Civil War arguments
 

I thought this deserved its own thread since it's not on topic in the FDR thru Bush41 thread.

I'd like to hear arguments from the none-AC side as to whether or not the South was justified in seceeding and whether or not the North was justified in trying to save the union.

Here's intersting article that I've just started reading (it's fairly long) provides the very libertarian/AC side:
http://www.apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

So, thoughts?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

I would have said even before reading the article (I"m no where near done) that the 10th Amendment clearly suggests that secession is not illegal. I've always thought that if it weren't for the slavery issue, I'd find it quite easy to defend the South's actions.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Great article. Constitutionally, the South was right, the North was wrong.

We can all thank Lincoln for the mess that is our Federal Government today.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
if it weren't for the slavery issue, I'd find it quite easy to defend the South's actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Civil War arguments
 

I don't know about the legal argument, but ever since the Treaty of Westphalia, nearly all nation-states have reserved for themselves, and exercized when necessary, the right to stop secessionist movements by violence.

Does that make it "justified"? Not necessarily. But the fact that it is technically legal or illegal doesn't make it "justified" either. Both are in the eye of the beholder. But using violence to stop secession is certainly par for the course in the history of nation-states.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've always thought that if it weren't for the slavery issue, I'd find it quite easy to defend the South's actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is some incriminating evidence as to Lincoln's true motives.

[ QUOTE ]
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would have said even before reading the article (I"m no where near done) that the 10th Amendment clearly suggests that secession is not illegal. I've always thought that if it weren't for the slavery issue, I'd find it quite easy to defend the South's actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

First determine whether you think the south was justified in secceeding. Now assume that slavery was outlawed in the south before they secceeded. Does your answer change? If so, why?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

there has been a incredibly long thread in OOT about symbols, and their place here on 2p2. One of the symbols was the Confederate flag, which resulted in a lot of discussion about the flag, the civil war, and racism.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

The two questions to ask are whether it was legal and whether it was justified. I would say that there is no question that the south had the RIGHT to secede from the union. Besides the tenth ammendment in the constitution, I would say that any nation has the right to secede from any country. I don't see how any law can be made prohibitting secession and actually be enforced by any other means that warfare. Since there is not any way to enforce a law, then I would argue that it is not really a law at all. I would also say that the North legally had the right to conquer the south after a secession, for the same reasons that the south could secede.

Justification is tougher. I think the justification for the South leaving the Union is a little weak, but it is still there. The north disliked the southerners, slavery, and the agrarian lifestyle in general. When Lincoln was elected, the South seceded since they felt they weren't being adequately represented by the United States, and they were right. So they may have been justified in leaving.

If I was Lincoln, I would have reconquered the South as well. Putting the slavery argument aside, the south's secession cut the country in half. That means half the power that the country once had. In the short-term, this would be bad for the country, but in the long term, it would have been devastating. Having an enemy nation right to your south would present a problem, especially as they acquire more resources and alliances. Resources, such as cotton and food, would have been harder to come by for the United States. The world reputation of the United States would have been dealt a serious blow if they had not acted, and showing such weakness could also lead to further threats down the road.

In the end, it is as pvn always says, "Might Makes Right". [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Republicans proclaiming their sympathy for the Confederacy -- how utterly predictable.


q/q