PDA

View Full Version : Do States Have A Right of Succession?



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-01-2012, 11:53 PM
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

.Do States Have a Right of Secession?
Walter Williams (2002.04.19 ) Politics
Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, “The Real Lincoln,” Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let’s look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “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.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Texas leaves the Union I am moving there immediately. Provided that they boot out all the liberals and other assorted characters of low repute.-;)
Only state that I ever envision would dare try to leave is Texas.. Question is, is it Unconstitutional to do so?-Tyr

gabosaurus
10-02-2012, 12:07 AM
States do not have a right to succeed.

YOU, however, can leave whenever you want to. The sooner the better. I would suggest Saudi Arabia. There are zero liberals there.

SassyLady
10-02-2012, 12:41 AM
Wow, very tolerant of you, Gabby. You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing him of.

SassyLady
10-02-2012, 12:51 AM
I hear an Indian nation is seceding.

logroller
10-02-2012, 02:13 AM
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

.Do States Have a Right of Secession?
Walter Williams (2002.04.19 ) Politics
Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, “The Real Lincoln,” Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let’s look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “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.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Texas leaves the Union I am moving there immediately. Provided that they boot out all the liberals and other assorted characters of low repute.-;)
Only state that I ever envision would dare try to leave is Texas.. Question is, is it Unconstitutional to do so?-Tyr
The constitution is pretty ingenious; it prescribes a method of adding states, but not removing them. So it's left, then, to states or to the people pursuant to Amendment X. There was a Scotus case following the civil war that ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, citing the articles of confederation and the preamble as reference. But it left open the possibility for states to do so "through revolution, or through consent of the states."-- The people and the states, respectively. So yes, they have the right, but have they the capability? I have the right to make a billion dollars...

revelarts
10-02-2012, 02:15 AM
Sure they/we have a right.
On a pragmatic level I'm glad Lincoln did what he did though.
But now, IMO, a greater evil, like slavery, is not at issue.
The U.S was founded on the idea freedom, I think calling of the Civil War "the last battle of the American Revolution" is appropriate.

But the original understanding of the union of States was voluntary.
Does Spain or Great Britain have the right to leave European "Union"?
Similar here.

If we become part of a "North American Union" could we leave?
Can nation "states" leave the U.N.?
Does an abused woman have right to leave a marriage? In Muslims countries it aint so easy. In a free country she can get out of dodge without being concerned about her neighbors beating back into the house with her husband.
Some peoples idea of patriotism is that the appearance of union and the flag means more than the gov't's real relationship being based the realities of freedoms promoted in the Constitution.


I'm not sure secession is the best idea, but it may be the only decent option soon, if not already.
But is it a right? Sure.

DragonStryk72
10-02-2012, 01:45 PM
We used to, until like half the country decided it was gonna go ahead and do just that. I mean, neither side was really at a point where they could survive without the other. Even with slaves, the south would've collapsed somewhat quickly due to their limited industrial capacity (One of the reasons the south lost the war.). The North, meanwhile, didn't have the growing capacity of the South

Robert A Whit
10-02-2012, 04:21 PM
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

.Do States Have a Right of Secession?
Walter Williams (2002.04.19 ) Politics
Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, “The Real Lincoln,” Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let’s look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “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.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Texas leaves the Union I am moving there immediately. Provided that they boot out all the liberals and other assorted characters of low repute.-;)
Only state that I ever envision would dare try to leave is Texas.. Question is, is it Unconstitutional to do so?-Tyr
If ever you could mention a man that Democrats despise, perhaps more than Grover Norquist, it is Di Lorenzo. His book, HOW CAPITALISM SAVED AMERICA, is a classic but despised by Democrats.

Thomas makes the only correct argument. I have got into lots of trouble with Democrats and some Republicans by calling Abe a thug president.

Thomas lays out his case very well. I get accused of supporting slavery. That is a vile lie when told. I am pro freedom. We keep ignoring that the flag that flew over slavery far longer than any flag is the flag of 1861 for the USA. That flag was for a republic that supported slavery by law. Actual court cases came out in support of slavery. I maintain that it took the South many decades of being kicked around in DC to finally revolt. But they first voted. That to me showed they did it by rule of law. Had some wild eyed Governor of said states did it on his own, no way jose. But the people got involved. I maintain that slavery was always going to vanish in this country. No need to kill off 630,000 humans to collect back the states. Abe was wrong.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-02-2012, 08:10 PM
We used to, until like half the country decided it was gonna go ahead and do just that. I mean, neither side was really at a point where they could survive without the other. Even with slaves, the south would've collapsed somewhat quickly due to their limited industrial capacity (One of the reasons the south lost the war.). The North, meanwhile, didn't have the growing capacity of the South

I disagree, I believe that states do have that right. My opening posts listed a few famous founders and constitutional experts that state the states do have that right. Im sure I can next post list a few more .
Rev. was right it may come to that soon . Texas wil be the most likely candidate and I wil move there first week it does so. For I'd rather not live as a slave in th rest of the union. We currently work the first 5+ months to pay all the taxes levied on us, that is those of us that still work. -Tyr

Robert A Whit
10-02-2012, 08:29 PM
I disagree, I believe that states do have that right. My opening posts listed a few famous founders and constitutional experts that state the states do have that right. Im sure I can next post list a few more .
Rev. was right it may come to that soon . Texas wil be the most likely candidate and I wil move there first week it does so. For I'd rather not live as a slave in th rest of the union. We currently work the first 5+ months to pay all the taxes levied on us, that is those of us that still work. -Tyr
What amazes me is how democrats mostly often refuse to defend their own state. Claiming their state can't leave the union is tantamount to admitting they accept the fate of their state no matter what happens to it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-02-2012, 09:46 PM
What amazes me is how democrats mostly often refuse to defend their own state. Claiming their state can't leave the union is tantamount to admitting they accept the fate of their state no matter what happens to it.

They think that states dont matter, its the Almighty federal government that they seek to make an all powerful ruling Hydra. Trust me on that....--Tyr

revelarts
10-02-2012, 11:54 PM
If ever you could mention a man that Democrats despise, perhaps more than Grover Norquist, it is Di Lorenzo. His book, HOW CAPITALISM SAVED AMERICA, is a classic but despised by Democrats.

Thomas makes the only correct argument. I have got into lots of trouble with Democrats and some Republicans by calling Abe a thug president.

Thomas lays out his case very well. I get accused of supporting slavery. That is a vile lie when told. I am pro freedom. We keep ignoring that the flag that flew over slavery far longer than any flag is the flag of 1861 for the USA. That flag was for a republic that supported slavery by law. Actual court cases came out in support of slavery. I maintain that it took the South many decades of being kicked around in DC to finally revolt. But they first voted. That to me showed they did it by rule of law. Had some wild eyed Governor of said states did it on his own, no way jose. But the people got involved. I maintain that slavery was always going to vanish in this country. No need to kill off 630,000 humans to collect back the states. Abe was wrong.

You got any evidence to go along with that belief?
The words and docs of the south say different.

They wouldn't even vote to donate their slaves to the cause of the war much less think of freeing them anytime soon... never really. No plans AT ALL.

Have you read the Confederate Constitution RW?
"....(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due."
Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States....
Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.


Look the ONLY significant differences in the U.S. Constitution and the Confederate Constitution are the provisions on "NEGRO SLAVERY", (not White slavery, or Indian slavery or indentured servitude BTW).

RW you need to rethink your position, whatever books you've read seemed to have skipped some basic points.

When Jefferson Davis Left the U.S. congress he gave speech that 1st sets forth the idea that it's LEGAL for states to secede THEN he tells WHY Mississippi and the others are seceding.

"...it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us -- which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal,..."

Horror of horrors they heard that all men might mean ALL men! And Voted all legal and orderly like to make sure the idea didn't infect them.

Davis makes it PAINFULLY clear that, not only Mississippi but, the south believed that Negro slavery was a right that should be maintained even at the cost of secession.
No other reasons are given. NONE.

You can maintain what you want but there's no doubt that the fact is slavery was THE issue that the civil war turned on. Other issues notwithstanding. And there were No plans for confederate emancipation on the horizon.

logroller
10-03-2012, 02:41 AM
Excellent post rev--indubitably, slavery was at the heart of secession. It did, however play a lesser role in the ensuing Civil War, at least initially. The division over the slavery issue riddled the political parties of their time; causing several, notably the whigs and freesoilers(?) to collapse altogether. The dems split north and south; leaving the radical republicans to capture control of House, Senate and Presidency. And with the lattermost, the election of Lincoln to the Presidency, secession was seen as the only alternative to preserving the southern way of life, which included slavery.

One passage of your's I would like to draw attention to: the mentioning of territory and interstate immunities (travel, property etc). That is a crucial aspect of the slavery dispute.

Tobacco and, especially, cotton had depleted much of the south's arable land; as such, expansion into new territories became necessary. Vast tracts of newly acquired territory in the early 19th century provided a heyday for new settlements. The south's plantation style farming, replete with slavery, was at odds with the homesteading style of subsistence agriculture. Think big business vs small business-- the nuances are quite similar. The southern plantation owner's, with their accumulated wealth, sought to vest their interests in the most profitable of these newly acquired lands. Unfortunately, a number of existing settlers weren't amicable to the southern way of life with its big plantations and slavery, whilst settlers were confined to the mediocre land and , and disputes gave way to violent and undemocratic behavior. Google Bleeding Kansas. The conflicting ways of life were as much a part of objection as slavery, and it was in the border states that these differences were of ripe concern. Consider rather you would support the union with armed secessionists running the town-- understandably, many were on the fence.

In fact, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to those four border states, nor any of the states which hadn't seceded. For the proclamation was done via Lincoln's capacity as CIC, not as POTUS. An executive order freeing slaves within the Union states would have surely garnered constitutional objection. It wasn't until the passage of the 13th Amendment that abolition was realized. The emancipation wasn't so much a wise political move but, rather, a military one-- they needed fresh troops, and newly freedmen jumped at the chance as the Union advanced.

Gaffer
10-03-2012, 09:59 AM
Excellent post rev--indubitably, slavery was at the heart of secession. It did, however play a lesser role in the ensuing Civil War, at least initially. The division over the slavery issue riddled the political parties of their time; causing several, notably the whigs and freesoilers(?) to collapse altogether. The dems split north and south; leaving the radical republicans to capture control of House, Senate and Presidency. And with the lattermost, the election of Lincoln to the Presidency, secession was seen as the only alternative to preserving the southern way of life, which included slavery.

One passage of your's I would like to draw attention to: the mentioning of territory and interstate immunities (travel, property etc). That is a crucial aspect of the slavery dispute.

Tobacco and, especially, cotton had depleted much of the south's arable land; as such, expansion into new territories became necessary. Vast tracts of newly acquired territory in the early 19th century provided a heyday for new settlements. The south's plantation style farming, replete with slavery, was at odds with the homesteading style of subsistence agriculture. Think big business vs small business-- the nuances are quite similar. The southern plantation owner's, with their accumulated wealth, sought to vest their interests in the most profitable of these newly acquired lands. Unfortunately, a number of existing settlers weren't amicable to the southern way of life with its big plantations and slavery, whilst settlers were confined to the mediocre land and , and disputes gave way to violent and undemocratic behavior. Google Bleeding Kansas. The conflicting ways of life were as much a part of objection as slavery, and it was in the border states that these differences were of ripe concern. Consider rather you would support the union with armed secessionists running the town-- understandably, many were on the fence.

In fact, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to those four border states, nor any of the states which hadn't seceded. For the proclamation was done via Lincoln's capacity as CIC, not as POTUS. An executive order freeing slaves within the Union states would have surely garnered constitutional objection. It wasn't until the passage of the 13th Amendment that abolition was realized. The emancipation wasn't so much a wise political move but, rather, a military one-- they needed fresh troops, and newly freedmen jumped at the chance as the Union advanced.

And it kept England from joining the war on the side of the confederacy.

mundame
10-03-2012, 10:18 AM
Totally off the point, I realize, but secession is a big European issue right now.

Catalonia is genuinely gearing up to secede from Spain --- tearing the national fabric established by Ferninand and Isabelle back in 1492! (Yes, THAT Ferdinand and Isabelle.) The reason is that Catalonia is rich and the other regions are poor, so like peripheral countries sucking on Germany as much as Germany will let them, the rest of Spain is sucking on Catalonia, which wants oOUT.

And of course the question of whether it is legal to secede from the European Union or even secede from the Euro monetary union --- is it legal for Greece to just leave, default to all the northern banks, devalue the drachma? "Legal" doesn't matter, of course --- what always matters in international affairs is whether a country can pull something off.

A more interesting question is can Germany secede from the Euro -- so that other countries can't suck all their money out. Like Catalonia wants to. Would Spain fight to keep Catalonia? I bet they would. Would the rest of the European Union fight to keep and enslave Germany?

Probably would be a bad idea to fight Germany, if history is any guide.

logroller
10-03-2012, 11:28 AM
And it kept England from joining the war on the side of the confederacy.
That, and European crop failures. Some say, king corn was more powerful than king cotton. Gotta give Lincoln credit, he was a resolute in his handling of outside interference-- he flat out told the world that any act of trade with the confederacy would be considered an act of piracy and would be subject to the laws of the same. He even got himself into a little hot water when union naval forces boarded a British ship and captured two confederate diplomates en route to England in an attempt to foster an English role in mediation. The Trent affair was unceremoniously squelched upon their release and a disavowing of the existance of any official order in the case at hand. The british generally viewed it as diplomatic victory, but England and, likewise, France realized it best to maintain a neutral position, as the US would not hesitate to defend itself from outside interference.

revelarts
10-03-2012, 01:47 PM
Excellent post rev--indubitably, slavery was at the heart of secession. It did, however play a lesser role in the ensuing Civil War, at least initially. The division over the slavery issue riddled the political parties of their time; causing several, notably the whigs and freesoilers(?) to collapse altogether. The dems split north and south; leaving the radical republicans to capture control of House, Senate and Presidency. And with the lattermost, the election of Lincoln to the Presidency, secession was seen as the only alternative to preserving the southern way of life, which included slavery.

One passage of your's I would like to draw attention to: the mentioning of territory and interstate immunities (travel, property etc). That is a crucial aspect of the slavery dispute.

Tobacco and, especially, cotton had depleted much of the south's arable land; as such, expansion into new territories became necessary. Vast tracts of newly acquired territory in the early 19th century provided a heyday for new settlements. The south's plantation style farming, replete with slavery, was at odds with the homesteading style of subsistence agriculture. Think big business vs small business-- the nuances are quite similar. The southern plantation owner's, with their accumulated wealth, sought to vest their interests in the most profitable of these newly acquired lands. Unfortunately, a number of existing settlers weren't amicable to the southern way of life with its big plantations and slavery, whilst settlers were confined to the mediocre land and , and disputes gave way to violent and undemocratic behavior. Google Bleeding Kansas. The conflicting ways of life were as much a part of objection as slavery, and it was in the border states that these differences were of ripe concern. Consider rather you would support the union with armed secessionists running the town-- understandably, many were on the fence.

In fact, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to those four border states, nor any of the states which hadn't seceded. For the proclamation was done via Lincoln's capacity as CIC, not as POTUS. An executive order freeing slaves within the Union states would have surely garnered constitutional objection. It wasn't until the passage of the 13th Amendment that abolition was realized. The emancipation wasn't so much a wise political move but, rather, a military one-- they needed fresh troops, and newly freedmen jumped at the chance as the Union advanced.
Thanks, and some interesting info.
But all due respect Log but slavery was the lynch pin issue.
Jefferson Davis didn't understand Lincoln's election and all of the abolitionist activity in congress and talk of "all men being equal" to be neutral to his "rights" as a Southerner. Lincoln was not running out of the gate to free the slaves but the south saw the political wind and numbers in congress and the sentiment of a large part of the rest of the union and decided they would not win in the short or long run on the slavery issue. Despite Lincoln's political equivocations and maneuverings on the matter.

And clearly If there was no slavery question there'd be no secession,
no secession no war.
I won't play the confederate apologist games here. They promote a historical lie.

All other factors notwithstanding, without the slavery issue there's extremely little to NO chance of there every being an American Civil War in the late 1800s. The other details of commerce and banking were very interesting and important in their own right but not Foundational or significantly egregious to ignite a civil war.

This is not directed at you Log but,
That is one of the points that I wish the apologist for the south would get strait and Just admit.
I don't want to paint the south as worse than they were or the north & Lincoln as angels but the idea we should cover one eye and white wash the facts that sit in front of us like a mountain so that people can salvage some more honor or recast the whole affair overall as HONORABLE and the North as evil in general is just dishonest and kinda sick. Like the germans trying to white wash many acts of the German Military during WW2. I mean , sure, not all Nazis where monsters, many just served as patriots, good soldiers never getting their hands dirty in some of the horrors. But don't try to alter history to make whole business a noble enterprise and the Allies as in the more serious wrong. AND then have an Attitude about it as well if people don't buy it.

Slavery was the not the straw that broke the camels back it was the pack, the man, all the straws and bone disease.

mundame
10-03-2012, 02:34 PM
I think it was subtle.

I didn't understand this till lately; there is now some revisionist historical stuff going on about the Civil War and it's very interesting.

Of course the underlying problem was slavery! The South wanted to keep it.

But that's not why there was a war. The South saw that the territories were going to come in, and soon, one by one slave-free, and so ---- shortly they'd be direly outnumbered. Then the abolitionists would get slavery voted down thruout the Union, as soon as they had enough votes with the new territories as states. Burning Kansas and Harper's Ferry and all that.

So the South left out. Note it all happened inside a week, boom. That's how big things always happen. Nothing, nothing, nothing, then BOOM! The South did not want a war! The South just wanted out, out, out, like Catalonia wants out of Spain right now, for excellent reasons.

It was the North, after all, that started the war, and they did so to get back the large chunk of the Union that had just departed. The North and Lincoln didn't care about slavery at this point!! They cared that the United States had just gotten cut in half! As well they might. Slavery didn't matter at all. The the whole large South did matter.

So the War Between the States wasn't about Slavery at all, except indirectly: it was about the right of states to leave the Union and set up shop on their own terms.

I love this. It's a new concept. Probably because we're warming up to do it again. It won't be about slavery this time, either, but about the right of states to take their ball and go home.

logroller
10-03-2012, 02:50 PM
Thanks, and some interesting info.
But all due respect Log but slavery was the lynch pin issue.
Jefferson Davis didn't understand Lincoln's election and all of the abolitionist activity in congress and talk of "all men being equal" to be neutral to his "rights" as a Southerner. Lincoln was not running out of the gate to free the slaves but the south saw the political wind and numbers in congress and the sentiment of a large part of the rest of the union and decided they would not win in the short or long run on the slavery issue. Despite Lincoln's political equivocations and maneuverings on the matter.

And clearly If there was no slavery question there'd be no secession,
no secession no war.
I won't play the confederate apologist games here. They promote a historical lie.

All other factors notwithstanding, without the slavery issue there's extremely little to NO chance of there every being an American Civil War in the late 1800s. The other details of commerce and banking were very interesting and important in their own right but not Foundational or significantly egregious to ignite a civil war.

This is not directed at you Log but,
That is one of the points that I wish the apologist for the south would get strait and Just admit.
I don't want to paint the south as worse than they were or the north & Lincoln as angels but the idea we should cover one eye and white wash the facts that sit in front of us like a mountain so that people can salvage some more honor or recast the whole affair overall as HONORABLE and the North as evil in general is just dishonest and kinda sick. Like the germans trying to white wash many acts of the German Military during WW2. I mean , sure, not all Nazis where monsters, many just served as patriots, good soldiers never getting their hands dirty in some of the horrors. But don't try to alter history to make whole business a noble enterprise and the Allies as in the more serious wrong. AND then have an Attitude about it as well if people don't buy it.

Slavery was the not the straw that broke the camels back it was the pack, the man, all the straws and bone disease.

Well shoot, if we're gonna condemn apologists and make Nazi references, even if its not directed at me-- I gotta add more. ;)

I'd advance that the Native American population was far more mistreated than blacks ever were. Even as slaves, at least they had value, even it was as property; not so with Native Indians, they were seen as a obstacles. The slaves were freed, emancipated, then, finally, slavery was abolished and afforded rights as free men soon after the Civil War. Not so with Natives, no suffrage until 1924. Throughout the 19th century, Indians were massacred in nearly every state in which they existed. Often ruthlessly and in disregard of any sense of humanity-- things that are literally on par with those crimes punished at Nuremberg. Were those deeds condemned... sometimes; but they never went punished. Just another treaty, a little less land and more broken promises. Imagine if Lincoln had revoked the emancipation proclamation after Grant surrendered, and the 13th-15th amendments were never added. Would you still say servitude and its moral ineptitude was the issue? Shoot, Lincoln issued an ultimatum which would have allowed the Confederate States to retain slavery, but just couldn't advance it into other states and territories. That ultimatum expired on the very the emancipation proclamation was issued.

No, slavery was a squeaky wheel in the cogs of Northern industrial development; and those stubborn southerners just couldn't be compelled to adapt to the advancement of our nation and allow slavery to perish. That squeak was greased with the blood of nearly a million Americans, but that's only 3% of the total population. Whilst Native Americans were crushed by the wheels of territorial expansion. In California alone, from 1849 to 1870, some 4500 of the 25000 were violently killed. That's nearly 20%. Of course, we apologized for ethnically cleansing western tribes...in 2000. Better late than never I guess.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-03-2012, 09:51 PM
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/poll-24-percent-americans-believe-states-have-right-secede

Poll: 24 Percent of Americans Believe States Have a Right to SecedeBy Elizabeth Harrington (http://www.debatepolicy.com/source/elizabeth-harrington)
June 5, 2012
Subscribe to Elizabeth Harrington's posts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/source/119001/feed)





http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.png http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.png http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.png http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.png
http://www.debatepolicy.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/medium/images/Vermont%20Republic%20flag_0.jpg (http://www.debatepolicy.com/image/vermont-republic) Flag of the Second Vermont Republic secession movement. (Photo courtesy of Vermont Republic)

(CNSNews.com) – Nearly one-quarter of Americans believe that states have the right to secede, according to a recent poll from Rasmussen Reports -- up 10 percentage points in two years.
The latest poll is just one of many that shows that Americans have “serious and growing concern about the federal government,” according to Scott Rasmussen, founder and president of Rasmussen Reports.
According to the phone survey (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2012/24_say_states_have_right_to_secede) released Sunday, 24 percent of Americans believe that states should be able to withdraw from the United States to form their own country, if they want. Nearly 60 percent (59) of Americans say they don’t believe states have the right to secede, while 16 percent are undecided.
“We do see that people are concerned about the federal government in a variety of ways,” Rasmussen told CNSNews.com. “51 percent believe that it’s a threat to individual liberties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another 4 years of obama tyranny and it 'll be 75% thinking it a right and a blessing too !!-Tyr

revelarts
10-04-2012, 07:20 AM
I think it was subtle.

I didn't understand this till lately; there is now some revisionist historical stuff going on about the Civil War and it's very interesting.

Of course the underlying problem was slavery! The South wanted to keep it.

But that's not why there was a war. The South saw that the territories were going to come in, and soon, one by one slave-free, and so ---- shortly they'd be direly outnumbered. Then the abolitionists would get slavery voted down thruout the Union, as soon as they had enough votes with the new territories as states. Burning Kansas and Harper's Ferry and all that.

So the South left out. Note it all happened inside a week, boom. That's how big things always happen. Nothing, nothing, nothing, then BOOM! The South did not want a war! The South just wanted out, out, out, like Catalonia wants out of Spain right now, for excellent reasons.

It was the North, after all, that started the war, and they did so to get back the large chunk of the Union that had just departed. The North and Lincoln didn't care about slavery at this point!! They cared that the United States had just gotten cut in half! As well they might. Slavery didn't matter at all. The the whole large South did matter.

So the War Between the States wasn't about Slavery at all, except indirectly: it was about the right of states to leave the Union and set up shop on their own terms.

I love this. It's a new concept. Probably because we're warming up to do it again. It won't be about slavery this time, either, but about the right of states to take their ball and go home.

"the War Between the States wasn't about Slavery at all, except indirectly"
INDIRECTLY?
As i said before
"clearly If there was no slavery question there'd be no secession, no secession no war."
That's called a strait line or directly.


and as you said
"Of course the underlying problem was slavery! The South wanted to keep it."
agreed, directly.

Keep it at the very likely cost of even fighting a war to keep it.
The South didn't want war but they were VERY willing to fight for the imagined right to keep slaves and knew that war was almost inevitable.

WAR to Keep slaves.

The North was willing to fight to -keep the Union- yes, but not willing to compromise on the slavery issue to the point they'd allow slavery to continue to the southern states satisfaction, just to preserve the Union.
If they really only " cared that the United States had just gotten cut in half!" The North would have compromised on slavery years ago if it all wanted was to NOT BE CUT IN HALF. They knew that the south would secede if they didn't get their way on slavery.



The whole war turned on slavery, all revisionist semantics and issue dicing logic aside.

mundame
10-04-2012, 08:00 AM
No, I think you are wrong, revelarts: slavery was an indirect issue.

The North DID try, very hard, to keep the South in the Union. The Missouri Compromise and all that. Lincoln's speeches highly uncomplimentary to blacks to appease the South.

Until the South quite suddenly inside a week, Bang! left the Union, they had every hope they would succeed in keeping the Union intact.

The South did not start the war: the South simply withdrew from the American nation. They had real hope that there would be no war, that the North would say, "Good riddance!" But Lincoln didn't want the nation split in half and he went after them. Given that the North went to war on the South, and the fighting had nothing to do with slavery but with winning back half the territory of the United States, I don't see how you can say the War was about slavery.

It was about secession, and will be again. If states go out again, and we are WAAAAY overdue historically for another split, a war won't be about letting in too many immigrants, or welfare dependency, or gun control, or whatever the issue SEEMS to be about: a war would be to get back control of all the states in the Union.

I think you are just shocked that there was slavery in the United States. But that's like young Germans being shocked when they find out there were Nazis in Germany and they did the Holocaust. Well, that happened. But that was not what World War II was about!! World War II was about the same exact thing World War I was about --- whether Germany could rule Europe. Killing 6 million Jews was incidental to that: after all, 40 million people at least were killed in WWII. Perspective is necessary. Nobody even KNEW about the Jews till they opened the concentration camps, so there is no use saying WWII was about the Holocaust just because that is what most shocks you.

Same deal with the Civil War. Slavery shocks some people to the point that they don't realize that losing half the country was what mattered in Washington in 1860, not slavery. Losing big hunks of territory is always huge in terms of national interest.

revelarts
10-04-2012, 09:03 AM
No, I think you are wrong, revelarts: slavery was an indirect issue.

The North DID try, very hard, to keep the South in the Union. The Missouri Compromise and all that. Lincoln's speeches highly uncomplimentary to blacks to appease the South.

Until the South quite suddenly inside a week, Bang! left the Union, they had every hope they would succeed in keeping the Union intact.

The South did not start the war: the South simply withdrew from the American nation. They had real hope that there would be no war, that the North would say, "Good riddance!" But Lincoln didn't want the nation split in half and he went after them. Given that the North went to war on the South, and the fighting had nothing to do with slavery but with winning back half the territory of the United States, I don't see how you can say the War was about slavery.

It was about secession, and will be again. If states go out again, and we are WAAAAY overdue historically for another split, a war won't be about letting in too many immigrants, or welfare dependency, or gun control, or whatever the issue SEEMS to be about: a war would be to get back control of all the states in the Union.

I think you are just shocked that there was slavery in the United States. But that's like young Germans being shocked when they find out there were Nazis in Germany and they did the Holocaust. Well, that happened. But that was not what World War II was about!! World War II was about the same exact thing World War I was about --- whether Germany could rule Europe. Killing 6 million Jews was incidental to that: after all, 40 million people at least were killed in WWII. Perspective is necessary. Nobody even KNEW about the Jews till they opened the concentration camps, so there is no use saying WWII was about the Holocaust just because that is what most shocks you.

Same deal with the Civil War. Slavery shocks some people to the point that they don't realize that losing half the country was what mattered in Washington in 1860, not slavery. Losing big hunks of territory is always huge in terms of national interest.

:facepalm99:

Indirectly?


You mean like a punch to the nose indirectly causes a nose bleed.
The real cause of the nose bleed is the heart pumping blood to the blood vessels in the nose.
The punch just opened the the blood vessels, SUDDENLY but INDIRECTLY, so it's not the real cause. Not sure why any one would think that it was.


"Until the South quite suddenly inside a week, Bang! left the Union, they had every hope they would succeed in keeping the Union intact."

As i said The North was UNWILLING to compromise to the point that the South desired.
And BTW SC had voted on seceding earlier over a tariff issue in the 1830's and the North finally "compromised" -gave it up- after the threat.



"...Until the South quite suddenly inside a week, Bang! left the Union, they had every hope they would succeed in keeping the Union intact..."

the South had been threatening leaving the Union during every slavery compromise throughout the early 1800s, even back to 1775-6. Various newspapers had called for it for years, various southern states and locals had voted on the slavery secession issue during that time. It was no -out of left field- shock to the North that the South finally did it. Or that it would mean war.

But Hey, De-Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

mundame
10-04-2012, 01:14 PM
Interesting discussion! Well, not the insults, but otherwise.

I think it's terribly important to see that war is not necessarily about what it seems to be about, but about crucial national interests. One could say that the 17-year-old Serbian kid Gavrilo Princeps started World War I by shooting the Archduke, heir to the Austrian Empire, but that would be wildly incorrect. Shooting the Archduke simply destabilized the situation and Germany took the chance it had been hoping for for 12 years and finally made its move.

Suppose it all happens again here. Not about slavery, but let's say, gun control. Several senators and two presidents are assassinated (remember the 70s? could happen) and a whole lot of people take to doing Batman-shooter-type massacres. The government decides to remove all the guns from the people and make this country like Britain, where nobody but criminals get to have guns or defend themselves in any way.

So then there's a lot of upset for six weeks, and then suddenly the entire South and much of the Southwest decide to form a Confederacy and secede from the Union. And noises are being made by the northwestern states such as Idaho and Montana and the Dakotas that they might form a separate union.

So the Union still run by Washington, D.C. decides to make war on the Confederacy to bring it back into the Union. Now, what would this war be about? Gun control, or the right of states to secede from the Union? The latter, of course, because that is far more important. The country breaking up into several pieces is obviously a lot more important than whatever the original issue was.

Same deal going on in Europe. Greece isn't even within shouting distance of the conditions put on them for yet more loans ---- but everyone assumes they'll get WHATEVER money they need to keep them in the Union because if they go out, the whole thing will blow up, and that's worth a lot more money to the rest of Europe than giving the Greeks enough for every family to have a gold-plated toilet seat.

The question is, what is the real, crucial national interest? Slavery didn't matter next to the huge issue of breaking up the American union.

Robert A Whit
10-04-2012, 03:17 PM
Thanks, and some interesting info.
But all due respect Log but slavery was the lynch pin issue.
Jefferson Davis didn't understand Lincoln's election and all of the abolitionist activity in congress and talk of "all men being equal" to be neutral to his "rights" as a Southerner. Lincoln was not running out of the gate to free the slaves but the south saw the political wind and numbers in congress and the sentiment of a large part of the rest of the union and decided they would not win in the short or long run on the slavery issue. Despite Lincoln's political equivocations and maneuverings on the matter.

And clearly If there was no slavery question there'd be no secession,
no secession no war.
I won't play the confederate apologist games here. They promote a historical lie.

All other factors notwithstanding, without the slavery issue there's extremely little to NO chance of there every being an American Civil War in the late 1800s. The other details of commerce and banking were very interesting and important in their own right but not Foundational or significantly egregious to ignite a civil war.

This is not directed at you Log but,
That is one of the points that I wish the apologist for the south would get strait and Just admit.
I don't want to paint the south as worse than they were or the north & Lincoln as angels but the idea we should cover one eye and white wash the facts that sit in front of us like a mountain so that people can salvage some more honor or recast the whole affair overall as HONORABLE and the North as evil in general is just dishonest and kinda sick. Like the germans trying to white wash many acts of the German Military during WW2. I mean , sure, not all Nazis where monsters, many just served as patriots, good soldiers never getting their hands dirty in some of the horrors. But don't try to alter history to make whole business a noble enterprise and the Allies as in the more serious wrong. AND then have an Attitude about it as well if people don't buy it.

Slavery was the not the straw that broke the camels back it was the pack, the man, all the straws and bone disease.

Why can't people understand that there was not one issue, as some claim, but more than one issue as I claim.

I have yet to read Thomas Di Lorenzos book on this topic and believe me, I plan to get a copy of that book right away.

Slavery is one of the issues.

We have two major events.

Why did states leave the union. Since they had slaves, the rush to judgement crowd stops at the door of slavery. Actually the South had been pissed off for decades. Even prior to the hulaboo over slavery. Few recall that the flag of the USA flew over slavery for many decades.

Slavery had been the norm in this area for over a century. People were used to it.

A few people called abolitionists were not happy, but most of the rest of the country did not care. I am not saying they liked it, they simply did not care. They had things to do where they were.

When Abe was elected, he had laid out his platform. Was that platform to end slavery? Well, NO. Did he disavow he fought over slavery?

Well that he did do.

It makes people who sympathize with the Lincoln crowd feel better to only discuss slavery.

We can oversimplify it by saying the South left and it's major issue was slavery and I will agree.

But Lincoln the invader did not invade due to slavery. He invaded due to the states leaving.

What process did the states use to figure out if they would leave or stay?

Some ignore that a larger number of states voted on this issue than just those that left. Some states that put it up for a vote found the voters wanted to remain in the Union.

Thus we would not have had that war had Abe the invader did as his predecessor president had done. Nothing. Some despise the earler president for doing nothing. I think he followed the law of the land. Many felt, even in the north, if they wanted to leave, good luck to them.

logroller
10-04-2012, 03:37 PM
Interesting discussion! Well, not the insults, but otherwise.

I think it's terribly important to see that war is not necessarily about what it seems to be about, but about crucial national interests.

Yes. The secessionist thought maintaining slavery was a crucial national interests; the north didn't think maintaining slavery was crucial to the national interest. North wins...but its still about slavery.

Take you gun control war, take away the gun issue, no gun bans take effect-- do those states secede?

mundame
10-04-2012, 06:10 PM
Yes. The secessionist thought maintaining slavery was a crucial national interests; the north didn't think maintaining slavery was crucial to the national interest. North wins...but its still about slavery.

Take you gun control war, take away the gun issue, no gun bans take effect-- do those states secede?

Are you saying that if there isn't an issue, then no problem, no war?

So....if there is no slavery, or people are fine with everyone giving up their guns, then there is no problem?

Well, I guess that's true --- if we didn't care that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, then no war. (That's what the Japanese expected, in fact. That it would be a fait accompli and we'd leave the Pacific Ocean to them.)

So if Britain and France hadn't minded Hitler invading Poland Sept. 1, 1939, there'd have been no WWII?

Well, I guess that's true, but I don't quite see where it gets us. I mean --- there ARE issues, people do care about certain things. Some things that happen do seem to represent crucial national interests.

I guess Lincoln could just have let the South go --- that was certainly what Jefferson Davis hoped for! Or Britain could have just let Germany march through Belgium August 4, 1914 without joining the war and let Germany take France apart like it always does. That nearly happened, in fact: Churchill took exactly the right cabinet members to lunch that weekend and talked them into it.

I'm not sure what you are saying besides that people shouldn't have Issues and then there wouldn't be wars?

Noir
10-04-2012, 07:10 PM
I remember having a discussion over what america would do if Hawaii to leave the union, which would be the most realistic.
It's be interesting to know what would happen.

logroller
10-05-2012, 06:36 AM
I remember having a discussion over what america would do if Hawaii to leave the union, which would be the most realistic.
It's be interesting to know what would happen.
Puerto Rico becoming a state is far more realistic than Hawaii seceding.

revelarts
10-05-2012, 07:31 AM
I remember having a discussion over what america would do if Hawaii to leave the union, which would be the most realistic.
It's be interesting to know what would happen.

Plenty of jailed and/or dead Hawaiians, "for freedom". Hawaii is militarily strategic, the powers that be would allow Hawaii to leave the Union only after it was pried from their cold dead fingers, imo.
Alaska too.

North Dakota, New Hampshire and other mainland states have a better chance.

logroller
10-05-2012, 08:25 AM
Are you saying that if there isn't an issue, then no problem, no war?

So....if there is no slavery, or people are fine with everyone giving up their guns, then there is no problem?

Well, I guess that's true --- if we didn't care that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, then no war. (That's what the Japanese expected, in fact. That it would be a fait accompli and we'd leave the Pacific Ocean to them.)

So if Britain and France hadn't minded Hitler invading Poland Sept. 1, 1939, there'd have been no WWII?

Well, I guess that's true, but I don't quite see where it gets us. I mean --- there ARE issues, people do care about certain things. Some things that happen do seem to represent crucial national interests.

I guess Lincoln could just have let the South go --- that was certainly what Jefferson Davis hoped for! Or Britain could have just let Germany march through Belgium August 4, 1914 without joining the war and let Germany take France apart like it always does. That nearly happened, in fact: Churchill took exactly the right cabinet members to lunch that weekend and talked them into it.

I'm not sure what you are saying besides that people shouldn't have Issues and then there wouldn't be wars?
You were making sense...until you brought up Pearl Harbor. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because we'd imposed an oil embargo, not because of slavery or secession. Interpreting what I said as people shouldn't have interests/ issues so there'd be no war-- thats asinine. If that was my point I'd just post a music video of Imagine. I was trying to explain there are fundamental reasons for war, not that there shouldn't be. Boiled down-- it's territory & resources. So unless you're prepared to say slaves are just a resource, no different than any other labor, then cut me some slack and quit maligning what I wrote in an attempt to detract from what is, and was, plain for all the world to see as the divisive issue of the American civil war.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-05-2012, 08:58 AM
http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/990930.shtml

September 30, 1999 <SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">How can the federal government be prevented from usurping powers that the Constitution doesn’t grant to it? It’s an alarming fact that few Americans ask this question anymore. Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated because Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.

<SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.

<SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">Even in <CITE>The Federalist,</CITE> the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as “the Confederacy” and “a confederate republic,” as opposed to a single “consolidated” or monolithic state. Members of a “confederacy” are by definition free to withdraw from it.Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was a right and a practical possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified. Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the real point of the Second Amendment.)

<SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">Strictly speaking, the states would not be “rebelling,” since they were sovereign; in the Framers’ view, a tyrannical government would be rebelling against the states and the people, who by defending themselves would merely exercise the paramount political “principle of self-preservation.”

<SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn’t have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession. Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.

mundame
10-05-2012, 04:27 PM
You were making sense...until you brought up Pearl Harbor. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because we'd imposed an oil embargo, not because of slavery or secession. Interpreting what I said as people shouldn't have interests/ issues so there'd be no war-- thats asinine. If that was my point I'd just post a music video of Imagine. I was trying to explain there are fundamental reasons for war, not that there shouldn't be. Boiled down-- it's territory & resources. So unless you're prepared to say slaves are just a resource, no different than any other labor, then cut me some slack and quit maligning what I wrote in an attempt to detract from what is, and was, plain for all the world to see as the divisive issue of the American civil war.


I think you are somewhat confused about a number of war issues. You are right that fundamental reasons for war are often control of territory and control of resources (there are some others, like imminent danger of attack). But then you cite issues that were NOT about either territory or resources.

Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor because we had imposed an oil embargo!! How would that help their need for oil? We weren't likely to sell them oil again because they had punished us! Their idea, apparently based on a grossly mistaken idea of the American character, was that if they sunk all our warships, we would leave them to own the Pacific and every country in it (Australia, Philippines, all the European colonies, China, etc.) and all the oil they could conquer locally, from the Dutch colonies they did take, and so on. There were two problems with this. 1) they didn't get our carriers, which were out to sea December 7, 1941. Big, big problem, as the carriers ended up winning the war in the Pacific for us. 2) American policy was moving toward not allowing regional hegemons to develop ANYwhere (we had formally not allowed any regional hegemons in our hemisphere except us since about 1880-- like France trying to take over Mexico, which they did try.) The dramatic evidence of how bad for us it was to let a regional hegemon grow up in Asia --- this concept was termed "the Yellow Peril" --- mobilized the United States into war immediately.

Then you are saying slavery was a resource and therefore a cause of war.....but the North didn't want the South's slaves!

The North wanted the United States to be as big as it used to be, before the Confederacy left. It is true that the South seceded in order to protect the resource of slavery on which their economy was based -- and when they lost that, they were poor for generations, as we all know -- but secession isn't a war. Secession is just secession. Lots of secessions are peaceful, such as when the Soviet Union broke up. It's only a war if armed troops firing weapons cross a border, burning and killing. And that was what the North did, not the South. The North invaded Virginia because they wanted territory. As soon as McClellan's army crossed the Potomac, slavery ceased to be the issue anywhere. Nobody white had another thought about slavery until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation three years later.

Interesting point about Japan, though. Are you saying Japan was justified in strafing Pearl Harbor because we refused to sell them oil for their Rape of Nanking and such in Manchuria? Right now we are refusing to sell or buy or do banking with a LOT of stuff Iran has --- so would you think they would be entitled to bomb New York to force us to stop putting sanctions on them against their nuclear bomb program?

There are a number of strong actions states can take that are not war: sanctions are one, secession is another. If those are always to be treated as war, I don't know, it doesn't leave much scope for actions short of war.

logroller
10-05-2012, 05:03 PM
I think you are somewhat confused about a number of war issues. You are right that fundamental reasons for war are often control of territory and control of resources (there are some others, like imminent danger of attack). But then you cite issues that were NOT about either territory or resources.

i.e. loss of territory and resources.


Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor because we had imposed an oil embargo!! How would that help their need for oil? We weren't likely to sell them oil again because they had punished us! Their idea, apparently based on a grossly mistaken idea of the American character, was that if they sunk all our warships, we would leave them to own the Pacific and every country in it (Australia, Philippines, all the European colonies, China, etc.) and all the oil they could conquer locally, from the Dutch colonies they did take, and so on.
You just answered your own question... If they were to sink all our warships.

There were two problems with this. 1) they didn't ...
Noted.
2) American policy was moving toward not allowing regional hegemons to develop ANYwhere (we had formally not allowed any regional hegemons in our hemisphere except us since about 1880-- like France trying to take over Mexico, which they did try.) ((logroller:during our perceived weakness during our civil war))
Then you are saying slavery was a resource and therefore a cause of war.....but the North didn't want the South's slaves!
No they didn't; nor did they want the South using the slave labor in the expanding US territory. AGAIN, I note, territory.


The North wanted the United States to be as big as it used to be, before the Confederacy left. It is true that the South seceded in order to protect the resource of slavery on which their economy was based -- and when they lost that, they were poor for generations, as we all know -- but secession isn't a war. Secession is just secession. Lots of secessions are peaceful, such as when the Soviet Union broke up. It's only a war if armed troops firing weapons cross a border, burning and killing. And that was what the North did, not the South.
Fort Sumpter was the first military action of the civil war; commenced by the Confederate South.


The North invaded Virginia because they wanted territory(BACK). As soon as McClellan's army crossed the Potomac, slavery ceased to be the issue anywhere. Nobody white had another thought about slavery until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation three years later. Well, war is war-- once waged, victory ~ unconditional surrender of your opponent becomes the objective. The emancipation proclamation was invoked for military purposes IMO-- the Union needed soldiers, freemen served. I'd mentioned this earlier, but newly freed blacks of the confederate south were the only slaves freed. Union states' slaves would have to wait until after the war to become free.


Interesting point about Japan, though. Are you saying Japan was justified in strafing Pearl Harbor because we refused to sell them oil for their Rape of Nanking and such in Manchuria? Right now we are refusing to sell or buy or do banking with a LOT of stuff Iran has --- so would you think they would be entitled to bomb New York to force us to stop putting sanctions on them against their nuclear bomb program? Entitled-- as in, they have the right? NO. Besides, it'd be a suicide mission. But they've a history of instigating bloodshed over trivial matters, so I wouldn't put it past them.


There are a number of strong actions states can take that are not war: sanctions are one, secession is another. If those are always to be treated as war, I don't know, it doesn't leave much scope for actions short of war.

Well the SCOTUS case after the war left state political action and war as the means of leaving the Union, not unilateral diplomatic secession. It all hinges on what makes a more perfect union IMHO. Is it more perfect to have a state unilaterally secede, or require them to have the remaining states endorse/capitulate upon the disenfranchised states' demands?

mundame
10-05-2012, 09:11 PM
Whole lot of secession going on --- Scotland will vote on seceding in 2013, IIRC, and now Venice is trying to separate from Italy.

Mass rally in Venice to call for independence from Italy

Two centuries after Napoleonic forces snuffed out the 1,000-year Venetian
Republic, Venetians are once again aspiring to become an independent state.

Recent surveys show widespread support for independence among Venetians, who
speak a distinct dialect and feel geographically and culturally distant from
Rome.
A poll conducted by Corriere della Sera in September found that 80 per cent
were in favour of independence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9589732/Mass-rally-in-Venice-to-call-for-independence-from-Italy.html

mundame
10-05-2012, 09:27 PM
Fort Sumpter was the first military action of the civil war; commenced by the Confederate South.

True. I went out to Fort Sumter on a boat once. It wasn't a significant military action, of course; more a signal that the big move was starting.




Well, war is war-- once waged, victory ~ unconditional surrender of your opponent becomes the objective.

Yes, theoretically, which rather leads to the question of what we have been doing with the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan "wars," since none of them were wars with the objective you describe. I've decided to consider it "security colonization" -- it certainly isn't war.



Well the SCOTUS case after the war left state political action and war as the means of leaving the Union, not unilateral diplomatic secession. It all hinges on what makes a more perfect union IMHO. Is it more perfect to have a state unilaterally secede, or require them to have the remaining states endorse/capitulate upon the disenfranchised states' demands?

I'm no fan of the concept that rules and treaties and "international law" has anything at all to do with such matters as war and secession. There are always, always rules against peoples doing what some other power doesn't want them to. It's probably against 73 international laws for Iran to build nukes, but that hardly matters. It was against all sorts of treaties and agreements for Germany to invade Belgium, but they goosestepped across the border by the hundreds of thousands and millions all the same, because they could. If people want to do something and CAN do it, they do, that's all. The Hutu genocide of the Tutsis; the Armenian genocide; the American Revolution; the splitting off of all the Soviet provinces as soon as they realized Russia could no longer do anything to stop them.

It's against at least two important treaties for Greece to leave the Euro or the EU; however, if it goes, it will go all in one weekend.

People on forums are suddenly very interested in Southern secession in 1860. I suppose that's because the current national split is so serious and we're gearing up for another. I don't think the feds could stop it this time; after all, most American soldiers come from Georgia, Alabama, and Texas, so where would they get the manpower? And it might well be like the Soviet Union split, when it blew apart in all directions, and the West coast states break off and form the California Republic, and the northwestern states combine in their own separate country. We could easily have four or five countries from U.S. territory within a few days. Big things happen in a few days or not at all, I think.

Robert A Whit
10-05-2012, 09:47 PM
You were making sense...until you brought up Pearl Harbor. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because we'd imposed an oil embargo, not because of slavery or secession. Interpreting what I said as people shouldn't have interests/ issues so there'd be no war-- thats asinine. If that was my point I'd just post a music video of Imagine. I was trying to explain there are fundamental reasons for war, not that there shouldn't be. Boiled down-- it's territory & resources. So unless you're prepared to say slaves are just a resource, no different than any other labor, then cut me some slack and quit maligning what I wrote in an attempt to detract from what is, and was, plain for all the world to see as the divisive issue of the American civil war.

You are cominging again. Acting as if the reason why Abe invaded was due to Slavery. No, Abe himself stated his invasion was not due to slavery.

First, had Abe refused to invade, we would not mention such a thing as a Civil War.

Abe had it all in his hands.

Stated left the union due to slavery as one of many issues, but that did not mean there had to be war.

Abe provoked the South.

Having not yet read Di Lorenzos book, I expect he made that same argument.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-14-2012, 04:41 PM
True. I went out to Fort Sumter on a boat once. It wasn't a significant military action, of course; more a signal that the big move was starting.




Yes, theoretically, which rather leads to the question of what we have been doing with the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan "wars," since none of them were wars with the objective you describe. I've decided to consider it "security colonization" -- it certainly isn't war.




I'm no fan of the concept that rules and treaties and "international law" has anything at all to do with such matters as war and secession. There are always, always rules against peoples doing what some other power doesn't want them to. It's probably against 73 international laws for Iran to build nukes, but that hardly matters. It was against all sorts of treaties and agreements for Germany to invade Belgium, but they goosestepped across the border by the hundreds of thousands and millions all the same, because they could. If people want to do something and CAN do it, they do, that's all. The Hutu genocide of the Tutsis; the Armenian genocide; the American Revolution; the splitting off of all the Soviet provinces as soon as they realized Russia could no longer do anything to stop them.

It's against at least two important treaties for Greece to leave the Euro or the EU; however, if it goes, it will go all in one weekend.


People on forums are suddenly very interested in Southern secession in 1860. I suppose that's because the current national split is so serious and we're gearing up for another. I don't think the feds could stop it this time; after all, most American soldiers come from Georgia, Alabama, and Texas, so where would they get the manpower? And it might well be like the Soviet Union split, when it blew apart in all directions, and the West coast states break off and form the California Republic, and the northwestern states combine in their own separate country. We could easily have four or five countries from U.S. territory within a few days. Big things happen in a few days or not at all, I think.

^^^ Very interesting observations on a possible split should the Federal government proceed further in its Unconstitutional power grabbing , desire to illegally target tax certain groups out of existence and ever growing dictatorial Presidential decrees! If Texas goes , Im going there within a week or two, as fast as I can get my things together. Im not at all for a split but have plans made should one occur.-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-14-2012, 04:45 PM
You are cominging again. Acting as if the reason why Abe invaded was due to Slavery. No, Abe himself stated his invasion was not due to slavery.

First, had Abe refused to invade, we would not mention such a thing as a Civil War.

Abe had it all in his hands.

Stated left the union due to slavery as one of many issues, but that did not mean there had to be war.

Abe provoked the South.

Having not yet read Di Lorenzos book, I expect he made that same argument.

You are dead on accurate. The North drove the South to leave the Union , then decided to invade to stop it..
I suspect that obama would love to see a split too. -Tyr

logroller
01-14-2013, 06:18 PM
You are cominging again. Acting as if the reason why Abe invaded was due to Slavery. No, Abe himself stated his invasion was not due to slavery.

First, had Abe refused to invade, we would not mention such a thing as a Civil War.
Had the southern states not seceded; Abe wouldn't have had to.
Abe had it all in his hands.

Stated left the union due to slavery as one of many issues, but that did not mean there had to be war.
Right up until the south fired on fort Sumter, I suppose there was a chance of peaceful resolution. Just how many nations have divided peaceably?

Abe provoked the South.
The south seized federal forts before Lincoln was inaugurated-- then attacked fort Sumter -- the south provoked Lincoln.
Having not yet read Di Lorenzos book, I expect he made that same argument.
The facts don't support your arguments.

Kathianne
01-14-2013, 09:19 PM
Yes. The secessionist thought maintaining slavery was a crucial national interests; the north didn't think maintaining slavery was crucial to the national interest. North wins...but its still about slavery.

Take you gun control war, take away the gun issue, no gun bans take effect-- do those states secede?

No, it was about secession, at least at first. Certainly slavery was the catalyst that brought forth secession, but Lincoln really tried to mitigate that. He was more than willing to let slavery die a 'natural death' by forbidding any more importation, but letting it proceed from where it was.

Ft. Sumter began the change for the Union, but not all at once. While the abolitionists were mostly in the North, nowhere near a majority of Northerners believed that slavery should just be 'ended' here and now. They were more like Lincoln.

It was the Southerners who recognized that without expansion into territories and without new importations of slaves, that institution would die.

aboutime
01-14-2013, 10:35 PM
The facts don't support your arguments.



logroller. Why don't they? Could it be....because you say so? And only you are permitted to interpret actual Historical facts that satisfy your personal agenda?

NEWSFLASH logroller. You, despite how much you insist otherwise. Are not the final answer here. As for the argument. Give us some facts TO SUPPORT yours!

logroller
01-14-2013, 11:26 PM
logroller. Why don't they? Could it be....because you say so? And only you are permitted to interpret actual Historical facts that satisfy your personal agenda?

NEWSFLASH logroller. You, despite how much you insist otherwise. Are not the final answer here. As for the argument. Give us some facts TO SUPPORT yours!
I have given facts. Read my posts. The confederate south surrounded union forts before Lincoln's inauguration, and shortly thereafter the South Carolina militia fired the first shots despite Lincoln saying in his inaugural address he wanted no bloodshed and wished to find a peaceful resolution. So unless being elected is provocative, and advocating diplomacy are fighting words; then Abe provoking the war is patently false. Furthermore, I've introduced case law defining the constitutionality of secession. The reality is the South lost; had they won, things would be different. There's a lesson in this in that when you start a war you're fighting not only for what you can gain, but what you get to keep. in a winner take all scenario, you damn well better win-- Wage war wisely.

Kathianne
01-14-2013, 11:48 PM
I have given facts. Read my posts. The confederate south surrounded union forts before Lincoln's inauguration, and shortly thereafter the South Carolina militia fired the first shots despite Lincoln saying in his inaugural address he wanted no bloodshed and wished to find a peaceful resolution. So unless being elected is provocative, and advocating diplomacy are fighting words; then Abe provoking the war is patently false. Furthermore, I've introduced case law defining the constitutionality of secession. The reality is the South lost; had they won, things would be different. There's a lesson in this in that when you start a war you're fighting not only for what you can gain, but what you get to keep. in a winner take all scenario, you damn well better win-- Wage war wisely.

I've not read the entire thread, nor all your posts. The fact that the South was ready from the election, was more a reflection on no needed votes from the South to have Lincoln elected. The South knew that within the Union, they were an insignificant electoral minority. That wouldn't do, not for their way or life, more importantly, their livelihood via slavery. While the South got that, the North didn't, including Lincoln, they had a different vision.

The eradication of slavery was a long term goal, but the holding together of the Union was paramount. Thus Lincoln was able to say in 1862,


http://www.carrothers.com/lincoln.htm

"August 22, 1862
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. 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.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

logroller
01-15-2013, 12:30 AM
I've not read the entire thread, nor all your posts. The fact that the South was ready from the election, was more a reflection on no needed votes from the South to have Lincoln elected. The South knew that within the Union, they were an insignificant electoral minority. That wouldn't do, not for their way or life, more importantly, their livelihood via slavery. While the South got that, the North didn't, including Lincoln, they had a different vision.

The eradication of slavery was a long term goal, but the holding together of the Union was paramount. Thus Lincoln was able to say in 1862,
Neither were you saying I've given no facts.
I'm thankful that those whose livelihood amd way of life was dependent on slavery were an insignificant electoral minority. Human servitude is not a vision worthy of promotion IMO. I do think state's rights took a hit though.

Robert A Whit
01-15-2013, 12:58 AM
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by aboutime http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606827#post606827)
logroller. Why don't they? Could it be....because you say so? And only you are permitted to interpret actual Historical facts that satisfy your personal agenda?


NEWSFLASH logroller. You, despite how much you insist otherwise. Are not the final answer here. As for the argument. Give us some facts TO SUPPORT yours!
I have given facts. Read my posts. The confederate south surrounded union forts before Lincoln's inauguration, and shortly thereafter the South Carolina militia fired the first shots despite Lincoln saying in his inaugural address he wanted no bloodshed and wished to find a peaceful resolution. So unless being elected is provocative, and advocating diplomacy are fighting words; then Abe provoking the war is patently false. Furthermore, I've introduced case law defining the constitutionality of secession. The reality is the South lost; had they won, things would be different. There's a lesson in this in that when you start a war you're fighting not only for what you can gain, but what you get to keep. in a winner take all scenario, you damn well better win-- Wage war wisely.

Conventional story told only from the point view of the north.

Matter of fact, the North suffered zero losses at Ft. Sumpter due to said firing of the cannons of the South.

One more thing, back in those days, the range of cannons was very short. Perhaps that explains some damage done the fort yet no injuries to any troops there.

As to surrounding forts, well, why not?

As to citing the law of the constitution, don't you get it? They had left the union and said law no longer mattered.

logroller
01-15-2013, 01:30 AM
Conventional story told only from the point view of the north.

Matter of fact, the North suffered zero losses at Ft. Sumpter due to said firing of the cannons of the South.

One more thing, back in those days, the range of cannons was very short. Perhaps that explains some damage done the fort yet no injuries to any troops there.

As to surrounding forts, well, why not?

As to citing the law of the constitution, don't you get it? They had left the union and said law no longer mattered.
I get that the South provoked the war, and lost. The ruling came after the war, not before it; besides that, it said revolution was a means of gaining secession-- but one would need to acheive victory-- the south failed to do so. As for convention-- to the victor go the spoils-- indeed, I think Churchill said it best; when asked about whether history would regard him well he answered, "yes-- because I intend to write it." The South lost; they don't get to write history in their favor. Look at the last words in the Dec of Ind,they pledged their sacred honor; if they'd have lost they'd not be honored as brilliant statesmen; just rebellious colonists.

Robert A Whit
01-15-2013, 01:44 AM
I get that the South provoked the war, and lost. The ruling came after the war, not before it; besides that, it said revolution was a means of gaining secession-- but one would need to acheive victory-- the south failed to do so. As for convention-- to the victor go the spoils-- indeed, I think Churchill said it best; when asked about whether history would regard him well he answered, "yes-- because I intend to write it." The South lost; they don't get to write history in their favor.

No, they were provoked. And yes, they lost.

For those who actually believe in the rights of man, those get it. They realize that those citizens of the South voted to remain in the union or abandon the government they felt no longer represented them.

Man is born free. As I can't make a deal today with the state to force you to live in the town I live in, neither can you force me to remain locked into a government when the majority of my neighbors shun said government. As a group, we will decide.

While the South did not win victory, the tactics used could explain that along with their goals. They did not have the goals of the North. The North intended to conquer yet the South intended to hold and defend. As to assigning right to the event, I side with the South.

Sadly you are correct that the spoils were lost to the South and that it is the North whose propaganda is now written history.

logroller
01-15-2013, 03:04 AM
No, they were provoked.

How so?


For those who actually believe in the rights of man, those get it. They realize that those citizens of the South voted to remain in the union or abandon the government they felt no longer represented them.

Man is born free. As I can't make a deal today with the state to force you to live in the town I live in, neither can you force me to remain locked into a government when the majority of my neighbors shun said government. As a group, we will decide.
I know you didn't just drop the universal rights of man into a debate where you're arguing for the Confederate South. The irony is overwhelming. They had a way of life that relied upon human servitude-- that was one of the central causes that precipitated their secession. To play off this "They weren't represented" crap is bogus...and Man is born free... are you kidding me? White Man was born free; other's, well, let the group decide???? That's your answer-- STFU-- human servitude is morally reprehensible. It was the norm back then; so clearly what constitutes rights of man left much to be desired. The South wanted to spread slavery to new territories and the North didn't want that. The tides were changing and the South was desperate. The North just wanted individuals to have a shot at the new lands; not give it to land sheiks and slave plantations. Check out Bleeding Kansas-- that's the South you rally behind.

The group was/is the WHOLE UNION, MANY STATES; the North had the majority. So you say the Southern Citizens want democracy, but only if they can gerrymander themselves into the majority. Maybe the South should have brokered a better deal than 3/5 vote for their slaves then. But ratifier's remorse doesn't get you out of the union. War could have; or by ratification of the Congress and the States, but, as you note

...the South did not win victory, the tactics used could explain that along with their goals. They did not have the goals of the North. The North intended to conquer yet the South intended to hold and defend. As to assigning right to the event, I side with the South.
The union's primary goal was to preserve the union by whatever means necessary. The South knew they couldn't win through political or legal tactics, so they went to war....and lost having never become an independent nation. So they're just rebels with a cause... separatist apartheid.

Sadly you are correct that the spoils were lost to the South and that it is the North whose propaganda is now written history.
Oh, don't let the sour grapes get you too bitter-- the South got Plessy v Ferguson as a consolation prize.

Kathianne
01-15-2013, 08:06 AM
Neither were you saying I've given no facts.
I'm thankful that those whose livelihood amd way of life was dependent on slavery were an insignificant electoral minority. Human servitude is not a vision worthy of promotion IMO. I do think state's rights took a hit though.

I agree. However the main issue through the first thee years of the war was 'The Union' with slavery being the catalyst that brought it forth. Yes, in time through the efforts of the abolitionists and the horror of a grinding Civil War, the people of the North recognized that slavery had to die, now. Piecemeal wasn't going to suffice. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation, which 'freed the slaves' only in the Confederate States. It was the principle.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-15-2013, 10:08 AM
How so?


I know you didn't just drop the universal rights of man into a debate where you're arguing for the Confederate South. The irony is overwhelming. They had a way of life that relied upon human servitude-- that was one of the central causes that precipitated their secession. To play off this "They weren't represented" crap is bogus...and Man is born free... are you kidding me? White Man was born free; other's, well, let the group decide???? That's your answer-- STFU-- human servitude is morally reprehensible. It was the norm back then; so clearly what constitutes rights of man left much to be desired. The South wanted to spread slavery to new territories and the North didn't want that. The tides were changing and the South was desperate. The North just wanted individuals to have a shot at the new lands; not give it to land sheiks and slave plantations. Check out Bleeding Kansas-- that's the South you rally behind.

The group was/is the WHOLE UNION, MANY STATES; the North had the majority. So you say the Southern Citizens want democracy, but only if they can gerrymander themselves into the majority. Maybe the South should have brokered a better deal than 3/5 vote for their slaves then. But ratifier's remorse doesn't get you out of the union. War could have; or by ratification of the Congress and the States, but, as you note

The union's primary goal was to preserve the union by whatever means necessary. The South knew they couldn't win through political or legal tactics, so they went to war....and lost having never become an independent nation. So they're just rebels with a cause... separatist apartheid.

Oh, don't let the sour grapes get you too bitter-- the South got Plessy v Ferguson as a consolation prize.

There is no getting around how wrong slavery was! The South was locked in a system that was wrong. Yet there are other factors at play here. The way the Federal government sought to handle the problem was wrong as well IMHO. Had they exercised more patience slavery would have been stopped because of its prohibitive costs , low return on the investment and the industrialization of nation. The North attempted to force change too fast and was arrogant as hell about it. People do not make such great changes that quickly without there being a big pushback. Southern people most of all in that regards. -Tyr

Kathianne
01-15-2013, 10:20 AM
There is no getting around how wrong slavery was! The South was locked in a system that was wrong. Yet there are other factors at play here. The way the Federal government sought to handle the problem was wrong as well IMHO. Had they exercised more patience slavery would have been stopped because of its prohibitive costs , low return on the investment and the industrialization of nation. The North attempted to force change too fast and was arrogant as hell about it. People do not make such great changes that quickly without there being a big pushback. Southern people most of all in that regards. -Tyr

The South wanted secession, at the time they had a political reason to leave. They didn't have enough white men to make the region politically relevant. That was clear with the election of Lincoln. Indeed, before that with the push to keep slavery only where it existed. Problem with that? Cotton and tobacco deplete the soil, there were reasons for the desire for more lands and that was being denied.

Whoever brought up Japan did make a point: the refusal of expansion of slavery was very much a threat to the South's livelihood, as denying oil to the Japanese. Japan may have settled for being a 'Pacific Power' and left US interests alone, but not with the embargo.

tailfins
01-15-2013, 10:22 AM
States do not have a right to succeed.

YOU, however, can leave whenever you want to. The sooner the better. I would suggest Saudi Arabia. There are zero liberals there.

Every state should strive to succeed. If they want to secede, that is a different conversation.

Robert A Whit
01-15-2013, 12:36 PM
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606847#post606847)
No, they were provoked.



How so?

Ans: The invasion by Abe Lincoln! As to seceeding, as a free person, they have the right to remain or abandon a form of government.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606847#post606847)
For those who actually believe in the rights of man, those get it. They realize that those citizens of the South voted to remain in the union or abandon the government they felt no longer represented them.

Man is born free. As I can't make a deal today with the state to force you to live in the town I live in, neither can you force me to remain locked into a government when the majority of my neighbors shun said government. As a group, we will decide.





I know you didn't just drop the universal rights of man into a debate where you're arguing for the Confederate South. The irony is overwhelming. They had a way of life that relied upon human servitude-- that was one of the central causes that precipitated their secession. To play off this "They weren't represented" crap is bogus...and Man is born free... are you kidding me? White Man was born free; other's, well, let the group decide???? That's your answer-- STFU-- human servitude is morally reprehensible. It was the norm back then; so clearly what constitutes rights of man left much to be desired. The South wanted to spread slavery to new territories and the North didn't want that. The tides were changing and the South was desperate. The North just wanted individuals to have a shot at the new lands; not give it to land sheiks and slave plantations. Check out Bleeding Kansas-- that's the South you rally behind.


Ans: You are introducing bogus arguments. Will you please stick to the things Abe Lincoln gave as his reason for his invasion. Thank you.


The group was/is the WHOLE UNION, MANY STATES; the North had the majority. So you say the Southern Citizens want democracy, but only if they can gerrymander themselves into the majority. Maybe the South should have brokered a better deal than 3/5 vote for their slaves then. But ratifier's remorse doesn't get you out of the union. War could have; or by ratification of the Congress and the States, but, as you note


Ans: Do you have any record of Abe Lincoln making those arguments when he planned to invade VA?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606847#post606847)
...the South did not win victory, the tactics used could explain that along with their goals. They did not have the goals of the North. The North intended to conquer yet the South intended to hold and defend. As to assigning right to the event, I side with the South.




The union's primary goal was to preserve the union by whatever means necessary. The South knew they couldn't win through political or legal tactics, so they went to war....and lost having never become an independent nation. So they're just rebels with a cause... separatist apartheid.


Ans: So why did you wait so long to get to the real reason Abe invaded VA? Actually they were a separate nation. No doubt at all.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606847#post606847)
Sadly you are correct that the spoils were lost to the South and that it is the North whose propaganda is now written history.



Oh, don't let the sour grapes get you too bitter-- the South got Plessy v Ferguson as a consolation prize.

Ans. Where have you seen me be bitter? This took place so long ago. i don't live in the South. Time for you to brush up on the declaration of independence.

We can't have it both ways. Fine to bail out on England, not fine to bail out on some form of government you no longer can abide. This nation was founded on the very idea people can choose a form of government and of course may have to shed blood to obtain it.

You are all wound up about slaves for some strange reason.

Why strange?

The Negro was complicit in his own slavery. When one is complicit, one does not reward them for that.

Believe it or not, at that time, slavery was quite common and acceptable.

Robert A Whit
01-15-2013, 12:53 PM
There is no getting around how wrong slavery was! The South was locked in a system that was wrong. Yet there are other factors at play here. The way the Federal government sought to handle the problem was wrong as well IMHO. Had they exercised more patience slavery would have been stopped because of its prohibitive costs , low return on the investment and the industrialization of nation. The North attempted to force change too fast and was arrogant as hell about it. People do not make such great changes that quickly without there being a big pushback. Southern people most of all in that regards. -Tyr

Yet look at today how much we are all bossed around by government at many levels! Where are those who work for our freedom?

There is no difference in you making me a slave, or a gang of you, or indeed a government. This government has so many rules....

let me give you one example.

Prior to Bush (43) being president, I got an offer.

I would pay X dollars for a box of the rules by the Feds, nevermind the state, that I had to abide to do home loans.

I wish I had weighed the box or kept notes of the weight. But it was very heavy. And the box was large. I think in fact there were over 1 box of rules.

That amounts to me being a slave to the Feds. As I said, then you had other boxes of state rules.

Robert A Whit
01-15-2013, 01:00 PM
A very intelligent black from Africa, with a doctors degree was speaking to a group. He was asked about reparations over slavery.

He said something important.

The negro was complicit in slavery. Bought and sold as a normal part of daily life in Africa, we hardly can base the arguments on the right or wrong on today's arguments over morality and so forth.

Today we would never tolerage slavery.

Back then, not only was it acceptable, a dozen presidents owned slaves.

The flag of the USA flew over slavery. It was built into law.

I dunno why the South has to be the scape goat.

ConHog
01-18-2013, 11:06 PM
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

.Do States Have a Right of Secession?
Walter Williams (2002.04.19 ) Politics
Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, “The Real Lincoln,” Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let’s look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “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.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Texas leaves the Union I am moving there immediately. Provided that they boot out all the liberals and other assorted characters of low repute.-;)
Only state that I ever envision would dare try to leave is Texas.. Question is, is it Unconstitutional to do so?-Tyr

I'm not reading this entire thread, but yes states have the right to succeed. No state has to fail.