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.
Terrorists and drug use are the "rabble rousing" excuses for the war on terror and war on drugs but some believe it is but a excuse for more control or more profit.
Gun violence which in many ways is a bi-product of the war on drugs was a "rabble rousing" excuse for Obama to attempt to reinstate the weapons ban, but was concern about gun violence a genuine one or was it seen as a opportunity?
This is coming from the same Ron Paul that said he doesn’t know who wrote those racist newsletters that was published in his name. Maybe the media isn’t giving him a fair amount of coverage because he is loony with a ton of skeletons in his closet.
"Draped in the Confederate flag, Ron Paul rewrites the history of the Civil War, and disgustingly claims our children have been brainwashed into believing it was about slavery!"
So, the day the civil war was over, the slaves were freed?
I don't think so. It was years later, after State governments were nullified by the federal government and the federal government appointed the States legislatures.
Why do Southerners insist on fighting the Civil War over and over again? The South lost, slavery was immoral, and God was not on their side...its time to move on.
Oh whatever. It was 150 years ago, for chrissakes.
You know, if there hadn't been slavery, the United States could not have advanced as quickly or become as prosperous. We would not have the white house, the capitol building, wall street, as well as *all* the great plantations and estates of the era were built using slave labor. You could not have had the incredible agricultural achievements of the south without them.
I am not saying that slavery is right, by any means, but I am saying that, at the time it served an important purpose.
How about we just move forward and quit looking back.
No, the north wasn't an aggressor. The south had two issues:
1- They hated federal government's control in regulating/abolishing slavery, a power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution.
2- They violated US Constitution by forming a confederacy.
And this is before they chose to take over federal posts by force. The federal authority wasn't there to sit and watch the children at play.
Issue 1 is obvious, no dispute there... but issue 2...thats another story. If sucession was illegal, how do you explain Texas.. and the Unions support of Texas.. ? Lincoln whole heartedly supported Texas and any states right to seceed and form a new government that is until he was the President... Of course that was nearly a decade before he took office and beliefs change.. but that change in belief alone does not make it illegal..
Sucession was the foundation of the US... the framers had to believe in it otherwise there would have been no founders.. no US to begin with. But I do concur that the legality of the Southern sucession is hotly debated today and probably will be for all time. IMO, there is no winning stance on that subject but To the Victor go the spoils so illegal is must be.
I have read a ton of Civil War history, many different angles, and this is the first time I have heard any one describe the South as the Aggressor.. I have heard the South described as the aggitator, the traitors, and the ones solely responsible.. but never the aggressor..
Hell if they had been aggressive they would have moved on the Capital after Bull Run but they didn't.. They were not aggressive at all.. that's how they garnered support from the millions of soldiers who where only fighting to preserve their state and not the planters way of life.. If they had started out as the aggressor, rebel enlistment would likely have been minimal and enscription began sooner.. perhaps the war would not have lasted as long.. but that is another story I guess.
Issue 1 is obvious, no dispute there... but issue 2...thats another story. If sucession was illegal, how do you explain Texas.. and the Unions support of Texas.. ? Lincoln whole heartedly supported Texas and any states right to seceed and form a new government that is until he was the President... Of course that was nearly a decade before he took office and beliefs change.. but that change in belief alone does not make it illegal..
Sucession was the foundation of the US... the framers had to believe in it otherwise there would have been no founders.. no US to begin with. But I do concur that the legality of the Southern sucession is hotly debated today and probably will be for all time. IMO, there is no winning stance on that subject but To the Victor go the spoils so illegal is must be.
Secession was attempted several times, in the early years of this nation. Ratification of the US Constitution dropped the state's rights (when did Texas ratify the US constitution?), and defined "United States of America", with state territories at the whim of federal government (it is why a state couldn't create another state within itself).
Quote:
I have read a ton of Civil War history, many different angles, and this is the first time I have heard any one describe the South as the Aggressor.. I have heard the South described as the aggitator, the traitors, and the ones solely responsible.. but never the aggressor..
That would be a surprise but not an unexpected claim.
I think that slavery was a driving issue, but not the core issue. The core issue was that in a system of government founded on democracy, that numbers control that government. And Lincoln's election cemented that fact. The South was a substantial part of the United States. And the South in the 1860 election had NO say, ZERO say, in who was selected President. Which also meant that the South's power in Congress was ended. That was the political reality. They effectively had no say in their government. They would always be outnumbered.
In other words, if these people didn't get their way, they denounced the US Constitution their predecessors had ratified. The USA was meant to be a democratic republic. So if they were dissatisfied for being unable to put a slave-trade supporter to office, they basically denounced the founding principles (and it is reflected in the Cornerstone Speech). In other words, they were engaging in treason.
The core issue was slavery and the power enumerated for the federal government to regulate/abolish it. They would have been fine with "democracy" if they had their way. But then, do you think this country is a failure when it comes to check and balances, and to protect the minority from the whims of a majority?
Quote:
Slavery divided this country, but if the power in the federal government had remained a balancing act between the different regions of the country, then the movement to end slavery would not have been a threat to the South.
:
Slavery might have been the driving issue, but it wasn't the core issue. When it comes to wars, power is what is being fought over, not morality.
Core issue was slavery and the continual threat of federal government abolishing it. In other words, these politicians did not want that power in the hands of the federal government whereas it was subscribed to it in the US Constitution.
In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal government, centered in Washington, D.C., was changing. Northern and mid-western states were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. Southern states lost political power because the population did not increase as rapidly. As one portion of the nation grew larger than another, people began to talk of the nation as sections. This was called sectionalism. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern states felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington. Southerners believed that state laws carried more weight than Federal laws, and they should abide by the state regulations first. This issue was called State's Rights and became a very warm topic in congress.
These are facts not emotions or unsupported claims, now what was the War over?
In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal government, centered in Washington, D.C., was changing. Northern and mid-western states were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. Southern states lost political power because the population did not increase as rapidly...
So, you're suggesting that the idea ingrained within the US Constitution of electoral college and an attempt to acquire balance between the majority and the minority has been a failure.
PS. Per the Cornerstone Speech, Southerners seem to be in love with the British and their Parliamentary System than with the US Constitution.
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.
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.
