I think the time has come for the United States of America to retroactively concede the American Civil War.
Sorry about that whole making the Confederate States of America surrender thing. You can be your own country now. Good luck, and try not to get in any trouble.
Any states that weren't around during the American Civil War can hold a vote to decide if they still want to be a part of the United States of America, or if they want to join the Confederate States.
Maybe Confederate President Palin can come visit American President Obama in the White House some day; after going through customs, of course.
I find it funny the number of people with 'southern pride' spouting lines like 'the south will rise again' and yet also claim to be patriots of the USA.
These two position are in natural conflict with each other and cannot honestly stand together.
To hold to the confederacy is to leave the United States of America -- it was the core of the Confederacy to secede from the Union, and as such one that is leaving cannot be a patriot of what they choose to not be a part of.
It is self delusional to state otherwise.
The Confederate flag is one of traitors to the Nation of the United States -- it is the flag of the enemy precisely because it exists to break the states apart -- not to keep them together. To believe it is right is to believe that the United States should not exist.
As opposed as Ron Paul is to the Civil War, I don't think he'd want to be involved in another one... :)Most sensible Americans were opposed to that war, and yet it came.
We could have avoided it if cooler heads had prevailed, and if Lincoln had not violated the Constitution. Of course, it would have been better to avoid the political crisis of secession in the first place. Peaceful seperation would have been preferable to the devastation and horror of the war, at any rate.
The very act of seceding from the Union was an act of treason and sedition. It was a violation of the Constitution to be done in the first place. The president has a Constitutional duty to hold the states together -- that is innumerate quite clearly.
|
I'm not arguing for the Civil War by any means. It could have been easily prevented. Easily. Abolitionists or even the federal government since it was so keen on doing so, could have purchased the slaves their freedom, as was done in other slave holding nations.
However, I would note that seceding from the British Empire was also an act of treason and sedition. Of course, we remember such men as patriots now. So history does have a tendency to color the past.
I'm not arguing for the Civil War by any means. It could have been easily prevented. Easily. Abolitionists or even the federal government since it was so keen on doing so, could have purchased the slaves their freedom, as was done in other slave holding nations.
However, I would note that seceding from the British Empire was also an act of treason and sedition. Of course, we remember such men as patriots now. So history does have a tendency to color the past.
I will agree with the part of reason on our behalf when the colonies decided to rebel, and with how history color's the past. History has as much relation to truth as theology does to religion.
I would point out that the southern states could have done just as much to avoid the whole issue as well -- but at the end of the day we should leave the distant past and the values at fault to the ghosts that fought at the time. Ultimately we have our own windmills to tilt at.
The very act of seceding from the Union was an act of treason and sedition. It was a violation of the Constitution to be done in the first place. The president has a Constitutional duty to hold the states together -- that is innumerate quite clearly.As opposed as Ron Paul is to the Civil War, I don't think he'd want to be involved in another one... :)Most sensible Americans were opposed to that war, and yet it came.
We could have avoided it if cooler heads had prevailed, and if Lincoln had not violated the Constitution. Of course, it would have been better to avoid the political crisis of secession in the first place. Peaceful seperation would have been preferable to the devastation and horror of the war, at any rate.
There is nothing in the Constitution that actually makes the Union inviolate for all time. Nor was this some kind of an over site. The topic was debated and argued over when the Constitution was being framed and New York and Virginia made it absolutely clear that they would not sign on if it was going to be a mandatory thing they could not opt out of. Now the Constitution is pretty clear on the idea that if a legal power is not explicitly given to the Federal Government then that power resides in the States themselves. Since the Constitution is (intentionally) silent on succession the legal right on whether or not to succeed devolves to an individual State. To this day the only legal precedent against a State succeeding is a long and bloody civil war.
Now the Constitution is pretty clear on the idea that if a legal power is not explicitly given to the Federal Government then that power resides in the States themselves. Since the Constitution is (intentionally) silent on succession the legal right on whether or not to succeed devolves to an individual State. To this day the only legal precedent against a State succeeding is a long and bloody civil war.
Can a majority of the States also force another State out of the Union?
No. Unless a state constitution allows that state to be infringed upon by another state, or by a majority of states. And those states' constitutions also allowed for infringement on another state.
I'd think it could be done with an Amendment - get 2/3rds of the States to agree that Hawaii, or some such, is no longer part of the Union and I would think that would be that.
I'm not arguing for the Civil War by any means. It could have been easily prevented. Easily. Abolitionists or even the federal government since it was so keen on doing so, could have purchased the slaves their freedom, as was done in other slave holding nations.
Don't think this was financially feasible. There where approximately 3.5 million slaves in the Confederate States on the eve of the the Civil War and they average about $800 dollars a piece (a lot of money at the time).
Places with small slave populations like suger colonies of great empires often did this but if you actually had a large slave population compared to the rest of your population, Like Brazil, then the slaves where freed by a legal act with little or no compensation.
Note that Abolitionists where already doing this on an individual basis but it was never more then a drop in the bucket despite having some very hefty (financially speaking) backers.
Don't think this was financially feasible. There where approximately 3.5 million slaves in the Confederate States on the eve of the the Civil War and they average about $800 dollars a piece (a lot of money at the time).
Slightly off topic:
The price of a slave was $800 dollares? Realy? Do you have a souce? That seems a little high to me. Though I might be thinking of a different time period. I would be most interesting in this souce. $800 dollars was more than 'a lot of money at the time).
Don't think this was financially feasible. There where approximately 3.5 million slaves in the Confederate States on the eve of the the Civil War and they average about $800 dollars a piece (a lot of money at the time).Slightly off topic:
The price of a slave was $800 dollares? Realy? Do you have a souce? That seems a little high to me. Though I might be thinking of a different time period. I would be most interesting in this souce. $800 dollars was more than 'a lot of money at the time).
Its a rough estimate - see here
The my break down runs along the lines of...
A male between 20-30 years old went for roughly $1400
A female in this age range (or slightly younger) went for about $1200
Children go for less but not that much less since their value is mostly intact (though you get it later). Call it 70% of the above values.
Prices are reasonably close to the above if the slave is in his (or her) thirties but then starts to drop off. Get up past 50 and the value really plummets.
I don't have an exact demographic age break down of the Confederates slave population on the eve of the Civil War but $800 as an average seems likely to be close and may even be a bit conservative.
P.S.
It says something about the power of our cultural mores that even working this out academically makes me slightly uncomfortable.
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
But his soul goes marching on
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
But his soul goes marching onGlory, glory, hallelujah!
He was the antebellum equivalent of abortion clinic bombing terrorists.
No he wasn't.
Most sensible Americans were opposed to that war, and yet it came.
We could have avoided it if cooler heads had prevailed, and if Lincoln had not violated the Constitution.
Yeah, that Good Lincoln was a right bastard.
No he wasn't.He was the antebellum equivalent of abortion clinic bombing terrorists.
How so? He was a political extremist who commited acts of murder and terrorism. Not only that, but he justified his actions by means of his religious and moral ideas. He murdered people just for being on the other side of the issue. He had a narrow focus on a particular moral issue. Many reasonable people sympathized with his goal- but totally disagreed with his murderous methods. Sounds just like abortion clinic bombers to me.
I think you'd be surprised at how many "reasonable people" (on the abolition side, of course) applauded his raid on Harper's Ferry.
As for the Pottawatomie Massacre, yeah, it was pretty brutal. But it wasn't the Jayhawkers who started the chain of events that led to Bleeding Kansas.
Anyway, there were tons of people on both sides of the issue who resorted to violence and justified it by their religion. Pro-slavery Americans emigrated to Mexico and then started an armed rebellion to establish the slave-holding Republic of Texas. Pursuing a pro-slavery war of expansion, the United States followed this up with a predatory war on Mexico and stole half of her territory. Before the Civil War they were anticipating an attack upon the Spanish Empire's island possession of Cuba for the same reasons. William Walker was running around Central America with a band of 19th-century Blackwater mercs overthrowing governments right and left to expand slavery.
Not to mention, of course, the orgies of terror and violence that swept throughout the south after each attempted slave revolt.
If you'd like to say that there were tons on both sides of the debate that are analogous to John Salvi and the other clinic bombers, I'd bite my lip and grumble over in Troll Town. But if you're just going to pick out JB for his broadsword-hacking ways, then I doth protest!
We could have avoided it if cooler heads had prevailed, and if Lincoln had not violated the Constitution. Of course, it would have been better to avoid the political crisis of secession in the first place. Peaceful seperation would have been preferable to the devastation and horror of the war, at any rate.
So, re-reading over the thread. Ewan, what does this mean? If I read it correctly, the war started because Lincoln violated the Constitution.
What are you talking about? If my memory serves, the southern states started seceding before Lincoln had even taken office. He violated the Constitution a bunch AFTER the war started, but you can't be talking about that because then your sentence wouldn't make any sense.
|
No he wasn't.John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
But his soul goes marching onGlory, glory, hallelujah!
He was the antebellum equivalent of abortion clinic bombing terrorists.
How so? He was a political extremist who commited acts of murder and terrorism. Not only that, but he justified his actions by means of his religious and moral ideas. He murdered people just for being on the other side of the issue. He had a narrow focus on a particular moral issue. Many reasonable people sympathized with his goal- but totally disagreed with his murderous methods. Sounds just like abortion clinic bombers to me.
One mans terrorist is another man's President. Is he any more a murdering scumbag than George Washington or George W Bush? They all murdered people who oppose their version of reality. A reality in which 'god was on their side'.
@Ewan: Well, that's interesting, but I largely disagree.
After roughly 60 years of getting their way on most issues of importance, the slaveocracy took their ball and went home after a mildly abolitionist candidate was elected president on a "no-expansion-of-slavery" platform.
Secession may not have been an act of war, but the firing on Fort Sumter certainly was, even if it was largely bloodless. You are obviously more up on Constitutional niceties than I am, but I don't see how calling up troops to put down an armed rebellion (as Lincoln saw it) or invade a foreign country that had fired on American soldiers (to give it a more kindly spin for Johnny Reb) was illegal.
It's been a while since I read extensively on this stuff, but I thought there actually was some diplomatic attempts to resolve the issue that failed horrendously. I think one of the reasons that diplomatic efforts failed so thoroughly was that this was a struggle that had already been wracking the country for ten years (Fugitive Slave Law and the controversy that created, Bleeding Kansas, Mexican War, the caning of Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, Harper's Ferry, etc., etc.). These were not new issues and tons of compromises had already come and gone.
I'll leave it at that for now. I see that Citizen Dingo's been posting while I've been staring at my navel and thinking about the Civil War and that's always more entertaining.
|
|
@Ewan: Well, that's interesting, but I largely disagree.
After roughly 60 years of getting their way on most issues of importance, the slaveocracy took their ball and went home after a mildly abolitionist candidate was elected president on a "no-expansion-of-slavery" platform.
Secession may not have been an act of war, but the firing on Fort Sumter certainly was, even if it was largely bloodless. You are obviously more up on Constitutional niceties than I am, but I don't see how calling up troops to put down an armed rebellion (as Lincoln saw it) or invade a foreign country that had fired on American soldiers (to give it a more kindly spin for Johnny Reb) was illegal.
It's been a while since I read extensively on this stuff, but I thought there actually was some diplomatic attempts to resolve the issue that failed horrendously. I think one of the reasons that diplomatic efforts failed so thoroughly was that this was a struggle that had already been wracking the country for ten years (Fugitive Slave Law and the controversy that created, Bleeding Kansas, Mexican War, the caning of Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, Harper's Ferry, etc., etc.). These were not new issues and tons of compromises had already come and gone.
I'll leave it at that for now. I see that Citizen Dingo's been posting while I've been staring at my navel and thinking about the Civil War and that's always more entertaining.
You could just as well argue that more people lived in the South and Lincon represented an unacceptable minority view.
Locking this thread. Please stop posting angry and making inflammatory statements.