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.
Revolution is illegal also. Should we give the United States back to the British? The Founding Father were ALL criminals in the eyes of the British, and colonial Loyalists.
I think that you've put your finger directly on the resolution of the issue - the CSA should have won their war. Then there'd be no discussions about the illegality of secession.
But, this reminds me of another thing that you may have in mind. Slavery was also big in the North. It's just the North quit a little earlier. States had their different times, but RI for example did not fully outlaw it till 1842. The are still listings on the books showing that NJ still had Slaves up till 1865. That's 2 years after the Gettysburg Address.
The North was also a big importer of Slaves. I would have to re-look up the stats, but they imported Slaves for many decades in the many 1000's.
Also want to note that although Slavery was wrong no matter how you look at it, the North became much more Industrious and did not have the need for them as they once did.
Also want to point out that I would have been totally against Slavery back then and I would have wanted it to end. Similar to how I want Abortion to end today. But I definitely did not want it to end they way Lincoln chose it to be.
Revolution is illegal also. Should we give the United States back to the British? The Founding Father were ALL criminals in the eyes of the British, and colonial Loyalists.
I think that you've put your finger directly on the resolution of the issue - the CSA should have won their war. Then there'd be no discussions about the illegality of secession.
But then, they lost, didn't they?
Yes, the South lost, and many lost their lives on both sides. So if the South had won, then states right's, and slavery would have been preserved, and everyone would have been OK with it? I guess might does make right.
We know that human beings in bondage, under servitude is WRONG, no matter which side wins.
Slavery was also big in the North. It's just the North quit a little earlier. States had their different times, but RI for example did not fully outlaw it till 1842. The are still listings on the books showing that NJ still had Slaves up till 1865. That's 2 years after the Gettysburg Address.
The North was also a big importer of Slaves. I would have to re-look up the stats, but they imported Slaves for many decades in the many 1000's.
Also want to note that although Slavery was wrong no matter how you look at it, the North became much more Industrious and did not have the need for them as they once did.
You bring up a valid point - plenty of people in the Northern states greatly profited from the slave trade up until 1860, whether it was New England sailors importing slaves from abroad (until 1808, when it was outlawed), or New York banks extending loans to southerners for the purchase of slaves, or northern textile mills that purchased cotton grown with slave labor.
Nobody's saying that the North had clean hands when it came to the issue of slavery in the United States.
Yes, the South lost, and many lost their lives on both sides. So if the South had won, then states right's, and slavery would have been preserved, and everyone would have been OK with it? I guess might does make right.
We know that human beings in bondage, under servitude is WRONG, no matter which side wins.
I was talking about the supposed legality of secession.
It's very telling that you twisted it into support for the institution of slavery, by directly linking states rights and slavery.
Tell us again how slavery didn't play the deciding factor in secession?
Although Slavery may have gone on a little longer, many of us believe that it would had ended soon after anyway if the South did win. Also, if the North would have used different tactics it may have helped to end it much more peacefully.
But remember, let's not get off track, the Civil War was Not "all" about Slavery.
But I look at this way. Just about every one of these statues were erected by those that lived during the Civil War. If anyone understood their meaning and the resolution it helped in bringing the Union back together, they did. Now, 150+ years later we seem to think we know more than they did. Instead of trying to understand history, not just the dates and events, but the minds and thoughts of those that lived it, we want to put our stamp on it and obviously try to make it into something different from those that actually lived it. This goes for both sides of the issue.
I was talking about the supposed legality of secession.
It's very telling that you twisted it into support for the institution of slavery, by directly linking states rights and slavery.
Tell us again how slavery didn't play the deciding factor in secession?
No, I asked the question. You interpreted that way.
If the Feds lifted the unfair trade Tariffs, there MAY have been no secession, and I bet the South would have voluntarily phased out slavery. Slaves ARE NOT without cost. They were bought, fed, clothed, housed, and given medical treatment. I bet the South would have voluntarily converted them to freed, wage earning workers, and the difference in cost would not be that great. However, that is just speculation, and we will never know the answer to that.
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.
