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.
The sheeple have found the thread...yay....See what Boompa doesn't realize is according to Britain our founding fathers were traitors as well. Doesn't matter to him obviously he just picks and chooses what parts of history he agrees with.I have more loyalty to the stars and bars then then stars and stripes. We are an occupied land and people.
If we were willing to see it that way, the war between the states was the Second revolution. The first one some were on a different side. In the end the second one failed as it was almost fated to. In the first one luck (and european politics) made up the difference.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,543,919 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPON
The sheeple have found the thread...yay....See what Boompa doesn't realize is according to Britain our founding fathers were traitors as well. Doesn't matter to him obviously he just picks and chooses what parts of history he agrees with.I have more loyalty to the stars and bars then then stars and stripes. We are an occupied land and people.
To hell you are.
Are you the sort of person who hates northerners just because they are from the north? The sort who bashes on them who move to the south from the north?
Actually Cookie. My father is a northern transplant to the south. So no I do not hate northerners just because they are from the north,I hate their accent but its not something to get upset over its a bit funny...I don't hate people from the north I hate individual people when they act like morons. They can be from anywhere. South,West,North,East doesn't matter.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,543,919 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPON
Actually Cookie. My father is a northern transplant to the south. So no I do not hate northerners just because they are from the north,I hate their accent but its not something to get upset over its a bit funny...I don't hate people from the north I hate individual people when they act like morons. They can be from anywhere. South,West,North,East doesn't matter.
See that's how I think as well. But if you find that is the truth in your heart why claim to be an occupied people?
If we were willing to see it that way, the war between the states was the Second revolution. The first one some were on a different side. In the end the second one failed as it was almost fated to. In the first one luck (and european politics) made up the difference.
An excellent observation.
I wonder if we might benefit from thinking of the War Between the States as another kind of "second revolution" -- or, more accurately, a "Second Civil War" -- between a powerful, centralized government bound by specific, legal constitutional law and dedicated to providing social mobility, and a loosely-defined confederation of landowners and tenants/peasants/bondsmen relying on traditional cultural notions of honor and (presumably) benevolent hierarchical rule; in other words, a continuation of the seventeenth century English Civil War between the crown and Royalist landowners and the parliamentary party, whose power was concentrated in the large cities, specifically the greater London metropolis, and whose mercantile goals conflicted with the hereditary, traditional privileges of the landed classes.
George Orwell described the English Civil War as "land versus money". There seems to me to have been an echo of this in the American War Between the States.
....snipped....
For southerners to say they were fighting against tyranny is a crock. The north played fair and followed the constitution, they agreed with all good faith to allow the south to continue the use of slavery. The south felt like sore losers when they lost the presidential election and instead of following the guidelines of the constitution they decided to take their ball and go away. Sorry southerners, life isn't like that. And if tyranny means you need to stop states from ignoring the constitution then so be it, keep your revisionist history.
If the OP is not around maybe someone could enlighten me...I am geniunely sincere is asking this and may show my ignorance...LOL.
Does the Constitution forbid a break up of the United States of America ? If so, that would seem like tyranny to me.
Would the same thing apply in the European Union now ?
What if someone wanted to pull out of the EU ? Could they ? Would they be invaded to bring them back in line ?
Re the statement that it is a crock that southerners were fighting against tyranny....... what about the southerners that owned no slaves ? Actually, I think I have seen this debated, exhaustedly, on another website that is exclusively about the Civil War.
Probably this has been discussed a bigillion times on here but, I am just curious if someone could explain to me without name calling and snarky, put down comments.
If the OP is not around maybe someone could enlighten me...I am geniunely sincere is asking this and may show my ignorance...LOL.
Does the Constitution forbid a break up of the United States of America ? If so, that would seem like tyranny to me.
.
The Constitution was, and remains, silent on the issue of secession. It neither prohibits such a departure, nor authorizes it. It spells out no process for how it would be done if it was to be done.
This is hardly surprising. No nation ever includes in its foudational charter, the means by which the nation could be unmade.
If the OP is not around maybe someone could enlighten me...I am geniunely sincere is asking this and may show my ignorance...LOL.
Does the Constitution forbid a break up of the United States of America ? If so, that would seem like tyranny to me.
Would the same thing apply in the European Union now ?
What if someone wanted to pull out of the EU ? Could they ? Would they be invaded to bring them back in line ?
Re the statement that it is a crock that southerners were fighting against tyranny....... what about the southerners that owned no slaves ? Actually, I think I have seen this debated, exhaustedly, on another website that is exclusively about the Civil War.
Probably this has been discussed a bigillion times on here but, I am just curious if someone could explain to me without name calling and snarky, put down comments.
Grandstander has already provided an excellent and concise answer to the U.S. Constitutional question. As for the rest, I'm not sure there is any clear answer. I do not know, legally, about a country wishing to pull out of the European Union, but I think it's safe to say that such an attempt would not be met with armed force because Europeans are sick of war and their present mindset and values would be against it.
So much depends on people's attitudes toward things, which may ultimately be more important than legal questions. Look at other nations which have broken apart in recent times. Two contrasting examples would be the former Czechosolvakia which did so peacefully, and the former Yugoslavia which did so with great bloodshed. Right now in Scotland there is a debate about separating from Great Britain, but there is absolutely no thought that force would be employed by the central (British) government.
As far as the North having invaded the South during the American Civil War, let's keep in mind that the South fired the first shot. Had that not been the case, would the North have invaded? I have no answer.
As far as the North having invaded the South during the American Civil War, let's keep in mind that the South fired the first shot. Had that not been the case, would the North have invaded? I have no answer.
They most certainly would have had to. I don't see how the Union could have been preserved without invasion and reclaiming territories. Preserving the Union was Lincoln's ultimate goal, he made no bones about that. So invasion was imminent.
They most certainly would have had to. I don't see how the Union could have been preserved without invasion and reclaiming territories. Preserving the Union was Lincoln's ultimate goal, he made no bones about that. So invasion was imminent.
They might have been persuaded to return of their own free will. Keep in mind that Lincoln waited 3 days after the South attacked Fort Sumter before he responded militarily.
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.
