Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2014, 07:14 PM
 
Location: U.S.A., Earth
5,511 posts, read 4,451,822 times
Reputation: 5769

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet View Post
Now, comes along the North threatening their very economic survival. Morality is nice, money tends to be king. With that in mind, the revolt was inevitable. Had they just "gave in" they would have lost everything they had built to that point. Wasn't going to happen without a fight?
Heck, that was a main motivator for the whole Revolutionary War. Some have pointed out that if England left the money of those of the wealthy alone, it never would've happen, at least not the way it did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
Thank you for such an honest post. Are you really sure that the southern plantation owners could not have found a way to free the slaves and still turn a profit? They may have made a little less but still been successful. What did they do after the war?

I do believe that everyone should have quality health care, as well as fair taxation laws. I think you are right that the anger people are showing should not be ignored. That is why I created this thread. I know that some of the worse poverty in America is in the deep south.
I doubt it. Problem is, there's no incentive for them to do more work for less profits. If your typical business can make more $$ off the hard work of others, then why not? The reasons why a lot of businesses care about so many things is more so due to regulation. Some like car salesmen try to spin I off as something they care about, like saying their newest model cars come with anti-lock brakes and airbags when really, these are required by law.

And using health care and insurance since you sort of brought it up, many businesses today try to skirt these as much as possible. There are complaints how the new Health Care law has caused businesses to reduce worker hours down below 30 to avoid having to comply with it, causing smaller wages to be earned as a result of that. Well, I still recall that business were reducing worker hours to 38 since back then, it was 40 where the employee was now FT and had benefits. Change it to 20... I have a feeling many workers will now be at 18 hours a week of employment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2014, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Tucson for awhile longer
8,869 posts, read 16,266,754 times
Reputation: 29229
Breaking away from a supposed oppressor to form a separate governmental entity is a simplistic answer to political problems common in many places other than the U.S. Have you looked at a map of the former Soviet Union lately?

Here in my own state, talk of Baja Arizona is popular among people who don't approve of the laws being enacted in Phoenix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 08:19 PM
Zot
 
Location: 3rd rock from a nearby star
468 posts, read 679,534 times
Reputation: 747
Smile Sometimes it's not as simple as it looks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl View Post
Breaking away from a supposed oppressor to form a separate governmental entity is a simplistic answer to political problems common in many places other than the U.S. Have you looked at a map of the former Soviet Union lately?

Here in my own state, talk of Baja Arizona is popular among people who don't approve of the laws being enacted in Phoenix.
Separation into a new government may be an expression, but it doesn't have to be simplistic. It occurs to me 13 colonies once had a beef with the motherland and declared independence. Was that simplistic?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Tucson for awhile longer
8,869 posts, read 16,266,754 times
Reputation: 29229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zot View Post
Separation into a new government may be an expression, but it doesn't have to be simplistic. It occurs to me 13 colonies once had a beef with the motherland and declared independence. Was that simplistic?
No, it was a war. Something thinking people try to avoid. Including those who led the insurgency in question. Many of them saw that war as a last resort, not the first thing to come to mind when people with tribal connections or similar economic interests don't get their way. Or what repeatedly reoccurs, generation after generation, in the case of the Confederacy. If it were up to me, I'd hand those folks their walking papers. If you DID divide the US of A into takers and makers (as is a fashion I'm not in favor of), the states that would remain after the Confederacy withdrew would be the much richer, smarter, and more powerful nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 09:12 PM
 
21,402 posts, read 10,477,941 times
Reputation: 14065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zot View Post
Maryland, California, and many other states wish to be bifurcated or worse. To the best of my understanding for all states but Texas this requires the consent of Congress. Texas may be an exception, it may be permitted to split into 5 states without Congressional approval, as it already has it. Doing this would be horrific to the balance of power in the Senate, but make Texas an easier drive.
I think Texas had that right upon statehood, but lost it after the conclusion of the Civil War. There is no way any state will be allowed to secede now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 09:40 PM
 
Location: U.S.A., Earth
5,511 posts, read 4,451,822 times
Reputation: 5769
IIRC, back in the late 90s, Hawaii wanted to secede. I remember a teacher saying "go ahead, you're going to get invaded".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,017 posts, read 20,856,158 times
Reputation: 32530
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
You are saying its part of our constitution to allow each state the right to choose to separate from the Usa?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Ovcatto wrote that the above was an assumed right by some based on the Articles of Confederation, which of course was no longer in effect in 1861.
It has been brought up and clarified in great detail in at least one previous History Forum thread that the U.S. Constitution is silent on the matter of any state or any group of states seceding from the Union. It doesn't say it is permitted and it doesn't say it is forbidden. That is probably one of the reasons it took a war to settle the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 10:01 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,950,999 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
I think Texas had that right upon statehood, but lost it after the conclusion of the Civil War. There is no way any state will be allowed to secede now.
Yeah, Texans thought that too, they were wrong.

This is what the People of Texas agreed to.

Ordinance of Annexation
Approved by the Texas Convention
on July 4, 1845
An Ordinance

Whereas,
the Congress of the United States of America has passed resolutions providing for the annexation of Texas [not the Republic of Texas] to that Union, which resolutions were offered by the President of the United States on the first day of March, 1845; and

Whereas,
the President of the United States has submitted to Texas the first and second sections of said resolutions, as the basis upon which Texas may be admitted as one of the States of the said Union; and

Whereas,
the existing Government of the Republic of Texas, has assented to the proposals thus made, --the terms and conditions of which are as follows:

"Joint Resolutions for annexing Texas to the United States

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may by admitted as one of the States of this Union.

2nd. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit: First, said state to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other government, --and the Constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action on, or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second, said state when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due and owing to the said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third -- New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited."

Now in order to manifest the assent of the people of this Republic, as required in the above recited portions of said resolutions, we the deputies of the people of Texas, in convention assembled, in their name and by their authority, do ordain and declare, that we assent to and accept the proposals, conditions and guarantees, contained in the first and second sections of the Resolution of the Congress of the United States aforesaid.

In testimony whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names

Thomas J. Rusk
President

I think that the language of the Ordinance of Admission that was passed by the People of Texas makes it pretty clear that the People of Texas dissolved the Republic of Texas and submitted itself as a state of the United States without any special privileges including the right of secession which is not provided for by the Constitution. I also point out the numerous times the document uses the term, the People, and not the Republic of Texas because the Constitution is not a compact between the states and the national government but rather a compact between the various people of the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 10:16 PM
 
1,901 posts, read 2,019,286 times
Reputation: 4143
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
Thank you for that educated reply. I appreciate it.When you describe it like that it sounds like from the southern point of view they had no choice but to go to war over the issue of slavery. I wonder if Lincoln understood this?

I know many white people in the south did genuinely believe at that time that black people were inferior. I don't know how they came to believe that but they did. I also know that many blacks up north were free but lived in awful poverty. Still I think most black people at the time would have prefered poverty over slavery. Many slave owners were very kind to their slaves and even loved them. They raised their children, and cooked for and took care of the white families who owned them and often were treated very well, but if they were ever sold to a cruel master their life was hell on earth. While in the north blacks and whites rarely interacted, white people did not get to know them and treated them almost like aliens from another planet. It was a different type of racism up north from what I have read.
The civil war was fought for many reasons. The main ones being that the South felt it was being used as a cash cow to fund industry in the North. They felt they were paying an unfair proportion of taxes compared to what they used. They felt the North was continually trying to marginalize their political power. They felt very different culturally than the North. The Souths economy was built on slavery while a large portion of the North was fighting to ban it.

Slavery was the issue that many in the North felt gave them the moral superiority and justification for their actions. For some it was a moral and just cause. For some it was a vehicle to use to disguise their true agenda. For example there were many Northern politicians who were more concerned about concentrating political and financial power in the North and joined the anti-slavery movement to get there. Like politicians do today with modern causes.

Was the Civil War about slavery...Yes. It wasn't the main cause but it tainted every argument the South had for justification in succession.

Lincoln had a singular focus. To keep the Union intact at any cost. The man didn't care whether or not he freed a single slave, just so long as the Union was preserved. He accomplished it, but he trashed the constitution to do it. He arrested politicians to stop them from voting to ensure the passage or defeat of bills. He used the government to force newspapers that printed dissenting opinions out of business. He arrested judges if they ruled against his policies. He was a true tyrant, and possibly one of the worst presidents we have ever elected. Was a peaceful reconciliation possible? I dunno but he refused to even consider that option and immediately turned to the iron fist.

The winner writes the history, therefore we now have this grand tale of the North being the white knights that road down to defeat the immoral South and free the the slaves. A tale where Lincoln is the great emancipator that freed the slaves and with a heavy heart elected to go to war to save the country.

All that said, I think the whole reconstruction would have went a lot better for the South if Lincoln was still alive for it.

FYI, Prior to the civil war there were more free blacks living in the South than in the North. There is this huge misconception that there was this imaginary line splitting the country where any black below it was a slave and escape meant a harrowing flight north being hunted every step by hillbilly, redneck racists. With the help of the occasional white family sympathetic to their plight, who were subsequently killed by the hunters, they finally manage to cross the line into the North where everyone was waiting with open arms to welcome them into a heavenly utopia of freedom and equality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgn2013 View Post
I'd say Dallas and (to a lesser extent) Houston are about as liberal as Austin. The only difference is that the minority of conservatives are more prominent and vocal in the two larger cities.
Dallas itself yes but certainly not DFW metroplex as a whole.

Last edited by justanokie; 04-18-2014 at 10:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 12:13 AM
 
988 posts, read 1,821,404 times
Reputation: 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgn2013 View Post
I'd say Dallas and (to a lesser extent) Houston are about as liberal as Austin. The only difference is that the minority of conservatives are more prominent and vocal in the two larger cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanokie View Post
Dallas itself yes but certainly not DFW metroplex as a whole.
Speaking as a Northerner coming from a place that knows liberals (Minneapolis), and being a conservative myself, I will claim to speak with a bit of authority even if my time in the Dallas area is only coming up on one year...

Relative to perhaps the rest of Texas, agreed Dallas itself is more liberal - though I wonder if that is more due to transplants than native Texans here.

However, I do not get the feeling it is "Austin liberal" or what New Yorkers would call liberal. In the recent primary elections for Texas Legislature, even in Dallas proper there were signs everywhere for Republican candidates, but nary a Democratic sign. I know the primary was for both parties as the poll worker was reminding everyone our location was for the Republican primary only and if you wanted the Democratic one you had to go to their polling places, but otherwise you'd hardly know there was a Democratic primary.

There has also been a sufficient number of billboards even in Dallas for gun shows - try putting up a billboard in NYC for a gun show...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:47 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top