How would history have gone differently if the Confederacy had been held accountable for the war??

Jan 2013
1,120
Toronto, Canada
25 years would be enough to establish tenure rights for people living on redistributed land (though I'd guess that newly independent state governments would quickly pass a law granting compensation to former Confederates), though land distribution would still be less equitable than in other parts of the country.

Race relations in the south would have been similar to other parts of the country. Freedmen would have had some rights, but they would still be fourth-class citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,620
SoCal
25 years would be enough to establish tenure rights for people living on redistributed land (though I'd guess that newly independent state governments would quickly pass a law granting compensation to former Confederates), though land distribution would still be less equitable than in other parts of the country.

Race relations in the south would have been similar to other parts of the country. Freedmen would have had some rights, but they would still be fourth-class citizens.
Would freedmen have permanently kept the right to vote and (where applicable) the right to marry white people and to attend integrated schools in this scenario?
 
Nov 2018
37
Canada
It would have made the country a better place to live for a whole lot of people, after the war ended the same people in power went back to getting rich of the back of poor people and slaves.

But it would have slowed down the growth of the country, the usa was built on genocide and oppression, free labor is what made western countries rich.
 
Jan 2013
1,120
Toronto, Canada
Would freedmen have permanently kept the right to vote and (where applicable) the right to marry white people and to attend integrated schools in this scenario?
The federal government would have insisted on freedmen voting rights, but states would have been allowed to gerrymander legislative districts to ensure a white majority (not unlike today).

Lots of other states had laws enforcing segregation and banning inter-racial marriage so the federal government could hardly block them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,514
Caribbean
Once again, the Hartford Convention did not lead to actual secession and the radicals were not even the majority of the delegates. It is not comparable to the later secessionist sentiment in the South.
So, what is your point? Do not Constitutional rights exist legally whether or not they are exercised?

You have been arguing somewhat directly and by implication that Madison thinks that States cannot legally repeal, rescind or rebuke their own domestic ratification enactments and resume or "reassume" their "free" and "independent" status - so called "secede." This despite the fact that he expressed the opposite view in both:
1. an official legal document (the Virginia Ratification Ordinance), also coauthored and approved by 4 or 5 other men who were framers at the Philadelphia Convention, and
2. advisory documents like the Federalist Papers.

And before, say, 1825 - where do you find anyone claiming the Constitution says otherwise? You can find them 2019. He that wins the war rewrites the history. And in case it got lost, it is the difference between what the generation that wrote the Constitution think it said and what the modern generation thinks it said is the them I have been working.

Madison was not just silent just once, but three times, on three separate attempts to organize a secession - events I have documents already. Is that evidence he meant what he affirmed by in acts, oath and opinion in the 1780s - or is it evidence to the contrary as you suggest? Madison had his agent posted in Hartford keeping him up to date on what little gossip and rumor was leaking out - but he never said they were breaking any law. And you can't identify one, either.

Andrew Jackson is not "anyone". And please do explain the difference between Jackson's view and Madison's expressed in his letters.
Nice try, sort of. The original claim is yours that they are essentially in agreement. Other posters have no burden to rebut naked claims for which you have provided no evidentiary basis.

Jackson is not just "anyone" in that he is someone with a lot of guns and men to shoot them - legally or illegally - as was Madison in 1815. In another context, if Jackson is making a Constitutional argument, and has nary a clause to cite, then is pretty much just another "anyone," at best. To borrow a phrase from Martin Luther - sola scruptura. The document is its own authority. The issue fo the rule of law versus the rule of men is the core issue here; having a Constitution instead of having a King, "if you can keep it."
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,969
Republika Srpska
Madison's letter to Webster:
"But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."

Jackson's proclamation:
"Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms; and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent on a failure."

They literally say the same thing: you can secede if you are oppressed but you can't secede at will.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,514
Caribbean
They literally say the same thing: you can secede if you are oppressed but you can't secede at will.
The quotes don't say that.

But first, you continue to ignore Madison's decades-long record as an official, his personal acts and official declarations that I have posted. Instead, you keep to spin this one quote from his 80s from a personal letter, out of context, because it sounds negative, and thus can be misconstrued. I say misconstrued, because a violation of faith is not the same as a violation of the Constitution.

And as to Jackson - Even if we could define the term, "morally justified" what does that have to do with whether something is Constitutional or legal?

I think if you were going to make a useful and objective analysis of this, you'd look at how both men reacted as President to secession talk. One said nothing and the other threatened invasion. Explain how that is two people saying the same thing. :think:

I say out of context, because Madison is referring to a series of speeches that I have been referring to as well. When I asked who before 1825 suggested that States cannot secede, I did so, because I knew Webster around 1828 is one of the first to concoct the hypothesis that there were not just 13 States at the founding, but some 14th entity, larger representing all the people of all the States, with the power to bind the 13 States whether they agreed to it or not - as I said before - as if the monarchy didn't end, but just changed names. Later, after flip-flopping, this would later be the Lincoln hypothesis. And later still, it is the Chase hypothesis.

The point is that Madison is telling Webster his hypothesis is wrong, and goes on to repeat what he wrote in the Federalist Papers that there is no one people with one overriding central government, but that "the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states," By saying that the hypothesis is wrong when Webster uses it, it means that it will still be wrong when Lincoln uses it, and still be wrong when Chase uses it. So, you are, in effect, quoting someone who is undermining Lincoln's argument in order to validate Lincoln's argument. :p
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,969
Republika Srpska
Madison's words are pretty clear. I see your argument, but in the end it really comes down to:
- secession for no reason - NO
- secession to protect yourself - YES.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,969
Republika Srpska
I think if you were going to make a useful and objective analysis of this, you'd look at how both men reacted as President to secession talk. One said nothing and the other threatened invasion. Explain how that is two people saying the same thing. :think:
The Nullification Crisis was a much bigger threat to the Union than Hartford Convention. The moderates dominated the Convention and secession was never really likely to happen. The South Carolina situation was much more serious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist