Confederate History in Virginia: Let's Do a Real Assessment

[heroditus]

As Texas begins to re-write its text books, Virgina can be counted on to provide focus to the historical debate. Shockingly, I agree. We need to have a Confederate History month were a reassessment of the social and historical events of that period led to the War of the Rebellion, as it was officially called. So let's assess those cherished days

Comments

[nsingman]

[Please edit your post - you posted the text twice]

It was about slavery? Then why were there four slave states remaining in the Union during the war? Why would Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, have promised that he had neither the inclination nor the right to end the "peculiar institution?" Why in that same address would Lincoln have reiterated his support for the proposed Corwin amendment, which would have effectively enshrined slavery in the Constitution? And finally, why did the Emancipation Proclamation free no slaves in the four northern slave-holding states within Lincoln's grasp, where it might have meant something

Believe what you want

[heroditus]

I Cannot agree with your assessment. What Lincoln Promised was not to interfere with the institution of slavery where it already existed. He wanted to stop the possible extension of slavery into the new territories

Re: Believe what you want

[nsingman]

Secession was not illegal (more below). There were secession movements throughout the 18th century, particularly in New England (some motivated by righteous opposition to slavery), and no one in the country doubted their legitimacy. At least three states, if memory serves, in their constitutional ratification documents explicitly stated their willingness to revoke that ratification should the federal government become oppressive. And clearly the conversation did not end with the military victory of the USA over the CSA; we're still talking, are we not? And I'm a native of New York City, and still live in the vicinity

Re: Believe what you want

[heroditus]

No, before this the states that threatened to secede never achieved or went as far as 1861

[heroditus]

I have read Forrest McDonald. And as far as simplicity goes, Adams is as about as biased as I have ever read. I don't exactly disgree with McDonald. What I disagree with is the original pretext that you had stated that the Civil War was not about slavery. That's like saying the Revolutionary War was not about taxes and colonies governing themselves

Continued from above

[heroditus]

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5-3 decision that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". However, the decision did allow some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States"

Hence, if there was a right to secede before 1869, it no longer exists thereafter.

Summing it UP

[heroditus]

Sorry needed a break. If I have insulted you, I do apologize. I do sometimes appear more overt than I intend

Summint it UP continued from above

[heroditus]

All of these are directly taken from the South Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi state declarations for secession. So this was not a war to maintain slavery???? If it was not the case then why put these declarations in the in the official secession declaration?