The economy of the South would have led to a strong desire to maintain slavery for many, many more decades. Doug Bayless claims that England managed to outlaw slavery without bloodshed, but neglects to mention that England did not have a plantation agrarian economy. Given the heavy reliance on cotton in particular in much of the South, the invention of a mechanical cotton picker would likely have been necessary for industrialization of southern agricultural economics to eliminate the desire for very, very cheap manual labor. Since even in a word in which slavery was forcibly ended (not the cause of the war, but certainly one outcome of it) in the 1860s a mechanical cotton picker was not practical until the 1950s, any claim that slavery would have ended “soon” needs thorough support that includes some analysis of the economics of southern agriculture and the roots of the slave economy.

Lincoln was, sadly, far from the near-deity the hagiographic treatment he receives in this country often paints. He was not the crusading social reformer that some pretend he was, and the Civil War was not initiated to end slavery (though I do believe he was strongly against the institution of slavery). However, pretending that some magical enlightenment would have ended slavery in the south in short order ignores both history (the treatment of blacks in the south for better than a century after the forced end of slavery) and economics (an agrarian economy that was in many places heavily dependent on cotton or other highly labor intensive crops that resisted mechanization).

I don’t think that Burke’s situation in England compares completely with the Civil War, and probably not even very much at all, but I do think there’s wisdom in what he says. Is it sometimes necessary to make an exception to the rule in the short-run in order to preserve the rule in the long-run? For example, perhaps suspending Habeas Corpus for a little while was necessary in order to preserve the Constitution and the Union in the long-term? I’m not sure, I just think it’s something to think about.

I sympathize with many of your concerns, Connor, but I still think Lincoln did more good than bad. On a more spiritual note, when I lived in D.C., every time I visited the Lincoln Memorial, which was many times, there was a special spirit there. I felt that he was a good man who did much for our country. That was probably my favorite monument to visit because of the feeling I got there.

How small an entity do we allow to secede? If the states have the right to secede, do not we the people have an individual right to secede?

What if I own my farm and I want to secede? I’d have to work out trade agreements for practical purposes. But why not?

What about that compound in Montana? What did they have? 800 acres? And a few hundred people? That might have been more practical. With more land, you could be more self-sufficient. With more people, it would be easier to defend against invaders from the US.

Just whom do we allow to secede? If conditions get bad with said parties, do we have a right to practice imperialism and take over their land if we feel threatened by their position?

What if I seceded and I spent my time firing my rifle at passersby? It would be really stupid of me (does the name Custer mean anything to you?). But would the US have the right to declare war as a matter of defending its citizens? How’s that different than the attack on Fort Sumter? Regardless of what geographic area it was in, the fort belonged to the Federal Government. Don’t they have a right to defend it?

That was a good article. I still hold that it doesn’t CLEARLY justify secession of the Southern States. The multitude of arguments already presented here attest that it wasn’t a clear issue.

The Declaration clearly outlines all the issues that the Colonists had with King George. By anyone’s estimation, it should be clear that we were being abused and were under the thumb of a despot.

Let’s turn this on its head and ask,”If I were Jefferson Davis, how would I have handled it differently?”

Reflecting on the Confederates attack on Sumter, I was somewhat reminded of something France did to the US. As a NATO nation, they allowed us to build a very large state-of-the-art Air Force Base in a province of France. As soon as it was built, we started moving personnel in. After about a year, we were all settled. Then France said,”OK, we’ve changed our minds. We don’t want you here after all. You can leave.”

Because such an issue was never even considered, we never put anything on paper. We grudgingly left. They then had a very large state-of-the-art air force base for them at the cost of the American Tax payer. Nothing new, I realize. But do you see some compare/contrast items here?

Understand that the NATO agreements are much less binding than the Constitutional agreements between states. So we left. Even so, do you think if was right of France to do that to us? Shouldn’t they have at least paid us for the construction of the base? Whether it was in a contract or not, wouldn’t it have been the morally right thing to do?

Why did the South fire on Sumter? Did they even try to buy the fort from the North? Did they write any letters to reach out to Lincoln for a compromise? Did they do anything?

If I were Davis, and I believed in the right of secession, I would have at least tried to buy the military bases from the North and allow them to peaceably leave. Not because I was legally obligated, but because it would have been the morally right thing to do.

But no. Just attack.

In the Revolution, right up till the moment of the shot heard round the world, we were still trying diplomatic measures to settle our differences. And no one knows who fired the first shot.

It is an unfortunate reality that when pushed to the limits, mankind will only settle things one way. And eventually, it comes to that. We won the Revolution. We won the civil war. We won both world wars. We won the cold war.

After all the posturing, diplomacy, moral arguments, compromising, and political maneuvering are done with, the bottom line is that might makes right–whether military might or political power and influence–however such might is found or lost, bought or sold.

This is what brought down Babylon. This is what brought down Persia. This is what brought down Rome, France, the British Empire, Eastern Empires, Arabic Empires, & countless others throughout history. And eventually, this is what will bring down the United States.

Each served its purpose for a time in the annals of history. Each was a stepping stone for a bigger and better future. I believe we had to fight and win the Civil War. This isn’t because it was Constitutional or it was morally right. It is because that is what happened. And from it emerged a greater nation.

. . . I’ve never believed this before this moment. I’m not even sure where that came from. And I don’t believe I have any evidence for it. It just seems the right thing to say.

To address your statements I would refer you to multiple previous posts discussing THE CAUSES OF THE SEPARATION.

My main point in comparing the two was the relative power of the central government. The Articles were ineffective because there was no incentive for the states to pay attention to anything the central government said. There were no penalties, there was no motivation for the states to abide by any agreements.

If you argue (again, see the conditions and wording that I outlined previously) that states have every right to secede without limitation (again, there is nothing on the subject in the Constitution) then they have no incentive to do anything the Federal government mandates.

Given this, what is the real difference? The central government has no power if the state can secede at any time. Any benefit you can claim from the Constitution comes when the central government has power to enforce such on the States even when the state does not wish it.

With secession as an option, it cannot enforce anything.

Washington kept us from going to war with our own people during the wiskey rebellion.

Wilson took us into WWI and many think he’s an evil rat b@$+@^d.

FDR took us into WWII and our opinions of him has little to do with the war. Instead we are split on all his New Deal policies.

Eisenhower kept us out of Asian wars, and we tend to have a pretty good opinion of him.

LBJ took us into Vietnam and most think very little of him.

Bush II had historically low ratings from both major parties for taking us to war in Iraq.

Am I missing something?

To answer your question (sorry I forgot to previously), the benefits that the Constitution created (when compared to the Articles of Confederation) are numerous! But they are for those who voluntarily choose to remain participants in the government it governs. The Constitution describes the power that the people gave to the federal government, regardless of the number of states organized in the union it oversees. I don’t think that that changes if one state gets added in, or one chooses to leave.

Mr. Lincoln did not want war, did not seek out war, and did not wish to conquer the Confederacy, only restore the Union.

He fought the war that the South started – fought it to win – and when it was over he pushed for humane treatment of Confederate leaders (some who had committed treasonous acts at the start of the war), and for a quick restoration of the Southern states to the Union.

I have been debating in my mind wether I think Lincoln was good or not. I have seen good arguements for and against. This topic and the opinions expressed have helped me understand the Man and his legacy better. Thanks to all of you for sharing your viewpoint on such a complex subject.

These were made specifically for this convention. Indeed, the party chair herself declared us “the party of Lincoln”, and made frequent mention to the man throughout her remarks. I figured I might as well get my picture with the guy, if for nothing else than to celebrate the timeliness of his appearance with this post. (Sorry for the poor quality photos, all I had was my cell phone.)

But even if you believe any state can secede at any time for any reason, you shouldn’t call upon the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence to prove it. The support just isn’t there.

Do you agree with the statement from Lincoln I quoted from the post? If so, you’ll no doubt find similarity between it and the sentiments espoused in the Declaration. I would ask, then, upon what grounds must a country or group of individuals secede?

For example, when we declared our independence from the British empire, what would have been the proper thing to do in your mind regarding English-owned lands and facilities within our state borders? Clearly peaceful reconciliation can be made through agreement and economic exchange, but what if the country from which you are seceding is hostile and refuses compromise? Since you have just broken off the previous political bands and declared yourselves a sovereign nation, should you not be able to seize what’s in your own midst after offering to pay?

Secession is clearly a muddy issue, and not always easily comparable in differing situations. However, I still maintain that individuals (on their own or collectively) should have the right to depart from previous political institutions and form their own. This is what Lincoln himself said, in the quote above. Since this right was generally understood before the “Civil” War, and since it was not relinquished by the states or delegated to another body, it was perfectly legitimate in my mind for the states to seek this option.

As an extreme option, consider the following. Let’s say you have thirteen states in the Union, and twelve decide to legislate the other out of existence through eminent domain. The thirteenth state, obviously in the minority, can indeed make its case heard through the representation it does have. But where does that get them? If they wholly object to the action, and decide that they would rather part company than submit, should they then be required to seek the permission of the twelve other states—the very source of the tyranny—in order to leave?

Carb,

If I understand you correctly, you’re arguing that there was a verbal agreement made during the convention to phase out slavery, and that the states broken that agreement? If you’re arguing for a breach of contract, then we’d need to reference the contract itself (the Constitution), and not open discussion during the convention between delegates.

Mindy,

You’re too kind! I hope you did well on yours. Sorry I had to duck out early. Good luck on your written exam… I should probably start preparing for that myself.

You asked which 3 Presidents of the US did not get baptized by Wilford Woodruff in the St. George Temple. The answer is found on the last page of the book THE OTHER EMINENT MEN OF WILFORD WOODRUFF by Vicki Jo Anderson. It states, “all of the Presidents of the United States that were on my list except Buchanan, Van Buren & Grant…” I don’t know if this necessarily means that the Lord did not approve of these Presidents and the way in which they performed their earthly, missions, however.

I was present at Connor’s oral exam, and, just for the record, a few of us who reacted to his statement that Lincoln was the worst President did not shock us, it simply reminded us of a previous classmate who shares Connor’s view of Lincoln. Also, Connor’s ability to articulte his point of view and to apply his learning to current situations is truly amazing. Way to go Connor!