1. Post #41
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    10,445 Posts
    What you seem to be misunderstanding is what sparked the war, Lincoln didn't just wake up one day and say "I feel like invading the southern states", the south seceded before the North did anything. Not to mention the Civil War wasn't even about slavery for quite some time. It only became an emancipation thing as an attempt to get the south to surrender.

  2. Post #42
    Gold Member
    Raidyr's Avatar
    February 2007
    23,364 Posts
    What you seem to be misunderstanding is what sparked the war, Lincoln didn't just wake up one day and say "I feel like invading the southern states", the south seceded before the North did anything. Not to mention the Civil War wasn't even about slavery for quite some time. It only became an emancipation thing as an attempt to get the south to surrender.
    South Carolina's declaration of secession explicitly states that it was breaking from the Union because of slavery.
    The constitution of the Confederate States of America also explicitly states, alongside states rights, the right to own slaves.

    While the concept of states rights was definitely #2 on the Confederate lists of grievances, the primary "right" was for them to continue the act of enslavement as it was an integral part of the southern economy and lifestyle.

    One could argue that the tension that broke with the shelling of Fort Sumter in 1861 began with the original drafting of the Constitution, how it dealt with slavery in the new nation, and the continued compromises, negotiations, debates, and conflicts over the decades.

  3. Post #43
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Not to mention the Civil War wasn't even about slavery for quite some time.
    Yes it was. The slave states seceded because they didn't want to be outnumbered in votes by free states.

    The war started over slavery. The war was fought over slavery. And the war ended over slavery.


    Lincoln tried compromise for the first few years. He said "keep your slaves, return to the union." He tried to reunite the nation and please everyone. Lincoln certainly didn't like slavery, but he was willing to let it slide to put the country back together in the first few years.

    The Confederacy had none of it.

    So eventually Lincoln was like "Fuck it. You know what? I tried compromise. I tried giving you what you wanted. Now I'm just going to win this war, reunify the nation and get rid of slavery."

  4. Post #44
    Blue Member
    Riller's Avatar
    October 2006
    9,278 Posts
    The civil war was clearly a battle between the democrats and the republicans. Duh.

    The republicans won. Because they are better. At everything. Ever.

  5. Post #45
    DesumThePanda's Avatar
    January 2010
    9,686 Posts
    * Slavery was phasing out anyway, due to efficiency of using industrial equipment, and that other countries were shifting towards a manufacturing based economy.
    Industrialization was happening mainly in the northern states and very slowly, if at all, in the southern states. Besides, who do you think would operate the machinery?
    * Abraham Lincoln could have saved lives by not sparking the war. Even when the Unions won, Black people were not free, instead lived in a segregated society.
    Abraham Lincoln didn't spark the war (not directly, at least). His election is what sparked rebellion and the attack on Fort Sumter is what sparked the war. Even if the slaves would have been freed without war, there would likely still be segregation.
    * Even if slaves were in agony, child labour was present in the factories in the North. What is better: Adult slaves working that get fed, or children gaining little to no money?
    You act as if there was nothing done about child labor at the time and that slavery was the only issue that sparked the civil war.


    Edited:

    The war started over slavery. The war was fought over slavery. And the war ended over slavery.
    While slavery was certainly a major issue at the time, it was more or less about state's rights.

  6. Post #46
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    While slavery was certainly a major issue at the time, it was more or less about state's rights.
    State's rights to have slaves? Yes.

    What other rights were the confederates defending, exactly?

    The right to quit the nation in a huff over slavery?

    The right to have slaves?

    What else?

    Edited:

    You act as if there was nothing done about child labor at the time and that slavery was the only issue that sparked the civil war.
    Please reference an era-politician on why they seceded.

    Because, see, when South Carolina (the first) seceded, they explicitly said "this is about slavery."

  7. Post #47
    shackleford's Avatar
    July 2012
    231 Posts
    State Rights was also a cause. The debate swirved into talking about Slavery. I am in also in a lack of knowledge to even discuss about State Rights. I mentioned child labour as a similarity to slavery as it is not majorly talked about. Which was not even relevant. There were still industrialisation in the south. I picked up a book which showed photos of a chocolate factory in the south. And its workers were not slaves interestingly enough (White folks). The book is of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Fairly outdated 1967.

  8. Post #48
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    State Rights was also a cause. The debate swirved into talking about Slavery. I am in also in a lack of knowledge to even discuss about State Rights. I mentioned child labour as a similarity to slavery as it is not majorly talked about. Which was not even relevant. There were still industrialisation in the south. I picked up a book which showed photos of a chocolate factory in the south. And its workers were not slaves interestingly enough (White folks). The book is of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Fairly outdated 1967.
    Which rights?

    Everybody keeps saying "states rights."

    Which ones? Specifically? Which states rights were an issue at play, here?

  9. Post #49
    DesumThePanda's Avatar
    January 2010
    9,686 Posts
    State's rights to have slaves? Yes.

    What other rights were the confederates defending, exactly?

    The right to quit the nation in a huff over slavery?

    The right to have slaves?

    What else?
    Nullification? Right to secede? Sure, slavery is one of the main reasons the south seceded but people act like it was the only reason.

    Edited:

    Which rights?

    Everybody keeps saying "states rights."

    Which ones? Specifically? Which states rights were an issue at play, here?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights
    It was states' rights in general.

  10. Post #50
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Nullification? Right to secede? Sure, slavery is one of the main reasons the south seceded but people act like it was the only reason.

    Edited:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights
    It was states' rights in general.
    That doesn't answer the question.

    Which of the secessionist states' rights were being infringed?

    Which rights, specifically, were in conflict here?

    Edited:

    They didn't just say "states rights!" and start a war over some fucking ambiguous idea.

  11. Post #51
    Gold Member
    redBadger's Avatar
    November 2008
    14,427 Posts
    It was a bunch of stuff prior that led to the south seceding. A lot of it was about the division of free and slave states with the various compromises, which the South believed the Northern government broke many divisional laws prior to that to get their way.

    And let's not forget about the Texas Annexation and pushing for the Manifest Destiny. This angered the North, I believe, because they found the war and the idea to be unjustified and an excuse to indulge more slaves.

    All in all, many things were done which angered both sides. Slavery was not at all the the biggest issue, at least, by itself.

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member
    POLOPOZOZO's Avatar
    May 2006
    14,854 Posts
    Civil War resulted in the most important amendment, the one that forces the states' laws to abide by all of the other amendments.

  13. Post #53
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    It was a bunch of stuff prior that led to the south seceding. A lot of it was about the division of free and slave states with the various compromises, which the South believed the Northern government broke many divisional laws prior to that to get their way.

    And let's not forget about the Texas Annexation and pushing for the Manifest Destiny. This angered the North, I believe, because they found the war and the idea to be unjustified and an excuse to indulge more slaves.

    All in all, many things were done which angered both sides. Slavery was not at all the the biggest issue, at least, by itself.
    You people keep saying slavery wasn't the biggest issue, and yet in all of the other examples of issues you people have listed the word "slavery" is in each and every one.

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    [Seed Eater]'s Avatar
    July 2011
    5,575 Posts
    The ability to expand slavery to new territories and states was most definitely one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest. Second to that was the competing nationalisms/national identities established because of the conflict between North and South over economics, lifestyles, and slavery. These national identities were created to gain favor for secession for the South, and this is where the states' rights thing come sin. Part of the South's political identity was holding the value of states' rights and state self determination in high value, which is the justification they used to argue for allowing new territories/states to allow for slavery, against the deals made with the Federal Government, and secession.

    Basically, the states rights issue was invented by the South with their national identity in order to prep the populace to oppose the North and further separate the two sides, and used politically to justify secession, and the already present issue of the expansion of slavery, which was the primary reason for the split in the first place. The slave states were losing their hold in congress and feared that slavery would be abolished, so they naturally took the position of opposing federal power and supporting states rights. It was not a reason for the war, it was a justification for the actions the South wanted to take.

  15. Post #55
    Gold Member
    redBadger's Avatar
    November 2008
    14,427 Posts
    You people keep saying slavery wasn't the biggest issue, and yet in all of the other examples of issues you people have listed the word "slavery" is in each and every one.
    Slavery was the reason why there were tensions, not why the actual war started.

  16. Post #56
    Gold Member

    February 2006
    2,985 Posts
    Slavery was the reason why there were tensions, not why the actual war started.
    The reasons the war started are derivatives from the slavery issue, like lincoln's election.

  17. Post #57

    June 2012
    712 Posts
    You should take a history class higher than the 8th grade.

    U.S. congressmen got into fucking fist-fights over slavery immediately prior to the Civil War.

    Nobody got into the same kind of trouble over industrialization or taxation.

    It was seriously all about slavery. When you research the abolitionist movement and actually read about the deliberations immediately prior to secession, you'll see that's all anyone was talking about.

    Edited:



    hey

    buddy

    maybe you should learn about what slavery looked like before you say it wasn't a raw deal.

    Are you seriously trying to argue that white workers got less? Uhh, no. Freedmen got less than when they were enslaved because their employers were fucking racists and, if they wanted to, they could literally just hog-tie a freedman and sell them back into slavery when they got uppity about it.

    White people also had the luxury of leaving.

    Food and shelter does not excuse the act of owning another human being. It doesn't excuse the full authority to do whatever the fuck kind of sick shit they wanted to do to slaves.

    Slavemasters fucking bred their slaves like they were god damn dogs, and why? So they could sell the kids to someone else. Don't you fucking sit here and say table scraps and leaky roofs were worth that. No amount of 'food' or 'shelter' is worth that kind of dehumanizing treatment, least of all what little they actually got.
    I have a higher education than that... I thought it would have been obvious to a monkey that I was using that as an exaggeration of sorts.

    It was not all about slavery, if you even do one bit of research into the cause of the civil war you'd find that. Yeah, it was a major reason but hardly ALL ABOUT SLAVERY.
    Think about state rights that have gone by over the years. The incorporation of the bill of rights to the states, the BoR only applied to the Federal Government but over time they started being applied to the states.
    That and just use your brain. Think of any issues still going on today, any issues possibly going on at the time. It's like today's debates. I don't even know how to explain this crap that it's so obvious.

  18. Post #58
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    I'll ask you the same question I asked three others and got no answer:

    What states' rights were being infringed, specifically? Which rights were the Confederates defending?

    Edited:

    You people keep saying "states' rights" but you refuse to say which fucking rights were at conflict.

    The right to secede? Fucking no, that's not a state's right. It never has been. That kind of bullshit was granted under the Articles of Confederation and it failed miserably, damn near destroying the country before it was even a decade old. The Founding Fathers never intended for states to be able to just up and leave whenever they didn't get their way.

    The right to own slaves? Fuck off.

    The right to not pay taxes? Yeah that worked out REALLY well for the 1780's Articles government.


    If you're so sure that the Civil War was about "states' rights," you should be able to tell me which rights you're referring to specifically.

    Edited:

    I don't even know how to explain this crap that it's so obvious.
    "Common sense" fallacy.

    "I won't give you the facts because you should already know them, and if you don't you are wrong."

    If it's so obvious you should be able to express it.

    I can express ideas like "the sky is blue" and "grass is green" in complex terms (e.g. refraction of light off the atmosphere results in a blue hue under sunlight / Chlorophyll permeating the photosynthetic parts of plants results in a green coloration.) Hell, I'm using complex rhetoric to assert the notion that the only "state right" that was an issue was the "right" to own slaves, which is an incredibly simple and obvious concept.

    You should be able to express your simple ideas in non-simplistic terms.

  19. Post #59
    Gold Member
    [Seed Eater]'s Avatar
    July 2011
    5,575 Posts
    I have a higher education than that... I thought it would have been obvious to a monkey that I was using that as an exaggeration of sorts.

    It was not all about slavery, if you even do one bit of research into the cause of the civil war you'd find that. Yeah, it was a major reason but hardly ALL ABOUT SLAVERY.
    Think about state rights that have gone by over the years. The incorporation of the bill of rights to the states, the BoR only applied to the Federal Government but over time they started being applied to the states.
    That and just use your brain. Think of any issues still going on today, any issues possibly going on at the time. It's like today's debates. I don't even know how to explain this crap that it's so obvious.
    Like I said, though, slavery was the primary cause of the states' rights issue, which was not an issue until the South adopted it as a justification to oppose the Federal government's decisions when they felt they were going to lose ground in Congress because of the deals with incoming states. States rights were only a thing in the conflict because the South suddenly decided that they were a thing so they could tell the government to fuck off. It came because of the slavery issue.

  20. Post #60
    CabooseRvB's Avatar
    September 2009
    12,103 Posts
    Civil War causes: Slavery/Industrial (South Agricultural, North Industrialised), State Rights, Abraham Lincoln

    Why it wasn't neccessary?

    * Slavery was phasing out anyway, due to efficiency of using industrial equipment, and that other countries were shifting towards a manufacturing based economy.
    See: The Cotton Gin

    * Abraham Lincoln could have saved lives by not sparking the war. Even when the Unions won, Black people were not free, instead lived in a segregated society.
    See: Andrew Johnson

    * America would have been united as one, even if the states had rights. Due to the fact they have fought together within the Philippines, and against the Mexicans.

    North and South literally had near-separate societies

    * Even if slaves were in agony, child labour was present in the factories in the North. What is better: Adult slaves working that get fed, or children gaining little to no money?

    19th Century labor standards were still far better off than an institution that is thousands of years old.

  21. Post #61
    Gold Member

    February 2006
    2,985 Posts
    19th Century labor standards were still far better off than an institution that is thousands of years old.
    Slave owners actually compared the wage system to slavery and claimed they'd treat their own employees better because they're not renting them for their labor, but rather they're possessions.

  22. Post #62
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    Slave owners actually compared the wage system to slavery and claimed they'd treat their own employees better because they're not renting them for their labor, but rather they're possessions.
    You do realize that was just an excuse to keep their slaves, right? they did not actually treat them better.

  23. Post #63
    Gold Member
    [Seed Eater]'s Avatar
    July 2011
    5,575 Posts
    Slave owners actually compared the wage system to slavery and claimed they'd treat their own employees better because they're not renting them for their labor, but rather they're possessions.
    Er, not really they didn't. That's why the Republicans adopted the motto "free labor, free land, free men." It's also why Lincoln's military was stuffed with German '48ers, Marxist revolutionaries who emigrated to the US after the failing of the 1848 revolutions in Germany, and why immediately after the civil war freed slaves in some states created basic communes until the Johnson administration put an end to that. It's also why Marx wrote very heavily against slavery and the South and was quite a vocal supporter of Lincoln and the Union in the conflict. Free labor and wage slavery was a huge issue, and Southerners were not the ones bringing it up.

    (Sources: An Unfinished Revolution, Robin Blackburn; The S Word, John Nichols)

  24. Post #64
    Gold Member

    February 2006
    2,985 Posts
    Why are both of you missing the point? All I said was what they claimed, nothing more.

  25. Post #65

    June 2012
    452 Posts
    slavery had almost nothing to do with the (start of) the civil war. Lincoln himself said that to preserve the union he would free them all, or leave them in chains- w/e worked (paraphrased oc)

    Edited:

    I'll ask you the same question I asked three others and got no answer:

    What states' rights were being infringed, specifically? Which rights were the Confederates defending?



    You people keep saying "states' rights" but you refuse to say which fucking rights were at conflict.



    If you're so sure that the Civil War was about "states' rights," you should be able to tell me which rights you're referring to specifically.
    Like most things it started off as a money issue, the north and south were essentially two entirely seperate societies. And the north, having more ppl (and resources) were fairly heavy handed in their demands of the southern states.
    What is it the southern states wanted? Simply put- the right to tell the feds to mind their own business. They felt federal gov should do almost nothing, and individual states should be left to their own whims of law.

  26. Post #66
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Please give citations for examples of these "money issues."

    Edited:

    Also, "money issues" are not a state right, so you still didn't answer the question.

    Which fucking state right was being violated by "money issues."

  27. Post #67

    June 2012
    452 Posts
    Please give citations for examples of these "money issues."

    Edited:

    Also, "money issues" are not a state right, so you still didn't answer the question.

    Which fucking state right was being violated by "money issues."
    If your looking for re (states rights) as a constitutional right- your going to be disapointed, Even in the (american) constitution today many issues are decided on "constitutionality" w/o a single word of the specific items mention in the constitution. Its a matter of interpretation really.


    http://www.ket.org/civilwar/causes.html- if you wish to learn more there are plenty of references available.
    I will say, however, that as far as money issues- it was a matter of taxation. Taxes were proposed that only effected the south, and the south was unhappy about it. Southerners at the time, were a fiercely independent ppl (yes other then their entire economy hinging on the slave thing/) and in their eyes they say this unfair taxation as punishment.

    There cant be an argument about if they had the "right" to secede- history has already wrote its own conclusions on this. The only thing left for us is to understand the why, how- and use this to prevent further tragedies.

  28. Post #68
    electric926's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,079 Posts
    I'll ask you the same question I asked three others and got no answer:

    What states' rights were being infringed, specifically? Which rights were the Confederates defending?
    The right to own property. I will never in a millennium argue that slaves are considered property, but the Southerners believed they were, and thus saw anti-slavery laws as the government attempting to infringe on their right to own property, an infringement that they feared could later snowball into further depriving of their rights. It's a despicable cause that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but it's a cause they felt was worthy of secession.

    Hopefully that answers your question.

    The right to secede? Fucking no, that's not a state's right. It never has been. That kind of bullshit was granted under the Articles of Confederation and it failed miserably, damn near destroying the country before it was even a decade old. The Founding Fathers never intended for states to be able to just up and leave whenever they didn't get their way.
    Yes, the founding fathers totally intended for the States to withdraw from the Union if they felt the government was oppressive. That's kind of why they fought the Revolutionary War, remember?

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island even added a clause to their ratification of the Constitution that allowed them to secede if such an event happened. Some New England states even threatened secession during the War of 1812. The Tenth Amendment also specifies that any power not prohibited by the constitution is to be given to the states. More or less, that includes the right to secede from the Union.

    Secession was made illegal by the Supreme Court after the war, but it was still considered legal up to that point.

  29. Post #69
    Gold Member
    Venezuelan's Avatar
    September 2011
    11,634 Posts
    * America would have been united as one, even if the states had rights. Due to the fact they have fought together within the Philippines, and against the Mexicans.
    1. You are arguing that the United States would have been united, even though the whole point was that the South was seceding, and it would be two separate countries.
    2. How can you use wars that happened after the North had won as proof that the South would have still been united with the North if they had won? That makes no sense.

    The rest of it, you seem misinformed about why the war started. Lincoln wasn't trying to force emancipation on the South, he was trying to prevent their secession.

    Edited:

    Yes, the founding fathers totally intended for the States to withdraw from the Union if they felt the government was oppressive. That's kind of why they fought the Revolutionary War, remember?



    Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island even added a clause to their ratification of the Constitution that allowed them to secede if such an event happened. Some New England states even threatened secession during the War of 1812. The Tenth Amendment also specifies that any power not prohibited by the constitution is to be given to the states. More or less, that includes the right to secede from the Union.

    Secession was made illegal by the Supreme Court after the war, but it was still considered legal up to that point.
    no, it was not. First off, the Declaration of Independence is NOT a legal document, and means nothing it terms of law. Now secondly, the shift from a confederation to a federation when the new Constitution was ratified implies the federal government is superior in power, and therefore implies (though I suppose it is not actually said) that secession is not a state right. It was also discussed in the Federalist papers. This, too, is not a legal document, but it gives a look into the mindset of the writers of the modern constitution.

    A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.
    Also, the American Revolution was much different than a state secession.

    But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.

    -Andrew Jackson

  30. Post #70
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    The right to own property. I will never in a millennium argue that slaves are considered property, but the Southerners believed they were, and thus saw anti-slavery laws as the government attempting to infringe on their right to own property, an infringement that they feared could later snowball into further depriving of their rights. It's a despicable cause that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but it's a cause they felt was worthy of secession.

    Hopefully that answers your question.
    So you're telling me the war wasn't about slavery because it was really about the right to own slaves.

    The fact that all these people who say the war wasn't over slavery can't fucking formulate two sentences without using the word "slavery" says something.



    Yes, the founding fathers totally intended for the States to withdraw from the Union if they felt the government was oppressive. That's kind of why they fought the Revolutionary War, remember?

    haha, uhh, no.

    that's like saying because I cross my fingers when I sign a contract means I'm not obligated to it.

    we tried state sovereignty with the articles of confederation. they nearly destroyed the goddamn country before it even had a name.

    the founding fathers did not repeat the same mistakes with the constitution.

    Edited:

    Also I would like citations for those claims.

    Edited:

    Im not going to bother with citations, tbh this is not that important- if you wish to learn more there are plenty of references available.
    That isn't how this works.

    You cite your claims in Mass Debate or you get banned.

    Did you read the rules?

    Cite your claims or rescind them.

  31. Post #71
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,605 Posts
    Im not going to bother with citations, tbh this is not that important- if you wish to learn more there are plenty of references available.
    I'm afraid you need to do so. If there are plenty, then surely you can provide some.

  32. Post #72
    electric926's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,079 Posts
    So you're telling me the war wasn't about slavery because it was really about the right to own slaves.

    The fact that all these people who say the war wasn't over slavery can't fucking formulate two sentences without using the word "slavery" says something.
    The war was not fought over the right to own anything. It was fought because the Southern States feared that the "federal bully" would infringe on more of their rights.

    There, two sentences without mention of slavery. Happy?

    no, it was not. First off, the Declaration of Independence is NOT a legal document, and means nothing it terms of law. Now secondly, the shift from a confederation to a federation when the new Constitution was ratified implies the federal government is superior in power, and therefore implies (though I suppose it is not actually said) that secession is not a state right. It was also discussed in the Federalist papers. This, too, is not a legal document, but it gives a look into the mindset of the writers of the modern constitution.
    Secession was never discussed one way or another in the Constitution. You can't argue that the constitution specifically allowed it, but you can't argue that it flat-out denies it either. It wouldn't have mattered to the Southern states either way, since they were intent on leaving what they felt was an oppressive government. Several people saw the Union as just that, a union between states, and felt that a state did have the right to leave the union.

    [The Union] was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right to do so."
    -Alexis de Tocqueville
    The State governments will. in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.
    -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28
    Also, the American Revolution was much different than a state secession.
    Not to the Southern States. In fact, many saw their secession as a second American Revolution. Just as the American colonies left the British Empire over the oppression of rights, they were leaving the Union over the oppression of Southern Rights.

    I agree with you on the fact that the Revolution and the Civil War are different, but it's not our opinion that matters, it's the opinion of the Southern secessionists.

  33. Post #73
    Gold Member
    Venezuelan's Avatar
    September 2011
    11,634 Posts
    Secession was never discussed one way or another in the Constitution. You can't argue that the constitution specifically allowed it, but you can't argue that it flat-out denies it either. It wouldn't have mattered to the Southern states either way, since they were intent on leaving what they felt was an oppressive government. Several people saw the Union as just that, a union between states, and felt that a state did have the right to leave the union.
    Yeah, I'm not, I'm just saying the framers were against it. You're right though, they would have left regardless. I just don't think the North was unjustified in trying to prevent it.

  34. Post #74
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    It was fought because the Southern States feared that the "federal bully" would infringe on more of their rights.
    Such as-

    Edited:

    Yet again, you refuse to answer my fucking question.

    Which rights?

    Name a few.

  35. Post #75
    electric926's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,079 Posts
    Yeah, I'm not, I'm just saying the framers were against it. You're right though, they would have left regardless. I just don't think the North was unjustified in trying to prevent it.
    You're right in that matter as well. Secession was not specifically forbidden by the constitution, but when you really think about it, neither was fighting to keep

    Such as-

    Edited:

    Yet again, you refuse to answer my fucking question.

    Which rights?

    Name a few.
    Again, the right to own property was a legitimate right that they were afraid of losing.

    You know how the police can't walk in and take your stuff without a warrant? That's part of your right to own property. The Southernors believed that an antislavery law would be the first in a series of laws that succeeded in taking more of their property, such as their land and their money.

    They were also wary of the government passing tariff laws that supported northern textile industries and hurt their cotton exporting business. There was a legitimate fear that Northern industries would make political vassals out of Southern plantations, and plantation owners wanted a separate nation that wouldn't hurt their exports with punitive tariffs.

  36. Post #76
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Again, the right to own property was a legitimate right that they were afraid of losing.
    See, the only fucking "right" that you can name is the "right" to own people.

    Edited:

    When you say "the civil war was about states rights, not slavery" and I say "name what rights," I mean name shit OTHER than slavery.

  37. Post #77
    President of the Westboro Baptist Church Fan Club
    Dennab
    February 2012
    2,084 Posts
    slavery had almost nothing to do with the (start of) the civil war. Lincoln himself said that to preserve the union he would free them all, or leave them in chains- w/e worked (paraphrased oc)
    Haha what a comedian.

    Like most things it started off as a money issue, the north and south were essentially two entirely seperate societies. And the north, having more ppl (and resources) were fairly heavy handed in their demands of the southern states.
    What is it the southern states wanted? Simply put- the right to tell the feds to mind their own business. They felt federal gov should do almost nothing, and individual states should be left to their own whims of law.
    First off, yeah, I sure hope the North was heavy handed. The North wasn't the side that fucking ENSLAVED people. And second, the states don't just get to "the feds to mind their own business". That matter was settled long ago (Supreme Court case name escapes me right now) and the U.S. had never been a nation of "individual states should be left to their own whims of law". Well, actually it had been at a point, and if you know anything of U.S. history then you should know how that turned out.

    Can one single person here please answer Lankist's question? What SPECIFIC state rights were the Southerners arguing for? Because right now, it looks like the only one they really cared about was the right to own slaves, which sure as hell makes the war about slavery.

  38. Post #78
    DERAILER OF THREADS DESTROYER OF IDIOTS
    Emperor Scorpious II's Avatar
    February 2009
    24,508 Posts
    After reading through this thread, I think you guys should keep in mind how the dates of the events leading to the war are relative to each other (mainly in response to posts on the first page):

    Date of election that put Lincoln in office: November 6, 1860

    Date of South Carolina's Secession: December 20, 1860

    Date Lincoln took office: March 4, 1861

    Date Fort Sumter was attacked: April 12, 1861

    The South took off two and a half months before Lincoln took office and the fort was not attacked a full month after Lincoln took office.

    And you can't say it's the South's fault that the war started because they attacked first. Keep in mind that the south had seceded - becoming it's own nation. There were a number of federal forts occupied by northern troops on their now sovereign land. I'm pretty sure any country would be made if it gained independence but still had forts scattered across it occupied by another country - particularly one it did not like.

  39. Post #79
    President of the Westboro Baptist Church Fan Club
    Dennab
    February 2012
    2,084 Posts
    After reading through this thread, I think you guys should keep in mind how the dates of the events leading to the war are relative to each other (mainly in response to posts on the first page):

    Date of election that put Lincoln in office: November 6, 1860

    Date of South Carolina's Secession: December 20, 1860

    Date Lincoln took office: March 4, 1861

    Date Fort Sumter was attacked: April 12, 1861

    The South took off two and a half months before Lincoln took office and the fort was not attacked a full month after Lincoln took office.

    And you can't say it's the South's fault that the war started because they attacked first. Keep in mind that the south had seceded - becoming it's own nation. There were a number of federal forts occupied by northern troops on their now sovereign land. I'm pretty sure any country would be made if it gained independence but still had forts scattered across it occupied by another country - particularly one it did not like.
    The secession was illegal.

  40. Post #80
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Something isn't sovereign just because you say it is.

    It has to be recognized to be sovereign, and literally nobody recognized the confederacy as sovereign.

    Saying that the shelling of Sumpter was justified is like saying you can shoot anyone that steps onto your property. It doesn't work like that, no matter how much you insist your house is the sovereign nation of Fukauffistan.