Originally posted by whodey
Was it worth 600,000 lives? Is government that important?

The alternative would have been the existence on the border of the US an aggressive, expansionist State based on racial superiority and committed to spreading human bondage as far as it could. One can imagine how history might have been different if such a State existed in 1941; it would have been a natural ally of Nazi Germany.

600,000 lives may well have been a relatively small investment.

Originally posted by whodey
Happy Thanksgiving everyone. In 1863 Abraham Lincoln passed a law making Thanksgiving a national holiday. Previous to this, the holiday was only celebrated in the Northeastern states.

Most would say that the true meaning of Thanksgiving is to give thanks, however, Licoln's motive was to use the holiday in order to bring together a country that was divide ...[text shortened]... ed the Corim Amendment to make slavery Constitutional for the Southern states? If so, why?

Big flaw in your argument: Congress passed the Corwin Amendment two days before Lincoln took office. http://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html

The Southern states ignored it.

Originally posted by JS357
Whether by design or not, the reason federal forms of governments endure (when they do) is that individual States cannot secede. A constitutional process needs to be defined in the original or by amendment. None was. I do not believe the framers wanted it to be so easy for a state to opt out.

It was difficult to get just 13 to opt in, without such a methodology included.

Originally posted by no1marauder
IF States can leave whenever they please, then the provisions denying the States power to do numerous things are a nullity. This makes the whole Constitutional scheme incoherent.

Andrew Jackson accurately stated the theory of the Union:

The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whet ...[text shortened]... the consent of the same body who did the forming i.e. the whole People of the United States.

So why was it alright for 13 colonies to declare independence from mother England? An wrong for several States to declare independence from the United States, several being among the original 13 who separated from England.

Justify your argument with "natural law".

Originally posted by normbenign
So why was it alright for 13 colonies to declare independence from mother England? An wrong for several States to declare independence from the United States, several being among the original 13 who separated from England.

Justify your argument with "natural law".

The British Empire was a tyranny formed in an undemocratic manner and invasive of Natural Rights. For further details, read the Declaration of Independence.

By contrast, the US was voluntarily formed by the consent of the People. It could not be dissolved without the People's consent.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The alternative would have been the existence on the border of the US an aggressive, expansionist State based on racial superiority and committed to spreading human bondage as far as it could. One can imagine how history might have been different if such a State existed in 1941; it would have been a natural ally of Nazi Germany.

600,000 lives may well have been a relatively small investment.

But slavery was not what sparked the North into action. The issue was control and power which the Corwin amendment was proof of.

You can speculate all day long, but sending have a million men to their deaths just to secure power is suspect to say the least. If the contraversial issue of slavery had not been an issue I dare say the North would have had zero justification for the slaughter of Americans.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Big flaw in your argument: Congress passed the Corwin Amendment two days before Lincoln took office. http://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html

The Southern states ignored it.

Why does it matter when the Corwin Amendment was passed? Lincoln wrote each governor of the Southern states saying that he would support the Corwin Amendment if they just stay in the Union.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The British Empire was a tyranny formed in an undemocratic manner and invasive of Natural Rights. For further details, read the Declaration of Independence.

By contrast, the US was voluntarily formed by the consent of the People. It could not be dissolved without the People's consent.

The "people" in the CSA gave their consent, believing that the Washington government had lost its moorings, and was in violation of the Constitution.

Not everyone in the 13 colonies believed the British Empire to be so evil. I've heard about a third of the population were loyalists. Signers of the DOI were declared traitors and would go to the gallows if the war wasn't successful.

1860 was only 69 years from the ratification of the Constitution. Was not a peaceful solution possible?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The alternative would have been the existence on the border of the US an aggressive, expansionist State based on racial superiority and committed to spreading human bondage as far as it could. One can imagine how history might have been different if such a State existed in 1941; it would have been a natural ally of Nazi Germany.

600,000 lives may well have been a relatively small investment.

There was hardly any indication of aggression on the part of the CSA. They moved their Capital to Richmond, within shouting distance of DC.

I see free trade erupting, slavery dying in a generation or two, and even a possible reunification.

Originally posted by whodey
But slavery was not what sparked the North into action. The issue was control and power which the Corwin amendment was proof of.

You can speculate all day long, but sending have a million men to their deaths just to secure power is suspect to say the least. If the contraversial issue of slavery had not been an issue I dare say the North would have had zero justification for the slaughter of Americans.

I dare say you are extremely ignorant of history. It was Southern forces who started the war by firing on US ships and Fort Sumter.

Your assertions are nonsense.

Originally posted by normbenign
There was hardly any indication of aggression on the part of the CSA. They moved their Capital to Richmond, within shouting distance of DC.

I see free trade erupting, slavery dying in a generation or two, and even a possible reunification.

I guess firing on US ships and attacking a US fort is no "indication of aggression".

I see no reason to believe the South would have ever rejected slavery. Moreover, they were intent on expanding it to the Western territories. Conflict was inevitable.

Originally posted by normbenign
The "people" in the CSA gave their consent, believing that the Washington government had lost its moorings, and was in violation of the Constitution.

Not everyone in the 13 colonies believed the British Empire to be so evil. I've heard about a third of the population were loyalists. Signers of the DOI were declared traitors and would go to the gallow ...[text shortened]... y 69 years from the ratification of the Constitution. Was not a peaceful solution possible?

The people in the Southern States do not equal the entirety of the people in the US.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I dare say you are extremely ignorant of history. It was Southern forces who started the war by firing on US ships and Fort Sumter.

Your assertions are nonsense.

Fort Sumpter was an incomplete facility in Charleston harbor. The US garrison was asked to leave, and the CSA would have compensated Washington for the property. When did it become somehow permissible to maintain fortresses on foreign ground outside of war.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The people in the Southern States do not equal the entirety of the people in the US.

Voting to ratify the Constitution was not accomplished with a referendum of "the people" of all the States. It was done by State legislatures, and by two representatives of each State to the Convention.

Originally posted by whodey
Why does it matter when the Corwin Amendment was passed? Lincoln wrote each governor of the Southern states saying that he would support the Corwin Amendment if they just stay in the Union.

So what? Lincoln never agitated for the Federal government to outlaw slavery in the States until well after the war was underway.

The war was about slavery for the South (they hardly mention anything else in the individual States' Ordinances of Secession) but it was to preserve the Union that the people had formed for Lincoln.