Lincoln

[M. Porcius Cato]

Did the North had the right to change the South thru laws or military action? To establish what is moral and right for others?

 

Yes, they did. They had every legal right to outlaw slavery in the US, and they certainly had every moral right. In contrast, the South had no moral right whatever to keep slaves, and their secession was illegal.

[Kosmo]

Err... my I ask why the two constitutive parts of the US were so uneven in rights?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Err... my I ask why the two constitutive parts of the US were so uneven in rights?

 

They had equal rights. What are you talking about?

[Julius Ratus]

Did the North had the right to change the South thru laws or military action? To establish what is moral and right for others?

 

Yes, they did. They had every legal right to outlaw slavery in the US, and they certainly had every moral right. In contrast, the South had no moral right whatever to keep slaves, and their secession was illegal.

 

1. What legal right did 'the North' have to abolish slavery? What pre-1861 law gave 'the North' that right? I recognize that Congress could make slavery illegal, but that would require the consent of Southern congressmen, who could have blocked (filibuster, etc) passage of the bill. I ask what right the North would have had to unilaterally abolish slavery, since by wording you are implying that they had such a right. If I misquote you, I apologize.

 

2. Morality being subjective, I don't think that the immorality of slavery can be used as an argument against it in the legal sphere. Obviously the Southern aristocrats did not find slavery to be morally wrong.

 

3. What pre-1861 law states that sucession was illegal. The States were joined together by free will pre-1861. After 1865 they were united by force of arms.

 

4. Is it moral to force territories to be part of a nation by force of arms? If it is not immoral, or illegal, would you say that China is justified in its actions in Tibet? Serbia in Kossovo? Russia in Chechnya? What about the North under Ho Chi Minh invading the south in the 60's and 70's to preserve the union of Vietnam?

[Primus Pilus]

The right of secession can be seen in the constitutional ratification agreements of New York and Virginia. Both states clearly held out for such a provision before joining the "United States" in ratifying the constitution of 1787, but neither had such a written clarification presented as a piece of the adopted federal constitution.

 

Virginia's opening statement to the federal constitutional ratification (highlight is mine) certainly implies the right to secession, but again, such a sentiment was not adopted into the binding agreement for the states as a collective entity:

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes

 

The Declaration of Independence may be more clear depending on one's interpretation:

..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 to 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...

 

However, the declaration is not a binding agreement between the unified states, but is rather a document presenting a split with Great Britain for all the states. Nor do the confederation or constitutional ratification agreements of each individual statess bind the other states in the federal agreement.

 

The Articles of Confederation did absolutely present each state as a sovereign entity in both Article II and III:

 

II

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

 

III

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

 

...but that document and the Perpetual Union that it created was superseded by the Constitution and the Federal government that replaced it. While it can be argued that the Articles were assumed to remain in effect and that the Constitution was ultimately a grand addition to, or edit of, the Articles, Article XIII presents a serious problem (as argued by Lincoln himself as justification for force of arms).

 

XIII

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

 

While secession may have been legal, it was only legal if ratified by a congressional majority. And of course, as suggested, the Articles had been superseded by the Constitutional document that did not allow for such contingencies in Articles II and III of the Confederation.

 

Obviously the Constitution and Constitutional Law is open to interpretation and debate, but I did find it important to note that the document itself does not grant the legal and implicit right to secession. Article 4 goes so far as to discuss procedures for admittance of new states and the rights of said states, but still makes no mention of secession. It would seem to me a rather major point for the most ardent Anti-Federalists to have missed.

 

Was it an understood right via the original Articles of Confederation, or did the individual ratification agreements of each state circumvent the binding federal agreement? Perhaps some believed so and still do, but it is unquestionably not clarified in the federal binding document between all the states; whether we assign the lack of clarification to complete intentional design of federalist proponents or negligent incompetence by anti-federalist opponents.

 

Edit: Let me further clarify that I understand the anti-federalist argument that all rights remained in effect by virtue of the fact that the federal government had no authority to infringe on previously existing documents (such as the Declaration of Independence and the Articles). Despite the nebulous inclusion of Amendment IX, the right of secession is still not clarified. In essence the anti-federalists, rather than opposing a bill of rights and other federal authorities as being counter productive to understood freedoms, perhaps would have better served their viewpoints if such views had been written with clarity and put forth for formal adoption by all the states.

[Primus Pilus]

1. What legal right did 'the North' have to abolish slavery? What pre-1861 law gave 'the North' that right? I recognize that Congress could make slavery illegal, but that would require the consent of Southern congressmen, who could have blocked (filibuster, etc) passage of the bill. I ask what right the North would have had to unilaterally abolish slavery, since by wording you are implying that they had such a right. If I misquote you, I apologize.

 

As you suggest, only if voted upon by the majority of assembled Congress could such a law be binding on the whole. The right was there in theory, but it needed a fully supportive congressional vote (which could not yet be obtained in 1860). In essence, the southern states were seceding illegally over a right that could not be infringed anyway... despite vocal political machinations to it's effect by the abolitionist movement.

[M. Porcius Cato]

1. What legal right did 'the North' have to abolish slavery? What pre-1861 law gave 'the North' that right? I recognize that Congress could make slavery illegal, but that would require the consent of Southern congressmen, who could have blocked (filibuster, etc) passage of the bill. I ask what right the North would have had to unilaterally abolish slavery, since by wording you are implying that they had such a right. If I misquote you, I apologize.

The northern states had or would soon have sufficient votes to outlaw slavery outright. The right of Congress to pass laws protecting human rights--even unenumerated rights--lies in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

 

2. Morality being subjective, I don't think that the immorality of slavery can be used as an argument against it in the legal sphere. Obviously the Southern aristocrats did not find slavery to be morally wrong.

The status of Africans as human is an objective fact, and it implies that they are not and cannot be held as property. Thus all laws prohibiting kidnapping, torture, murder, and the rest would logically entail the abolition of slavery. Yes, it's true that some Southern aristocrats found nothing immoral with slavery--but they were pigs. It's also true that some Germans found nothing immoral about gassing Jews, and vast numbers of people found nothing wrong about confiscating the property of the 'bourgeoisie' and starving them to death--but the Nazis and Communists were pigs too. And pigs have no right to govern men.

 

What pre-1861 law states that sucession was illegal. The States were joined together by free will pre-1861. After 1865 they were united by force of arms.

Firing on Fort Sumter was an act of treason. There was absolutely no Constitutional mechanism for South Carolina to secede. Lincoln had every right to have all the rebel commanders hung.

 

Is it moral to force territories to be part of a nation by force of arms?

A nation or a state that violates basic human rights--and slavery IS a violation of basic human rights--loses any moral sanction to govern. On this, see the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing human rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." A slave state is certainly a "Form of Government [that] becomes destructive" of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and thus for any American, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[Sequens]

Had there been no slavery, I think it virtually certain the South would never had seceded.

Had there been no slavery, I think it likely the North would have not have opposed it, had it still occurred.

 

The war was over slavery, not States Rights. Sometimes peoples rights are more important then a political entities.

 

 

About 390,000 Union troops died in the war to free about 3,900,000 slaves. Put another way, each soldier that died, freed ten slaves.

[Julius Ratus]

Had there been no slavery, I think it likely the North would have not have opposed it, had it still occurred.

 

I disagree with you here. If the war was about slavery, why did Lincoln not abolish slavery in territories loyal to the Union until after the war? "I would like to have God on my side but I must have Kentucky" comes to mind, though I am probably misquoting.

[Faustus]

Had there been no slavery, I think it virtually certain the South would never had seceded.

Had there been no slavery, I think it likely the North would have not have opposed it, had it still occurred.

 

The war was over slavery, not States Rights. Sometimes peoples rights are more important then a political entities.

I think the war was over all these things. But from the stand point of Lincoln, (Most of all Lincoln believed that) if any states could secede, then the destruction of the union would become a fact. He clearly stated that he put the preservation of the Union above freeing the slaves. He also made the point that if the slaves were freed, that would be a good outcome as long as the union was preserved:

 

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do no believe it would help to save the Union.

 

To Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

[Julius Ratus]

1. What legal right did 'the North' have to abolish slavery? What pre-1861 law gave 'the North' that right? I recognize that Congress could make slavery illegal, but that would require the consent of Southern congressmen, who could have blocked (filibuster, etc) passage of the bill. I ask what right the North would have had to unilaterally abolish slavery, since by wording you are implying that they had such a right. If I misquote you, I apologize.

The northern states had or would soon have sufficient votes to outlaw slavery outright. The right of Congress to pass laws protecting human rights--even unenumerated rights--lies in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

 

If congress could have gotten a majority and overcome the inevitable filibuster, then I grant your point, but it would have been the Congress of the United States, not the northern States who would have done it.

 

2. Morality being subjective, I don't think that the immorality of slavery can be used as an argument against it in the legal sphere. Obviously the Southern aristocrats did not find slavery to be morally wrong.

The status of Africans as human is an objective fact, and it implies that they are not and cannot be held as property. Thus all laws prohibiting kidnapping, torture, murder, and the rest would logically entail the abolition of slavery. Yes, it's true that some Southern aristocrats found nothing immoral with slavery--but they were pigs. It's also true that some Germans found nothing immoral about gassing Jews, and vast numbers of people found nothing wrong about confiscating the property of the 'bourgeoisie' and starving them to death--but the Nazis and Communists were pigs too. And pigs have no right to govern men.

 

Once again, morality is subjective. The status of Africans as human is a scientific fact. Whether or not this implies that humans cannot be held as property only applies to our culture. Some cultures allow the ownership of humans. European culture allowed this in the past, and some cultures still allow it.

 

Thus said, we are discussing laws, not morality/philosophy. I have said my piece and will add not more to the morality discussion.

 

What pre-1861 law states that sucession was illegal. The States were joined together by free will pre-1861. After 1865 they were united by force of arms.

Firing on Fort Sumter was an act of treason. There was absolutely no Constitutional mechanism for South Carolina to secede. Lincoln had every right to have all the rebel commanders hung.

 

The South had suceeded and had it's own government. The militia of South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter. I would consider this an act of war, not treason.

 

Is it moral to force territories to be part of a nation by force of arms?

A nation or a state that violates basic human rights--and slavery IS a violation of basic human rights--loses any moral sanction to govern. On this, see the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing human rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." A slave state is certainly a "Form of Government [that] becomes destructive" of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and thus for any American, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

The Declaration of Independence calls for the People to overthrow abusive governement. Who says which governement is abusive? The People? The South thought that the Federal Govt. was abusive so they suceeded. What about the Indian Wars? Did not the Natives of this country have the right to overthrow a government that was abusing them, ignoring treaties, and invading their land?

[Sequens]

The finer points of legal and moral issues have their place no doubt, but they can also obfuscate things too. Its good to remember also laws are there to serve people, not the other way around. Not being very knowledgable in either I tend to rely mainly on common sense.

 

The basis for something being good or bad can be reduced to whether you would want it to happen to you. There are exceptions to everything, but its fair to say that these are some things people do not want to happen to them:

 

Being killed or injured

Being enslaved

Being robbed of there family members or goods

Starving

 

 

Being social, we make rules based on these to live together. Some principles as well, continually surface in the process, perhaps the most basic being we are all equal.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The problem, JR, is that if you regard morality as subjective, then 'rights' are a meaningless concept. If you truly accept this premise, then you should expect our indifference when you are mugged. "Hey, maybe that's just your mugger's culture!"

 

In contrast, if you regard humans as moral ends in themselves--and not means to others' ends--then a basic syllogism follows: All humans possess certain unalienable rights; Africans are humans; therefore, Africans possess unalienable rights. Given that the whole function of the American government is to protect these rights, any American government that fails to do so--that makes slaves of its citizens--loses its legitimacy and is rightfully destroyed by Americans.

 

Now, as a subjectivist, what is your objection? If you were consistent, you shouldn't condemn the North at all. After all, maybe it's "just our culture" to insist on human rights.

[Moonlapse]

Had there been no slavery, I think it virtually certain the South would never had seceded.

Had there been no slavery, I think it likely the North would have not have opposed it, had it still occurred.

 

The war was over slavery, not States Rights. Sometimes peoples rights are more important then a political entities.

 

 

About 390,000 Union troops died in the war to free about 3,900,000 slaves. Put another way, each soldier that died, freed ten slaves.

Read the last two sentences of of paragraph 29: http://www.bartelby.org/124/pres31.html

 

Lincoln is speaking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

[Sequens]

Hey, I thought you were out Moonlapse !