south didnt even acknowledge Lincoln as their President? Can you answer ANY of my questions?
When you address me this time everyone—actually attempt to DEBUNK something I say.
frank: Slavery was the only issue that caused the South to start the war of rebellion
quite right, all other issues were\are a smokescreen, slavery was the one problem with which no compromise was possible
Very Nice Post!! Thanks for sharing this awesome piece
Larry- Curly and Moe are ashamed of you.
Jim,
Thanks for the link.
I searched the page for “tariff” and got zero hits. I searched for “slave”/”slavery” and got 82 hits.
AY,
I miss you
Nal,
Thank you
Larry,
Ditto all who came before but especially lottakatz
Larry, you really need to crawl out from under the sheet & read some actual history books. The problem, for you, is that they have a lot of big words but maybe you can get some help.
Start with a Southern historian, Shelby Foote. Granted his 3 part history is daunting but just try to read the first volume which covers the years leading to the war. It becomes quite obvious that ‘states rights’ are not the issue as the South worked very hard to deny states the right to prohibit slavery (and there are many other examples). Slavery was the only issue that caused the South to start the war of rebellion.
Once you actually have acquired some knowledge then come back and try again.
Larry:
Feel free to back up this claims.
For everyone else, check out Total Slave Population in US 1790–1860, by State and do the math yourselves, because Larry can’t add.
@Larry: Two points.
First, I endorse what lottakatz says. You come across as extremely obnoxious.
Two. Read the causes of secession made by the southern states themselves:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
If you don’t want to read the whole thing, just do a text search for “tariff.” Then do one for “slave.” Clearly, it was about slavery.
Larry: “If you want to challenge me on this topic Nal, I will be ready and waiting, but I guarantee you will lose.”
—
Nope, you have lost already. Let me tell you when: “Turley, I am appalled that you let uneducated douchebags post articles…”. People that resort to such personal invective get exactly the level of respect they deserve, which quickly approaches zero, and their arguments must always be viewed in light of the obvious hostility to an open exchange of ideas their name-calling evidences. If you want an actual argument on the merits don’t call names.
BTW, that your posting is here is evidence that all manner of various and sundry douchebags post here, why the surprise? (Me, I’m not looking for an argument with you, I just thought your douchery needed to be called out.)
Oh my goodness, I dont even believe that Turley let you post this. Are you saying that States rights are NOT guaranteed Nal??? The Civil War was NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. The North had more slaves in the Union than outside of the Union—and Lincoln said during his first inaugural that he had NO INTENTION OF DISTURBING SOUTHERN SLAVERY. Lincoln suppoted slavery because he along with many in his administration and party did NOT want ANY free or slave black men coming to th Northern states. You sound like a classic “Lincoln saved the Union and ended slavery” cultist.
Nal, what does citizenship have to do with your story?? You say that slavery was the main cause and then talk about citizenship. WTF? The states are free, sovereign and independent and the REAL reson for the South’s secession was the incredibly high protectionist tariffs that were being dumped onto the Southern people. The tariffs doubled for them and they simply said “no’ to them and seceeded. Slavery wasnt an issue at all [in relation to the secession] because for 1. Slavery became Constitutional in 1857 and Lincoln even admitted in his first inaugural that he had no intention on interfering with Southern slavery and even if he did, it would be unconstitutional—–not that Lincoln cared about the Constitution because he FORCED American citizens at GUNPOINT to come back into a VOLUNTARY union that the Constitution permits them to seperate from. 2. There were more slaves in the Union than in the seceding states and 3. Lincoln was a racist and wanted all black people [free or slave] out of the country. His Emanicpation Proclaimation did not free a single slave and even if it had, Lincoln did not want those slaves coming up North. The EP was 100% political—not humanitarian. It was simply created to gain the abolitionist vote.
If you want to challenge me on this topic Nal, I will be ready and waiting, but I guarantee you will lose.
You said:
“Is there a state’s right to slavery in the Constitution that I am unaware of?”
Are you forgetting [or didnt know to begin with] that slavery became Constitutional in 1857 as a result of the Dred Scott decision???? Turley, I am appalled that you let uneducated douchebags post articles like this. Shame on you.
Good points, all.
I would like to point out the privileges and immunities clause:
This suggests that there existed the concept of “citizen of the United States.”
Pre-Civil War, the determination of citizenship was largely determined by the states, but only the Congress was given the power to set the rules of naturalization (determination of who is a citizen). There was never any state right to determine citizenship. Therefore, slavery violated the privileges and immunities clause. Therefore, there was no right to slavery in the Constitution.
I went to school in Texas and in the 7th grade you have to take Texas History. If you had that indoctrination, then you would have proudly saluted to honor of our ancestors, even if they were slave owners. It’s all about perception and today, we have that Texas school book clearing house deal going on…
What ShireNomad said.
Although the barbarism of slavery is manifestly evil and I am in no way defending it, there were legitimate state’s rights issues leading to the Civil War. Just like there will be for the next one. Now that being said, I’d be interested in knowing when that monument was built and who decided upon the not necessarily historically inaccurate but certainly callous (given the raw vileness of slavery) inscription. If it was built in 1866 or 1966 makes a difference in considering the builders perspective.
Additionally, the Supreme Court had just ruled a few years prior in Dred Scott that slaves could not be freed even if taken into states that outlawed slavery, because that was an uncompensated taking of legitimate property, without the due process or compensation required under the Constitution. So who’s Lincoln to say he understands the Constitution better than the Supreme Court?
The Thirteenth Amendment then came through and made all these points irrelevant, of course, but at the time the South had a very good legal argument (if not a moral one) that the North was violating their rights.
Thank you,Jim. I am a yankee who currently resides in Texas so I don’t know anything about Texas history. The only place I would consider moving to here is Austin, but you still have to contend with Rick Perry. The Texas history expert, AY, has not been around this blog for quite awhile.
If I may advocate for el diablo, one could certainly imply a right to slavery in the Constitution as it existed at that time. The Constitution had features such as the 3/5th compromise and the fugitive slave clause which clearly imply legal recognition of slavery. Of course, you can say that there was no positive right to slavery in the Constitution, but then Alberto Gonzales can also claim, truthfully, that there is no positive right to habeas corpus.
Where the attempted foolery arises is that the South never wants to talk about which “states rights” they were particularly interested in when they seceded. By using the term “states rights” they can pretend that slavery was not at the heart of secession. A quick glance at the articles of secession, however, puts that lie to rest.
In the case of Texas, here is their own declaration of the causes that led them to secede: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp
As you can see, it mentions the Constitution – specifically the fugitive slave clause.