Ron Paul Says Anti-Slavery Was Rabble-Rousing And The South Was On The Right Side! (soldier, radical)
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 ISSUE WASN'T THE CONSTITUTION. THE ISSUE WAS THE NATURE OF DEMOCRACY. THAT DEMOCRACY FAVORS URBAN CITIZENS OVER RURAL CITIZENS. INEVITABLY AND ALWAYS.
If you need to look at what had changed, look at the composition of Congress from 1856 to 1860. It was a watershed moment in history, and a change that the South was very attuned to. When Lincoln won the election, the North could just as easily have been saying to the South, why did you even bother having an election? Don't bother sending your electors to the electoral college. You don't matter anymore.
Democracy? Or a (Democratic) Republic? Or, is there no difference? The more you speak on the subject (and having seen your arguments on how the American system was set up to protect rural/minority from the majority), the more I wonder... which one is it?
The grounds for Civil War was laid farther back in time than even 1856. Heck, SC had its declaration ready in 1852. I would wager that we could go back all the way to 1787, thanks to the disgruntled few that managed to take control a few decades later. Quoting Lincoln assumes that it all started around him. No, it didn't.
Now, we haven't revisited the issue of compromise. What compromise were a part of Southern demands, what they were willing to give up and in exchange for what, while still respecting the US Constitution. I will look forward to learning something new along the lines.
Democracy? Or a (Democratic) Republic? Or, is there no difference? The more you speak on the subject (and having seen your arguments on how the American system was set up to protect rural/minority from the majority), the more I wonder... which one is it?
The grounds for Civil War was laid farther back in time than even 1856. Heck, SC had its declaration ready in 1852. I would wager that we could go back all the way to 1787, thanks to the disgruntled few that managed to take control a few decades later. Quoting Lincoln assumes that it all started around him. No, it didn't.
Now, we haven't revisited the issue of compromise. What compromise were a part of Southern demands, what they were willing to give up and in exchange for what, while still respecting the US Constitution. I will look forward to learning something new along the lines.
I don't think you are looking forward to learning something new at all. I think your mind is completely closed.
And while a republic is distinct from a democracy, there comes a point in any system based on democracy, republic or not, when the demographics mean that urban populations outnumber rural populations to the point where the rural populations are simply left out of the governing process.
And I didn't quote Lincoln, so your repeated attempts to suggest that I have any argument saying it started all around him is a complete failure. The problem that laid the foundation for the Civil War was that while the Founding Fathers understood that democracy has to be reined in by certain controls, and they attempted to do exactly that in the Constitution, they had no way of knowing in 1789 how rapidly the country would grow, or how the majority of growth would occur in the urban North. Their expectations were that the compromises of the Constitution would keep a balance for a longer period of time, and that the divisive issue of slavery would be peacefully settled before that balance was lost.
There were discussions of abolishing slavery AND compensating slave owners, however such negotiations were given short shrift because of the political reality, that the North would dominate the legislature to such a point that it would not have to negotiate, that it would be able to dictate. The election of Lincoln marked that point when the balance of power between the regions shifted inexorably, so that the North had complete control of the government. And anyone can see that, simply by looking at the Congressional membership between 1856 and 1860. And then looking at Census records from 1850 onward.
The South was effectively shut out of the legislative process, and because selection of the President was done by the electoral college which reflected the balance of power in the legislature, they were effectively shut out of the executive branch of the federal government as well.
I don't think you are looking forward to learning something new at all. I think your mind is completely closed.
I appreciate your attempt, because we need it to further this discussion.
Quote:
And while a republic is distinct from a democracy, there comes a point in any system based on democracy, republic or not, when the demographics mean that urban populations outnumber rural populations to the point where the rural populations are simply left out of the governing process.
And that provision, a safety net, was left out of the US Constitution? Do I hear a "yes"?
Quote:
And I didn't quote Lincoln, so your repeated attempts to suggest that I have any argument saying it started all around him is a complete failure.
Was it I who has been quoting Lincoln and his "irresponsibilities" that made the south go bonkers? If anything, I've been repeatedly pointing at the foundations being there for decades.
Quote:
The problem that laid the foundation for the Civil War was that while the Founding Fathers understood that democracy has to be reined in by certain controls, and they attempted to do exactly that in the Constitution, they had no way of knowing in 1789 how rapidly the country would grow, or how the majority of growth would occur in the urban North. Their expectations were that the compromises of the Constitution would keep a balance for a longer period of time, and that the divisive issue of slavery would be peacefully settled before that balance was lost.
Did they leave out, or insert provisions to ensure the rule of a majority be avoided? If latter, it clearly didn't work, did it? Because they installed a "democracy" instead of a republic, without any attempt made to give equal power to ALL states regardless of the influence of population growth?
And perhaps, if the South was so concerned about lack of people, they would have at least decided to start counting those they chose not to?
Quote:
There were discussions of abolishing slavery AND compensating slave owners, however such negotiations were given short shrift because of the political reality, that the North would dominate the legislature to such a point that it would not have to negotiate, that it would be able to dictate. The election of Lincoln marked that point when the balance of power between the regions shifted inexorably, so that the North had complete control of the government. And anyone can see that, simply by looking at the Congressional membership between 1856 and 1860. And then looking at Census records from 1850 onward.
And there we go with Lincoln again. I wasn't looking for an argument that there were "negotiations". I'm interested in details of compromise that the South was into, as in giving something to get something back in return. Do you know any, if not more? THAT is what I asked for.
Quote:
The South was effectively shut out of the legislative process, and because selection of the President was done by the electoral college which reflected the balance of power in the legislature, they were effectively shut out of the executive branch of the federal government as well.
Was it I who has been quoting Lincoln and his "irresponsibilities" that made the south go bonkers? If anything, I've been repeatedly pointing at the foundations being there for decades.
When did I quote Lincoln and his "irresponsibilities"?
When did I quote Lincoln and his "irresponsibilities"?
Answer, I didn't.
Why do you quote him? I see no need to. Instead of addressing what I ask for... such as "compromises proposed by the south". And whether the US Constitution either failed to or never included provisions to ensure rule of the majority in a republic it defines and demands. Let us stick to these points (which don't necessitate spelling Presidents' names).
Why do you quote him? I see no need to. Instead of addressing what I ask for... such as "compromises proposed by the south". And whether the US Constitution either failed to or never included provisions to ensure rule of the majority in a republic it defines and demands. Let us stick to these points (which don't necessitate spelling Presidents' names).
So poking people is how you're getting your kicks today?
So poking people is how you're getting your kicks today?
Very funny.
Only when invited. Hosts end up hating me, however... not surprising questions remain unanswered despite of essays and stories presented with a fervor.
That image alone, with him standing in front of the Stars-and-Bars, is enough to discredit him as a serious candidate for the presidency. Whatever rational argument he makes, this shows he has no sense of tact or propriety. Where/when was this recorded?
Obama sitting in front of his racist preacher for 20yrs wasnt enough, though?
Only when invited. Hosts end up hating me, however... not surprising questions remain unanswered despite of essays and stories presented with a fervor.
I don't hate you. As you've noticed, I tend to be both fervent and gullible.
On this particular issue, though, I don't think the questions remain unanswered, they simply aren't answered in the way that you like. Kind of like the birthers' questions about Obama, the answers have been provided, but the birthers reject the answers because they don't like them. Poke back?
Obama sitting in front of his racist preacher for 20yrs wasnt enough, though?
Racist preachers aren't that uncommon. But then, are all those attending the church automatically racists then? How about a secretly or not so secretly gay pastor? Seriously?
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.
