Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 278 posts

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#261

Post by pdonis »

myko wrote: post #245
pdonis wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no constitutional provision for allowing kidnapping and enslaving individuals. If you want to argue that the explicit Constitutional provision about fugitive slaves (Article IV, Section 2, last clause) is inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution, you can try to make that argument. But just claiming that the Constitution doesn't allow fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, and calling…

> you can try to make that argument. Are you claiming that slavery is constitutional? How does that square with the 4th amendment against unreasonable search and seizure? The fugitive slave laws allowed anyone to seize anyone they thought might be a slave. Clearly unconstitutional. Also clearly kidnapping! I'd like to hear how you would not consider this kidnapping. How does it square with the 5th amendment? No one c…

> Are you claiming that slavery is constitutional?

It was until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed, yes.

I think you have some serious learning to do about the Constitution.

As for how the Bill of Rights was interpreted to be consistent with the fugitive slave provision of the Constitution, that's simple: the jurisprudence of the time did not apply the Bill of Rights to slaves. I'm sure this will seem very shocking to you, but it's quite clear from the historical documents (see, for example, my reference to the Dred Scott decision upthread).

> you cannot reasonably argue that the fugitive slave acts do not violate the bill of rights

Perhaps you can't, but the judges and juries of the time had no problem doing so at all. See above. Even abolitionists did not make this claim. They claimed that slavery was wrong and that laws such as the fugitive slave law were unjust, but they never claimed they were unconstitutional. Their response to provisions like that in the Constitution was to say that the Constitution itself was unjust; for example, William Lloyd Garrison called it "a covenant with death and an agreement with hell". And they were perfectly ok with violating the Constitution in the name of what they believed to be the greater good of abolishing slavery. But they never argued that the Constitution's fugitive slave provision was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, because nobody believed that to be the case.

> You are ignoring the facts.

No, I'm not. I just appear to have a much better understanding of their historical context than you do.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#262

Post by pdonis »

dragonwriter wrote: post #244
pdonis wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no constitutional provision for allowing kidnapping and enslaving individuals. If you want to argue that the explicit Constitutional provision about fugitive slaves (Article IV, Section 2, last clause) is inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution, you can try to make that argument. But just claiming that the Constitution doesn't allow fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, and calling…

> If you want to argue that the explicit Constitutional provision about fugitive slaves (Article IV, Section 2, last clause) is inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution, you can try to make that argument The fugitive slave provisions of the Constitution were, by definition, consistent with the Constitution, however morally repugnant they were. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, OTOH, provided for the summa…

> On any reasonable reading—notwithstanding that its purpose was Constitutionally valid—it violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 10th Amendments, and the suspension clause.

The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision did not take this position. They took the position that the Constitution's protections simply did not apply to slaves. (In fact the decision said that those provisions didn't even apply to free blacks.)

Of course you can say that the Supreme Court was simply wrong. But under our system of law, the Supreme Court's rulings on Constitutional provisions are final unless overridden by an amendment--as the Dred Scott decision was overridden by the Thirteenth Amendment. So as a matter of law, the fugitive slave laws were Constitutional until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed. Just as, for example, it's Constitutional (unless a future Amendment changes things) for Congress to regulate a farmer's growing of wheat for personal use under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn), or for a city to seize people's homes and turn them over to a private developer under the eminent domain power (Kelo v. New London). You might think those decisions were wrong (I do), but they're still the law of the land unless and until a Constitutional Amendment overrides them.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#263

Post by lettergram »

billjings wrote: post #259
lettergram wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lmao what? How many books have you read on this subject? How many lectures attended? Im not making a moral, emotional, spiritual, statement, I’m making a factual one. To be clear, I support maximum liberty, I’m personally a libertarian. But that doesn’t mean I can’t assess a situation. The south had decades of arguing the north was attempting to suppress them. The slavery issue was one of many related issues. This re…

Look, all I can speak to is the quality of your engagement with me here. You misread a primary source which plainly states that slave labor was the precipitating issue in the conflict over state's rights which blossomed into open rebellion and bloody war. That doesn't reflect well or poorly on your reading or understanding, but it does reflect poorly on the quality of your intellectual engagement with me. I agree tha…

> Look, all I can speak to is the quality of your engagement with me here. You misread a primary source which plainly states that slave labor was the precipitating issue in the conflict over state's rights which blossomed into open rebellion and bloody war.

I didn’t misread it, I read it correctly. Others put meaning into the slave debate, at the time this wasn’t as big as we make it today - it was propaganda and the rewriting of history that made it larger. Primary sources at the time definitely emphasize it, but there are a whole plethora of issues. Further, your coming at the discussion from your position in history today; projecting, if you will. At the start of the war and prior to it, there were decades of the north undermining the south. The fact there was a “fugitive slave act” was because of that undermining by the north.

Regardless, what I was trying to convey was a more factual basis for a discussion. Even in this discussion, the judgement is thick. I try not to portray a judgment, rather focusing on factual statements.

Though, to your point I think we mostly agree and I don’t think the civil war was avoidable. I just view it as a much larger conflict than slavery and I think that’s revisionist history to believe it was the primary cause.

From the founding of this country there have been two waring factions — the federalist and the anti-federalist. Rural vs urban. Populist vs elitist. Democrat vs Republican. Effectively, “what is American”.

It hasn’t changed, really. We’re still having the same debates, pro-life or pro-abortion. The idea behind a Republic is we can resolve those differences and allow greater regional freedom. We have mechanisms of government that enable no faction to dominate (though that’s being eroded). The original idea was states would also leave the union if they so chose - which clearly the northern states wouldn’t allow.

Personally, my fear is that we’re sliding into another “hot” period of the civil war. When we can’t resolve differences AND can’t leave, then war is inevitable.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#264

Post by billjings »

lettergram wrote: post #263
billjings wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, all I can speak to is the quality of your engagement with me here. You misread a primary source which plainly states that slave labor was the precipitating issue in the conflict over state's rights which blossomed into open rebellion and bloody war. That doesn't reflect well or poorly on your reading or understanding, but it does reflect poorly on the quality of your intellectual engagement with me. I agree tha…

> Look, all I can speak to is the quality of your engagement with me here. You misread a primary source which plainly states that slave labor was the precipitating issue in the conflict over state's rights which blossomed into open rebellion and bloody war. I didn’t misread it, I read it correctly. Others put meaning into the slave debate, at the time this wasn’t as big as we make it today - it was propaganda and the…

> I didn’t misread it, I read it correctly. Others put meaning into the slave debate, at the time this wasn’t as big as we make it today - it was propaganda and the rewriting of history that made it larger.

The first two paragraphs of South Carolina's articles of secession say, "We are seceding because our constitutional right to own slaves is being violated by northern states."

The outcome of the slave issue had serious consequences for the propertied class in the South, too. Did you know that, apart from Southern slave owners, most slave owners of the era were paid for their slaves when they were freed? Even the citizens of Haiti, who earned their freedom through violent rebellion, were eventually forced to repay France for "stealing" themselves for their owners.

It's not propaganda to point at the words of the slave states; it's propaganda to throw sand in the eyes of people seeking to understand what actually happened. I grew up in Mississippi; I saw the battlefield of Vicksburg as a child, I understand the need to relate to those folks. And I understand the feelings of injustice that well up when you and your community are reductively maligned as being nothing but outright racists, or when a statement like "The Civil War was fought over slavery" is then extrapolated to a statement as obviously untrue as "All southerners fought in the war so that they could preserve slavery."

But southerners are full of self-justifying lies, too.

> The fact there was a “fugitive slave act” was because of that undermining by the north.

And what else was the North to do? Do you believe that slavery is immoral? If a runaway slave hitched a train into your state and knocked on your front door, would you send them back to bondage?

This is why the legal question is a dodge: the moral question speaks too strongly. Read the passage I quoted from Grant again, top to bottom. He is as vivid on the question as any writer I have read. And he was there, and you and I were not.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#265

Post by watwut »

avgcorrection wrote: post #251
watwut wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Russia bombed Syrian hospitals ... invaded Chehenia and other countries ... had assasins murder people living EU, likely caused explosion in Czechs (2014), likely shut down plane, supported dictators around the world ... Common, Ukrainian invasion did not happened out of blue. And I don't even mention Russia actively trying to influence politics of ther countries to the worst.

Let’s put it like this: being critical of the American government does not force you to be Americophobic. > invaded Chehenia Invaded their own territory.

Nah. It was not theirs. It was invasion twice.

Just because you was stole something does not mean you can steal it again and again every time owners get it back.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#266

Post by watwut »

SemanticStrengh wrote: post #247
watwut wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Russia bombed Syrian hospitals ... invaded Chehenia and other countries ... had assasins murder people living EU, likely caused explosion in Czechs (2014), likely shut down plane, supported dictators around the world ... Common, Ukrainian invasion did not happened out of blue. And I don't even mention Russia actively trying to influence politics of ther countries to the worst.

how do you deal with the insane double standard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc#/media/File:... I'm not advocating against russophobia per se, but americanophobia seems similarly legitimate

That 1972 picture somehow implies none of Russian escalation of aggression between late 1990 and 2022 happened?

Should we go into how many countries Russia occupied at that point and how oppressive and murderous it was?

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#267

Post by watwut »

avgcorrection wrote: post #252
watwut wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is an authoritarian state lead by one man and his inner circle. This man has very high public support. In particular, Russian population supports imperial ideology. That is no contradiction. Authoritarians can have public support while at the same time severely oppressing opposition or anyone who dares to voice something else. Also, opposition to Putin does not imply opposition to annexation of Ukrainian lands…

Sure. It is not unreasonable to “hate” someone if they oppose you. I’ll give you that.

Russia is not "opposing" it is expanding and starting major wars. It is actively working to destroy other countries.

Russia is not opposing America as much as they are opposing right to existence as democracies to countries around them. It is way more countries around Russia calling for help to Ukraine then anyone else.

And yes, being at risk of being invaded by someone makes people hate that one. It makes them think again about what that country done to them before.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#268

Post by avgcorrection »

watwut wrote: post #267
avgcorrection wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. It is not unreasonable to “hate” someone if they oppose you. I’ll give you that.

Russia is not "opposing" it is expanding and starting major wars. It is actively working to destroy other countries. Russia is not opposing America as much as they are opposing right to existence as democracies to countries around them. It is way more countries around Russia calling for help to Ukraine then anyone else. And yes, being at risk of being invaded by someone makes people hate that one. It makes them think…

> Russia is not "opposing" it is expanding and starting major wars. It is actively working to destroy other countries.

Brother. You are all over the place.

I was replying to this part:

> Russia is an authoritarian state lead by one man and his inner circle. This man has very high public support. In particular, Russian population supports imperial ideology.

To which I reply: Yes, it’s rational to “hate” someone if they oppose you. And “someone” here means normal Russians.

I was not talking about the Russian government in this context.

And I don’t know why you brought up America.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#269

Post by avgcorrection »

watwut wrote: post #265
avgcorrection wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s put it like this: being critical of the American government does not force you to be Americophobic. > invaded Chehenia Invaded their own territory.

Nah. It was not theirs. It was invasion twice. Just because you was stole something does not mean you can steal it again and again every time owners get it back.

Are the states of the US, Canada, and Australia (to name a few) on stolen land?

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#270

Post by pbhjpbhj »

bilbo0s wrote: post #78
bee_rider wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also featured a little bit of trench warfare. I imagine the European observers who saw that were like "Huh, definitely not important, let's not come up with strategies to counter this sort of thing" and then forgot about it for the next 50 years or so.

In fairness, I think people thought the Eastern and Southern armies fought in a "civilized" manner. It's just that the Western armies and Western generals came in, and they fought in a significantly different fashion. You can call the West of the Union more "modern". Or "pragmatic". Or maybe "barbaric" is the right word. No one wanted to be seen as being "Barbaric". Except Western armies, who really didn't care what…

I just can't see how that can be true - 'we're going to murder you all, but we're going to do it with good manners because otherwise people will think we're bad'??

It seems way more likely to be 'cargo cult' type learning where something worked for centuries and so got formalised and taught rigidly?

Any good sources on this, it must have been covered on AskHistorians!?

Post reply on HN