Jethro: As Lincoln said when a government is overbearing the people have a right to overthrow it. The South just wanted to leave. The real traitors was the north.
"Arlington National Cemetery was established by Brig. Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, who commanded the garrison at Arlington House, appropriated the grounds June 15, 1864, for use as a military cemetery. His intention was to render the house uninhabitable should the Lee family ever attempt to return. A stone and masonry burial vault in the rose garden, 20 feet wide and 10 feet deep, and containing the remains of 1,800 Bull Run casualties, was among the first monuments to Union dead erected under Meigs' orders.
Lincoln disregarded the Constitution which he took an oath to uphold in order to achieve his goal to keep the Union intact. In otherwords he sacrificed the Constiution for union. The Southern states had a right to secede. After the war brought on by Lincoln the Southern states were required to agree to the Constitutional amendments (13, 14 and 15) before they could be "restored" to the Union.
The Union and Lincoln should have sought to "understand" the traitors and terrorists.
They have "legitimate grievances" and their attack on military installations, their activities to form their own army and wage war against the United States is only because their back is against wall.
We need to "recognize their rights." Chattle slavery and Antebellem plantations are really just a lifestyle choice, aren't they? We need should be mindful of their diverse culture.
I apologize for my Nothern brothers and their aversion to slavery.
We should have left the Southerners to do as they wished.
Just as we should now leave Osama & Saddam alone to do as they wish.
And to some degree you are correct. The South wouldn't have attacked the North if they had let them go. Equating what Osama and Saddam are doing with the secession is not logical.
The people in the Middle East have a right to be free from U.S. involvement. Do they? Israel wants our support. Egypt wants our money. Both the Saudi and Kuwati governments want us there. That is different and you should be able to see it. The difference is that the South had a Constitutional right to secede. The North didn't want to play by those rules.
Who does the North need to apologize to? Everyone involved is dead. I agree. But you brought the apologist thing up not me.
You're in favor of treason and sedition. That's what you stand for, jethro Not at all. You stand for whatever you are told to stand for. i don't think you are capapble of thinking on your own.
Any speculations on what would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede?
First off, slavery would have died of its own accord. I read somewhere that at the time of the Civil War, it cost more to buy (or breed and keep through old age and death) a male slave than he could produce in a lifetime of work.
I think the South would eventually have opted to rejoin the Union.
You stand for whatever you are told to stand for. i don't think you are capapble of thinking on your own.
Alright, who are you and what have you done with jethro? I can't believe I've been in agreement with jethro all day long. A lot of what I've seen here seems to be a very simplistic, propaganda-fed, black and white view of history: "North good, South bad." And of course anyone looking at it any other way must be an evil person, supporting everything rotten in the world.
Who does the North need to apologize to?
Clearly he meant at the time. There is no "North" anymore. You should stick to the points instead of trying to win empty victories belaboring irrelevant details.
As for whether the South had a right to secede or not, I honestly don't know, I haven't studied those laws that carefully. Although I find it somewhat implausible to think Lincoln would have plunged the nation into war and the devastation it caused simply because the law forced him to. Lincoln had no problem suspending other Constitutional rights during his presidency so there's no reason to think he went to war simply because it was his job. It was a conscious decision to force the South back into the Union for the good of the country, so whether secession was legal or not is almost irrelevant. Either way the war would have happened.
And Jethro is right that the Union could have opted to just let the Confederacy go. They didn't have to hold out at Fort Sumter or order their armies to invade the South. As for it being a moral imperative over slavery, that's not particularly plausible. The nation had lived with slavery for years. If the North really had gone to war to end slavery, why did they wait until two yearsinto the war before outlawing it? Why did they not send troops to other parts of the world where slavery was practiced? Until 1863, there would have still been slaves owned by people who lived in states that were still part of the Union. So to say that the Civil War was just about ending slavery implies you're arguing in this debate using what you learned in grade school.
They have "legitimate grievances" and their attack on military installations, their activities to form their own army and wage war against the United States is only because their back is against wall.
"Legitimate grievances" is a subjective thing. Certainly the Southerners thought their cause was worthy, and even worth dying for. However, had I been in Lincoln's position, I might have done the same thing. Dividing the US would have made both countries weaker. It was probably worth it, for the good of the country, to pay the price of war to keep it together. But had I been in Lincoln's position I would not have sat there whining saying, "It's all their fault, they started it!" From the founding of the country, state's rights were a huge issue. To circumvent that and say now that they didn't even have the choice to decide for themselves if they wanted to be a part of this country was a huge contradiction to what had been the prevailing school of though for over 80 years. Lincoln made a conscious choice to change this country and set it on a course for greatness. He was not simply reacting to the "traitors and terrorists". (And whether one is a traitor or freedom fighter depends on who wins, does it not? See Revolutionary War).
"If the North really had gone to war to end slavery, why did they wait until two years into the war before outlawing it?"
James McPherson, in "Battle Cry of Freedom" said the Emancipation Proclamation was mostly a matter of political timing. I think it was after a significant Union victory at Antitum and the south was on the run.
Lincoln used it as one more dagger to drive into the heart of the Confederacy.
As for the Middle East angle, both are about the U.S. trying to protect it's economic and security interests while trying to clean up messes that they let go too far along the way. In both cases they are fighting opponents who consider themselves entirely justified in what they're doing. In both cases the U.S. has gone on the offensive in order to accomplish what in the bigger picture could be considered defensive goals. So there are some parallels, but I don't think there's a whole lot to be gained by making them.
one little detail check there, aw. the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the states who were in rebellion. they weren't freed in the slave states that were still part of the union.
I didn't say that, I was referring to Muskwa's premise.
hehe
My wife's from Atlanta. Lived there for four years. Lived a year in the Deep South, near Macon, below the gnat line.
Most of people fromt he South I met who cared enough to talk about the Civil War viewed it as an bloody misadventure by the south. The African Americans didn't find much romance in the South's cause.
If the hotheads in South Carolina had let Lincoln resupply the Federal troops stationed in Fort Sumter in 1861 at the time Lincoln was inaugurated the South might have seceded without Lincoln being able to oppose the secession militarily. But instead South Carolina initiated the Civil War by firing on and ultimately seizing Fort Sumter and killing and capturing US soldiers. those whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad
I don't think it was just that they were trying to stop the fort from resupplying. They wanted it and they wanted the Union soldiers out. From what I read, the commander of the outpost showed no signs that he was ever going to leave. So it seemed attacking them was the only way to get them out and it made more sense to attack before they were resupplied. But if it wouldn't have started there, I'm sure it would have started somewhere.
Wasn't slavery already illegal in the seperate Northern States before the Civil War began?
If I recall there were hardly any slaves in the North by the early 1800's much less by the 1860's.
The Civil War was in fact about slavery. Furthermore, it's simplistic to say it was merely the economical effects of slavery. If it was merely economic, why would the Northern states outlaw slavery decades earlier?
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
i posted this originally as a response to bill over in the abortion thread, but, the only "right" i can see for the southern states to secede comes 13 years ahead of the constitution. i've always justified it by the opening of the declaration of independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...
now, technically, the individual states forfeited that right when they ratified the constitution. in theory.
Wasn't slavery already illegal in the seperate Northern States before the Civil War began?
Yes, some of them, but not all of them. If stopping slavery was really the reason we went to war, wouldn't they have made it illegal everywhere on a national level? How can they be supposedly fighting a war over slavery, shedding their own blood, and yet permit it within their borders? That's totally illogical.
If I recall there were hardly any slaves in the North by the early 1800's much less by the 1860's. '
There weren't. But there were some in states that were still part of the Union. Again, why die to stop something you haven't even bothered to outlaw?
The Civil War was in fact about slavery.
Was not :-P
Furthermore, it's simplistic to say it was merely the economical effects of slavery. If it was merely economic, why would the Northern states outlaw slavery decades earlier?
It would be mistaken to say it was the economic effects of slavery. It was the economy in general (don't make me resort to 1992 campaign slogans!). It had nothing to do with slavery even on an economic level. The South was a huge source of raw materials and to let them become their own nation and possibly ally with an enemy in the future would have been an enormous tactical error.
You know, I am glad that you admitted that you weren't sure about the south having any right to seceed Allison. In the posts I made this morning, I only browsed through the first few parts of the U.S. Constitution, and found inconsistencies with that train of thought right off the bat.
Just to be clear, I never claimed they had a right to secede. Whether they did or not wouldn't have mattered if they'd won the war. Nor did it really matter after they lost the war. I'm sure lawyers could make cases for both sides. But I would challenge the notion, if anyone's proposing it, that the *only* reason the North went to war was because they had to under the law. If they had wanted to avoid war, they could have changed the law. So I'm not really sure what's being proven by this facet of the debate.
Rick:
Why should they negotiate with traitors and terrorists?
Yes, why should the South have negotiated with the North? They were free to leave.
Who?
Jethro:
As Lincoln said when a government is overbearing the people have a right to overthrow it. The South just wanted to leave. The real traitors was the north.
John Walker Lindh = Robert E. Lee.
John Walker Lindh = Robert E. Lee.
Now THAT is ridiculous.
Maybe so.
Lee's responsible for more deaths.
The bodies of some of them are laying in his front yard in Arlington. To remind the Virginia Gentlemanof the cost of his misadventure.
You mean Lincoln's treason.
"Arlington National Cemetery was established by Brig. Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, who commanded the garrison at Arlington House, appropriated the grounds June 15, 1864, for use as a military cemetery. His intention was to render the house uninhabitable should the Lee family ever attempt to return. A stone and masonry burial vault in the rose garden, 20 feet wide and 10 feet deep, and containing the remains of 1,800 Bull Run casualties, was among the first monuments to Union dead erected under Meigs' orders.
Source: Arlington National Cemetary Home Page
Oh My God! Lincoln is guilty of treason?
I know I shouldn't ask but, how so? How is he guilty of treason?
Lincoln disregarded the Constitution which he took an oath to uphold in order to achieve his goal to keep the Union intact. In otherwords he sacrificed the Constiution for union. The Southern states had a right to secede. After the war brought on by Lincoln the Southern states were required to agree to the Constitutional amendments (13, 14 and 15) before they could be "restored" to the Union.
Loathing of your country, jethro?
You guys used accuse Dennis of that.
Blame America first. That's you, jethro.
How do you get that, Lundstrom?
You need your own country, jethro.
jethroLand
Maybe the funny-looking columnist -- you always quote -- with the Coke bottle glasses could be your vice president.
The Southern states had a right to secede.
I apologize for my Nothern brothers and their aversion to slavery.
We should have left the Southerners to do as they wished.
Just as we should now leave Osama & Saddam alone to do as they wish.
Blame America first. That's you, jethro.
How so?
The Union and Lincoln should have sought to "understand" the traitors and terrorists.
They have "legitimate grievances" and their attack on military installations, their activities to form their own army and wage war against the United States is only because their back is against wall.
We need to "recognize their rights." Chattle slavery and Antebellem plantations are really just a lifestyle choice, aren't they? We need should be mindful of their diverse culture.
That's you, jethro. Confederate apologist.
I apologize for my Nothern brothers and their aversion to slavery.
We should have left the Southerners to do as they wished.
Just as we should now leave Osama & Saddam alone to do as they wish.
And to some degree you are correct. The South wouldn't have attacked the North if they had let them go. Equating what Osama and Saddam are doing with the secession is not logical.
Equating what Osama and Saddam are doing with the secession is not logical.
Sure it is. We are interfering in the Middle East, much like the North did to the South.
The Middle East has a right to do as they wish, much like the Confederacy.
Osama was merely defending himself against oppression, much like the Confederates at Fort Sumter.
It's all so clear to me now.
The South had seceded which was allowed by the Constitution. The Union army was then a foreign army that was asked to leave peacefully. They did not.
The South had a right to secede. The North ignored that right. It has nothing to do with the situation in the middle east.
No, I agree with you now, Jethro.
I'm on your side.
You've made me see the light.
The people in the Middle East have a right to be free from U.S. involvement.
The U.S. refuses to remove themselves from the situation, therefore Osama is justified.
Am I right here? It's all about rights, isn't it?
I mean, what sort of right does the U.S. have telling people way over in the Middle East what to do?
Who they can kill and can't kill. Who they can enslave and not enslave. Who they can abort and can't abort...........
The people in the Middle East have a right to be free from U.S. involvement. Do they? Israel wants our support. Egypt wants our money. Both the Saudi and Kuwati governments want us there. That is different and you should be able to see it. The difference is that the South had a Constitutional right to secede. The North didn't want to play by those rules.
"The North on the other hand needs to apologize for subverting the Constitution."
Who does the North need to apologize to? Everyone involved is dead.
Isn't that what you said in the reparations arguement?
Does anyone have to apologize for upholding the institution of slavery?
You're in favor of treason and sedition. That's what you stand for, jethro.
Treason and sedition.
LOL!
He's got ya there Jethro.
However, it's not too late for the U.S. to apologize to Osama.
Is it Jethro?
Who does the North need to apologize to? Everyone involved is dead. I agree. But you brought the apologist thing up not me.
You're in favor of treason and sedition. That's what you stand for, jethro Not at all. You stand for whatever you are told to stand for. i don't think you are capapble of thinking on your own.
Any speculations on what would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede?
First off, slavery would have died of its own accord. I read somewhere that at the time of the Civil War, it cost more to buy (or breed and keep through old age and death) a male slave than he could produce in a lifetime of work.
I think the South would eventually have opted to rejoin the Union.
jethro
If entertaining any crackpot notion like you do is evidence independent thought, thank you, no I'll do without it.
"Any speculations on what would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede? "
Their bloody misadventure would have placed the further behind the curve of industrial development.
What did they have? Rhett Butler said it "slavery and arrogance."
Muskwa,
Would we have wanted them back ? :)(just kidding)
So this is where everyone went.
You stand for whatever you are told to stand for. i don't think you are capapble of thinking on your own.
Alright, who are you and what have you done with jethro? I can't believe I've been in agreement with jethro all day long. A lot of what I've seen here seems to be a very simplistic, propaganda-fed, black and white view of history: "North good, South bad." And of course anyone looking at it any other way must be an evil person, supporting everything rotten in the world.
Who does the North need to apologize to?
Clearly he meant at the time. There is no "North" anymore. You should stick to the points instead of trying to win empty victories belaboring irrelevant details.
As for whether the South had a right to secede or not, I honestly don't know, I haven't studied those laws that carefully. Although I find it somewhat implausible to think Lincoln would have plunged the nation into war and the devastation it caused simply because the law forced him to. Lincoln had no problem suspending other Constitutional rights during his presidency so there's no reason to think he went to war simply because it was his job. It was a conscious decision to force the South back into the Union for the good of the country, so whether secession was legal or not is almost irrelevant. Either way the war would have happened.
And Jethro is right that the Union could have opted to just let the Confederacy go. They didn't have to hold out at Fort Sumter or order their armies to invade the South. As for it being a moral imperative over slavery, that's not particularly plausible. The nation had lived with slavery for years. If the North really had gone to war to end slavery, why did they wait until two yearsinto the war before outlawing it? Why did they not send troops to other parts of the world where slavery was practiced? Until 1863, there would have still been slaves owned by people who lived in states that were still part of the Union. So to say that the Civil War was just about ending slavery implies you're arguing in this debate using what you learned in grade school.
They have "legitimate grievances" and their attack on military installations, their activities to form their own army and wage war against the United States is only because their back is against wall.
"Legitimate grievances" is a subjective thing. Certainly the Southerners thought their cause was worthy, and even worth dying for. However, had I been in Lincoln's position, I might have done the same thing. Dividing the US would have made both countries weaker. It was probably worth it, for the good of the country, to pay the price of war to keep it together. But had I been in Lincoln's position I would not have sat there whining saying, "It's all their fault, they started it!" From the founding of the country, state's rights were a huge issue. To circumvent that and say now that they didn't even have the choice to decide for themselves if they wanted to be a part of this country was a huge contradiction to what had been the prevailing school of though for over 80 years. Lincoln made a conscious choice to change this country and set it on a course for greatness. He was not simply reacting to the "traitors and terrorists". (And whether one is a traitor or freedom fighter depends on who wins, does it not? See Revolutionary War).
"If the North really had gone to war to end slavery, why did they wait until two years into the war before outlawing it?"
James McPherson, in "Battle Cry of Freedom" said the Emancipation Proclamation was mostly a matter of political timing. I think it was after a significant Union victory at Antitum and the south was on the run.
Lincoln used it as one more dagger to drive into the heart of the Confederacy.
As for the Middle East angle, both are about the U.S. trying to protect it's economic and security interests while trying to clean up messes that they let go too far along the way. In both cases they are fighting opponents who consider themselves entirely justified in what they're doing. In both cases the U.S. has gone on the offensive in order to accomplish what in the bigger picture could be considered defensive goals. So there are some parallels, but I don't think there's a whole lot to be gained by making them.
Lincoln used it as one more dagger to drive into the heart of the Confederacy.
Exactly. They didn't go to war to stop slavery, they just used slavery as an excuse to demonize the enemy and rally the forces.
one little detail check there, aw. the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the states who were in rebellion. they weren't freed in the slave states that were still part of the union.
"They didn't go to war to stop slavery, they just used slavery as an excuse to demonize the enemy and rally the forces"
And stop slavery..
Looks like they were successful on all three counts.
Muskwa:
"I think the South would eventually have opted to rejoin the Union. "
Or maybe not. instead of one nation, you could very well have the Union, the Confederacy, Texas, California.
We'd be the Balkans. And at each other's throats.
Us, and the rest of the world would be 20 years behind where we are now, if we were lucky.
If you think the South would have rejoined the Union, then you probably don't many Southerners, hehe.
I didn't say that, I was referring to Muskwa's premise.
hehe
My wife's from Atlanta. Lived there for four years. Lived a year in the Deep South, near Macon, below the gnat line.
Most of people fromt he South I met who cared enough to talk about the Civil War viewed it as an bloody misadventure by the south. The African Americans didn't find much romance in the South's cause.
If the hotheads in South Carolina had let Lincoln resupply the Federal troops stationed in Fort Sumter in 1861 at the time Lincoln was inaugurated the South might have seceded without Lincoln being able to oppose the secession militarily. But instead South Carolina initiated the Civil War by firing on and ultimately seizing Fort Sumter and killing and capturing US soldiers. those whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad
I don't think it was just that they were trying to stop the fort from resupplying. They wanted it and they wanted the Union soldiers out. From what I read, the commander of the outpost showed no signs that he was ever going to leave. So it seemed attacking them was the only way to get them out and it made more sense to attack before they were resupplied. But if it wouldn't have started there, I'm sure it would have started somewhere.
Wasn't slavery already illegal in the seperate Northern States before the Civil War began?
If I recall there were hardly any slaves in the North by the early 1800's much less by the 1860's.
The Civil War was in fact about slavery. Furthermore, it's simplistic to say it was merely the economical effects of slavery. If it was merely economic, why would the Northern states outlaw slavery decades earlier?
U.S. Constitution: Article 1 Section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation."
You meen "moot" Bill.
An argument here is never "mute,"
Or always, "mute" considering it's written.
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
I'm sure our Constitutional expert will disagree with me.
i posted this originally as a response to bill over in the abortion thread, but, the only "right" i can see for the southern states to secede comes 13 years ahead of the constitution. i've always justified it by the opening of the declaration of independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...
now, technically, the individual states forfeited that right when they ratified the constitution. in theory.
Wasn't slavery already illegal in the seperate Northern States before the Civil War began?
Yes, some of them, but not all of them. If stopping slavery was really the reason we went to war, wouldn't they have made it illegal everywhere on a national level? How can they be supposedly fighting a war over slavery, shedding their own blood, and yet permit it within their borders? That's totally illogical.
If I recall there were hardly any slaves in the North by the early 1800's much less by the 1860's. '
There weren't. But there were some in states that were still part of the Union. Again, why die to stop something you haven't even bothered to outlaw?
The Civil War was in fact about slavery.
Was not :-P
Furthermore, it's simplistic to say it was merely the economical effects of slavery. If it was merely economic, why would the Northern states outlaw slavery decades earlier?
It would be mistaken to say it was the economic effects of slavery. It was the economy in general (don't make me resort to 1992 campaign slogans!). It had nothing to do with slavery even on an economic level. The South was a huge source of raw materials and to let them become their own nation and possibly ally with an enemy in the future would have been an enormous tactical error.
You know, I am glad that you admitted that you weren't sure about the south having any right to seceed Allison. In the posts I made this morning, I only browsed through the first few parts of the U.S. Constitution, and found inconsistencies with that train of thought right off the bat.
Just to be clear, I never claimed they had a right to secede. Whether they did or not wouldn't have mattered if they'd won the war. Nor did it really matter after they lost the war. I'm sure lawyers could make cases for both sides. But I would challenge the notion, if anyone's proposing it, that the *only* reason the North went to war was because they had to under the law. If they had wanted to avoid war, they could have changed the law. So I'm not really sure what's being proven by this facet of the debate.