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.
but they were fighting to separate some of the states from the united states, making the states no longer united. they were fighting to become a confederacy (much like, as youve already pointed out, jefferson wanted initially). the confederacy left the union and fought against the states that remain united. south carolina even seceded by itself, and would have been content with being its own nation.
ive not ever claimed that they went against the founding fathers. that was pulled out of left field. they didnt. in fact, many of the virginian founding fathers supported both slavery and weak national government.
but it wasnt as simple as "northern states" vs "southern states", because large sections of confederate states opposed secession, and three southern states did not secede at all.
The point is, JJW, the South would not have fought at all if they (we) were not invaded to begin with. The original Confederacy (South Carolina thru Texas) had no desire whatsoever to attack the North nor alter the original Union. In fact, they offered to negotiate a mutually beneficial defensive/economic alliance and open up the Mississippi for free trade and navigation. The possibility of re-union was even open for discussion. The essential policy of the South was "all we want is to be left alone."
But to bactrack, you seem to be saying that the Southern states had no right to secede to begin with?
Ok. That is fair, if that is really the way you feel. But that question is what started the whole thing. The American Revolution itself was born of secession. So are you saying that, when the Lower South states seceded, that they did something their Colonial forefathers had not done?
If a Union has to be held together by force, then it is no longer a Union. The War Between the States was fought between Southern and Northern states with different interpretations over what the Constitution was intended and meant. And it was mostly Southerners who shaped the whole thing. If the northern states had left the South alone, then no war would have ever taken place. The South didn't want to overthrow the northern government, nor invade the north. Both had equal claim to the title "Americans" and "United States."
The Southern states decided to seperate themselves from a political connection with the Northern states. That was really are there was to it.
In my opinion, forced integration by the government is just as bad as forced segregation. I believe the decision should be left up the the individual.
I could not agree more with this common-sense sentiment! In a free-society, if it is to be truly free, then people need to be free to make their own social and business arrangments.
If people want to segregate, de-segregate, integrate, or whatever, it should be a matter of personal choice. I might catch hell over this (and have before), but if a person has a house to rent/sell or owns a business? Then it should be up to them as to who they want to serve, hire, fire, whatever.
If the person own the house and/or takes the risk with the business? Then they and they alone should be able to decide all matters related. And really, why get so up in arms about it? So what if a black person owns a business and thinks it best for his business in his/her area, to just cater to black people and hire nobody BUT black-people? Or hispanics the same, or whites or Asians and/or whatever? Who the hell's business is it other than the one who own the place and puts up the money and takes the chances and knows best as to what works and what doesn't?
The point is, JJW, the South would not have fought at all if they (we) were not invaded to begin with. The original Confederacy (South Carolina thru Texas) had no desire whatsoever to attack the North nor alter the original Union. In fact, they offered to negotiate a mutually beneficial defensive/economic alliance and open up the Mississippi for free trade and navigation. The possibility of re-union was even open for discussion. The essential policy of the South was "all we want is to be left alone."
But to bactrack, you seem to be saying that the Southern states had no right to secede to begin with?
Ok. That is fair, if that is really the way you feel. But that question is what started the whole thing. The American Revolution itself was born of secession. So are you saying that, when the Lower South states seceded, that they did something their Colonial forefathers had not done?
If a Union has to be held together by force, then it is no longer a Union. The War Between the States was fought between Southern and Northern states with different interpretations over what the Constitution was intended and meant. And it was mostly Southerners who shaped the whole thing. If the northern states had left the South alone, then no war would have ever taken place. The South didn't want to overthrow the northern government, nor invade the north. Both had equal claim to the title "Americans" and "United States."
The Southern states decided to seperate themselves from a political connection with the Northern states. That was really are there was to it.
i didnt say that they had no right to secede. my policy, regarding any nation, is that if the majority of the citizens wish to not be part of a nation then they shouldnt be forced to. a lot of this has happened in eastern europe, and most americans supported secessionist movements of small nations removing themselves from russia. if, like rick perry suggested they had to right to, a majority of texans voted to separate from the US, i wouldnt feel that we have to the right to tell them otherwise.
and the confederacy did wish to alter the original union, they wished to remove states from it. that seems like an alteration to me. my argument about treason was not meant to be an argument against secession. it was, simply put, that secessionists did not wish to keep the united states united. they wished to separate themselves and no longer be part of the country in which they could possibly be considered treasonous towards. regardless of who was more in line with the founding fathers ideals, they wished to de-unite the united states. thats the only point i was making with all of that.
whether or not they made the correct choice, well i pretty much left that open for interpretation. for the record though, i think they made the wrong one.
I could not agree more with this common-sense sentiment! In a free-society, if it is to be truly free, then people need to be free to make their own social and business arrangments.
If people want to segregate, de-segregate, integrate, or whatever, it should be a matter of personal choice. I might catch hell over this (and have before), but if a person has a house to rent/sell or owns a business? Then it should be up to them as to who they want to serve, hire, fire, whatever.
If the person own the house and/or takes the risk with the business? Then they and they alone should be able to decide all matters related. And really, why get so up in arms about it? So what if a black person owns a business and thinks it best for his business in his/her area, to just cater to black people and hire nobody BUT black-people? Or hispanics the same, or whites or Asians and/or whatever? Who the hell's business is it other than the one who own the place and puts up the money and takes the chances and knows best as to what works and what doesn't?
I have to disagree with you here. The problem arises when large percentages of the population want to cater only to each other, and a smaller percentage of the population is left with inferior services, and becomes second class citizens. We have some precedent for this in the United States, and then there was the whole Civil Rights Movement thing.
Allowing even privately owned business to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, etc.. is a road towards ignorance and intolerance that I feel like we are just emerging from. I want to stay far, far away from those woods.
i didnt say that they had no right to secede. my policy, regarding any nation, is that if the majority of the citizens wish to not be part of a nation then they shouldnt be forced to. a lot of this has happened in eastern europe, and most americans supported secessionist movements of small nations removing themselves from russia. if, like rick perry suggested they had to right to, a majority of texans voted to separate from the US, i wouldnt feel that we have to the right to tell them otherwise.
and the confederacy did wish to alter the original union, they wished to remove states from it. that seems like an alteration to me. my argument about treason was not meant to be an argument against secession. it was, simply put, that secessionists did not wish to keep the united states united. they wished to separate themselves and no longer be part of the country in which they could possibly be considered treasonous towards. regardless of who was more in line with the founding fathers ideals, they wished to de-unite the united states. thats the only point i was making with all of that.
whether or not they made the correct choice, well i pretty much left that open for interpretation. for the record though, i think they made the wrong one.
The individual states seceded one by one, much like your Texas example. They then met to form a new government together. Really, we are arguing semantics at this point.
As far as their choice being the wrong one, I agree, it is debatable. While the states rights argument against government intervention into private rights is a good one, I sure do wish that slavery had not been the over shadowing issue of this debate. The United States of 1860 would be unrecognizable administratively to the modern American. If I had time to do the research, I would find out just how exponentially the Federal government has expanded since the civil war.
Bottom line is, while I sympathize with the south's right to secede, and even with the small government argument in general, the south's trigger issue was slavery, and that sucks. Long term, I am satisfied as to the results of the war, though I had 17 relatives fight on the confederate side from Georgia and Alabama, and 4 of them died. I cannot imagine what advantage there would be in today's world with a divided America.
The South does themselves no favors by continually calling us "Yankees". You instantaneously get tuned out, dismissed & categorized as "one of those guys". It's counterproductive.
Then again, maybe that's what some of you antagonistic types are looking for..........................
The South does themselves no favors by continually calling us "Yankees". You instantaneously get tuned out, dismissed & categorized as "one of those guys". It's counterproductive.
Then again, maybe that's what some of you antagonistic types are looking for..........................
.................................................. .................................................. .....................................Usually not meant as an insult, I don't think. Here's a little anecdote for you............................................... ..........................
To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.
Last edited by Georgiafrog; 11-23-2010 at 08:44 PM..
Reason: (not enough periods in reply.srry)
and the confederacy did wish to alter the original union, they wished to remove states from it. that seems like an alteration to me. my argument about treason was not meant to be an argument against secession. it was, simply put, that secessionists did not wish to keep the united states united. they wished to separate themselves and no longer be part of the country in which they could possibly be considered treasonous towards. regardless of who was more in line with the founding fathers ideals, they wished to de-unite the united states. thats the only point i was making with all of that.
Well, here is just where the original disagreement comes into play as to our respective positions. We were not a "united states" then in the sense we think of it today. Secession was nothing new and the South did not invent it. The New England states considered it over the annexation of Texas and came very close during the War of 1812.
If it comes down to brass tacks, the Southern states had much more justification for parting political and social connections with the northern states than the Colonies did with England. In the former case, they were part of a voluntary union of soveriegn states, and could part company as the right of voluntary contract. In the latter, the colonials rebelled and were traitors against the mother country with no precedent for any such action at all.
Quote:
whether or not they made the correct choice, well i pretty much left that open for interpretation. for the record though, i think they made the wrong one.
We agree on some level on this particular point. Secession may well have been "unwise", "rash action" or just plain stupid...and many a solid Southern patriot said so. But it was not "treason". The people of the Southern states decided they wanted to go their own way and form a union of their own. One they felt best reflected the original Constitution and the ideals of the DOI. So why not leave them alone and let it be? That is my main point. All the South wanted or ever desired was to be left alone once they made the irrevocable decision.
Sometimes when questions like that come up, then dis-union may be the only answer. I fear, sometime, it is coming closer and closer in our own day and age...
The South does themselves no favors by continually calling us "Yankees". You instantaneously get tuned out, dismissed & categorized as "one of those guys". It's counterproductive.
Then again, maybe that's what some of you antagonistic types are looking for..........................
Then quit coming down here and acting like "yankees"!
Seriously, like GF said, in so many words, the term is just part of the Southern historical/cultural vernacular. Just as it is part of the New England, or British or Aussie slang.
Hell, should a quaint little candle shop or historic lighthouse in the NE rid itself of "yankee" as part of their logo and/or trade-mark? Personally, I would be VERY disappointed if I toured the gorgeous New England States and not run across some little out of the way place that didn't have "YANKEE" as part of their sign.
From the flipside, the use of "yankee" in the South is coorelated to the person and context and situation. It is not intrinsically negative.
Don't presume to lecture us -- Openheads -- on how we should or should not apply it. That is not your call to make. You want to be treated like one of us? Then try and be one of us. You will find no friendlier place on this earth. Want to get called a "damyankee"? Then act like one. Someone who doesn't know the difference is usually the perfect example.
You can be our best friends and neighbors and we want you to be. But shun it? Then SouthWest Airlines/Delta are ready when you are!
I have no desire to be a Texan. Not everyone wants to be one. Sorry to burst that bubble. I prefer to drive something other than a pickup truck. I prefer to not judge every person on my block because they look different. I prefer to actually have money in my pocket and not spend it on cheap booze.
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.
