U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-11-2010, 07:17 AM
 
6,550 posts, read 12,552,479 times
Reputation: 3152

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Whatever one thinks caused the Civil War, one question has been resolved. States do not have the secede from the United States of America. The word "secession" is a nullity. It has no legal meaning and does not exist. Its technically a misnomer to call the Civil War a "war". "Wars" are fought between nations. From a standpoint of international law (since no other nations ever recognized the Confederate States as an independent nation) it was a rebellion or an uprising and not a war.
This question was answered BY the Civil War though. You cannot retroactively apply it to the Ante-Bellum period... You are also being retrospective on whether one can consider the Confederacy a "nation". Just because European powers chose to stay out of the conflict until it's resolution means nothing here..... Had the Confederacy been able to win the war, or at least get the North to sue for peace, you can be assured that Europe wouldn't have hesitated to recognize the CSA as a sovereign nation.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg
I opposed the invasion of Iraq. However, that invasion has nothing to do with the Civil War. The sovereign government of a state has the right to use troops and force to put down a rebellion. James Madison's opinion in the Federalist Papers is exactly that--an opinion.
Within it's OWN STATE mark..... He wasn't saying North Carolina had the right to use troops to put down a rebellion in Virginia.

I'm speaking of the war in Iraq metaphorically. Essentially a war that we entered into under false pretenses with the stated goal of finding WMD and ending the "threat" to the U.S. (which never existed, but that's neither here nor there).... We invaded a sovereign nation and overthrew the government there and then tried to retroactively state that this was our goal all along...... Whether you believe the Confederacy was (or should have been considered) a sovereign nation or not is the question. It should ALWAYS be the question that is focused on when discussing the causes of the Civil War....

Of course the metaphor isn't perfect. I believe Lincoln with the Emancipation Proclaimation and adding that focus to the war was not only to make it impossible for Europe to enter on the side of the South, but was also essentially a, "Well, as long as we're doing this, we may as well answer the question of slavery with this war as well.....". I don't, and never will fault him for that. Good strategy. Makes sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg
The idea of secession is a really bad idea. In essence, a state would have the power to reject the application of any federal law within its borders by threatening to secede from the union. I can just imagine some of the things that might happen if this were allowed. Some states would reject application of the Civil Rights laws. Some would reject Supreme Court decisions with respect to abortion. Others might reject regulation of air and water quality by the Environmental Protection Agency. We wouldn't have a federal system at all. We'd simply have a bunch of states calling themselves the USA.
You make it sound like it's such an easy decision though.... The economic and military protection from being a part of the United States alone is a difficult thing to give up.... How long do you think South Carolina would have stayed out of the Union had no other southern state seceded with them?

Anyway, the Civil War essentially decided the issue. Secession wasn't wrong or illegal before the war. Today it is considered so BECAUSE of the Civil War. You can't use circular logic to say that the South's secession was illegal and then use the result of the Civil War as the reason for that assessment.....

 
Old 01-11-2010, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Vermont
10,068 posts, read 10,490,818 times
Reputation: 13336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
It is, however, a more morally defensible reason for going to war that the truth, which is 'well, we seceded and fought a bloodly civil war because we were afraid there were forces in motion which would lead to the end of slavery'.

Even now, the defenders of that vile institution and its perpetrators still cling to that fantasy.
Can't rep you again, but 100% correct!
 
Old 01-11-2010, 07:58 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
9,999 posts, read 17,987,312 times
Reputation: 9534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
My point is that New Englanders reaped a TON more from the cotton trade than they ever did from trading grain..... This is why I reminded you that cotton was a "cash crop". Not to mention, by FAR America's most lucrative one of the time.....
Which has what to do with justifying rebellion? You were replying to my point that if being an agricultural state were reason for rebellion then the states of the Old Northwest would've been ripe for rebellion.

We're just going in circles here.
 
Old 01-11-2010, 08:15 AM
 
6,550 posts, read 12,552,479 times
Reputation: 3152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
Which has what to do with justifying rebellion? You were replying to my point that if being an agricultural state were reason for rebellion then the states of the Old Northwest would've been ripe for rebellion.

We're just going in circles here.
To some extent we are, you're right...

Point is that the vast amount of money we're talking about in the cotton trade played HEAVILY in politics. Hence some of the economic reasons for the schism...
 
Old 01-11-2010, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Dixie,of course
177 posts, read 229,500 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Whatever one thinks caused the Civil War, one question has been resolved. States do not have the secede from the United States of America. The word "secession" is a nullity. It has no legal meaning and does not exist. Its technically a misnomer to call the Civil War a "war". "Wars" are fought between nations. From a standpoint of international law (since no other nations ever recognized the Confederate States as an independent nation) it was a rebellion or an uprising and not a war.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq. However, that invasion has nothing to do with the Civil War. The sovereign government of a state has the right to use troops and force to put down a rebellion. James Madison's opinion in the Federalist Papers is exactly that--an opinion.

The idea of secession is a really bad idea. In essence, a state would have the power to reject the application of any federal law within its borders by threatening to secede from the union. I can just imagine some of the things that might happen if this were allowed. Some states would reject application of the Civil Rights laws. Some would reject Supreme Court decisions with respect to abortion. Others might reject regulation of air and water quality by the Environmental Protection Agency. We wouldn't have a federal system at all. We'd simply have a bunch of states calling themselves the USA.


Incorrect - Mr. Madison's PUBLIC writings in support of ratification helped sell the people of the several States on the supposed relative benefits of ratifying the new Constitution. And Mr. Madison's PUBLIC writings prior to the election of 1800 helped sell the people of the several States on the supposed benefits of the republican agenda. That is not only "settled judgment," but indisputable historical fact. Want to claim otherwise, sport? Go for it. And anyone who attempts to equate the private musings of an individual with the same person's public writings, decades after the fact, is nothing but a scam artist.
 
Old 01-11-2010, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Dixie,of course
177 posts, read 229,500 times
Reputation: 60
Marshall too [Link], back when he was part of the Virginia ratification convention, which also by the way said they could resume their own governance.
[SIZE=2]The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He [Marshall] demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? ... [/SIZE]

As Thomas Jefferson said:

The future inhabitants of [both] the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better. – Thomas Jefferson

 
Old 01-11-2010, 09:59 AM
 
900 posts, read 509,528 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
Can't rep you again, but 100% correct!

Thanks, Jack. I always love these threads, especially for their tendency to bring out the 'Y'all' crowd and their defense of the indefensible and their trashing of Abraham Lincoln. It's pretty amusing.
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Dixie,of course
177 posts, read 229,500 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
Y'all have a great day, Coon dog. Your understanding of history is only matched by your ability to judge character.
As does yours....

From “An American Iliad: The Story of the Civil War,” Second Edition, by Charles P. Roland (Chapter 1, page 9): “Many antislavery advocates opposed the institution not out of principle or compassion for the slaves, but out of concern over its perceived ill effects on the white population. Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, a leading advocate of halting the spread of slavery, explained that he felt “no squeamishness upon the subject of slavery, no morbid sympathy for the slave.” “I plead the cause of free white men,” he said. “I would preserve to white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and my own color can live without the disgrace which association with Negro slavery brings upon free labor.”
“Finally and paradoxically, a racial factor contributed to the northern attitude. Antipathy against slavery often went hand in hand with a racism that was similar in essence, if not in pervasiveness or intensity, to the southern racial feeling. Many northerners objected to the presence of slavery in their midst, in part, because they objected to the presence of blacks there.”
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:03 AM
 
6,550 posts, read 12,552,479 times
Reputation: 3152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
Thanks, Jack. I always love these threads, especially for their tendency to bring out the 'Y'all' crowd and their defense of the indefensible and their trashing of Abraham Lincoln. It's pretty amusing.
Why is secession "indefensible"? You never touch that argument.

(Hint: Citing your perceived reason as to WHY they seceded is irrelevent to the argument.)
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:05 AM
 
900 posts, read 509,528 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Let's relate this to something more contemporary...

Did I like Sadam Hussein? No

Did the United States do a good thing in ousting him? Yes

Did we have the right to do that? No

Was ousting Sadam even our stated goal? No

Essentially we attacked a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Did the end justify the means?

Well, that's really the question now isn't it?

The US Civil War comes down to the question of the legality of secession. YOU keep wishing to inject the politics of WHY the South ultimately seceded as your reason for why it shouldn't have been allowed. You REFUSE to argue the legality of secession (and I have my own theories as to why that is) and instead just like to pull the old "God was on our side" type of argument, ie. Slavery was wrong, so the ends justify the means.

I don't look at it that way. But true to form, anyone who doesn't agree with your way of thinking is somehow "in support" of slavery. Your intellectual dishonesty and wish to slap a label on anyone who'd dare argue that the South was legally in the right is the reason for my contempt...



As well you shouldn't. Just callin' it like I see it and I'm glad you saw it before it was edited.
(Mod Cut)

I don't give a damn about the legalities of secession. I leave that to you Conferates and Confederate Wannabees. I care about the fact that a group of Neanderthals was willing to divide the United States in order to preserve an incredible evil.

Again, you are a defender of slavery because you defend the South seceding to preserve it. You simply cannot escape that truth. You want to argue everything except that simple fact. But then again, what else have you got?

Last edited by Thyra; 01-13-2010 at 08:18 AM.. Reason: Off Topic
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:37 AM.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top