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

Re: Civil War arguments
 

I can't believe so much sympathy is given to a group of rebels that chose to wage war on our country. Disgusting.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does the right of conquest come from?

How can you argue that, essentially, one group has a right to free association on the one hand, and then immediately turn around and say another group has a right to subjugate that group?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe so much sympathy is given to a group of rebels that chose to wage war on our country. Disgusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, the north waged war against the south.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

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


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]
What Republicans?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

I would normally write a detailed answer, but after yesterday's hissy fit about governments, I am going to write a simple one.


Machineguns, bomber planes, and tanks give people the right to do anything they want. In the case of the Civil War: muskets, cannons, and horses. Do you see why?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would normally write a detailed answer, but after yesterday's hissy fit about governments, I am going to write a simple one.


Machineguns, bomber planes, and tanks give people the right to do anything they want. In the case of the Civil War: muskets, cannons, and horses. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, sorry, I don't see why.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Sounds like might makes right is his argument.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ 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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the topical meaning here reveals Lincoln's true motives. Lincoln was the most gifted orater of his time, and maybe the most gifted orater in American History. His motives are QUITE unclear in an open letter... that is a letter to Horace Greely sent to a bunch of newspapers. Read the Lincoln Douglas debates.... He says some things that would make most of us blush...but then again he was running for President and had to campaign in Slave States too, which is why Lincoln's message varries a lot based on his audience. But to think that emancipation of all slaves in America was not high up on Lincoln's list is just absurd....According to that argument, the South must have just made a big blunder in seceding... the leaders must have been the stupidest people on the planet.... "You mean you wouldn't have made us give up slavery... We just wasted over 300 thousand of our most fit men...Woops...I'm sorry...my bad...yeah, really fealing guilty about that one" Not all that plausible IMHO, especailly coming from the party whose whole rease to be was to end slavery.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe so much sympathy is given to a group of rebels that chose to wage war on our country. Disgusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, the north waged war against the south.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically yes, but that doesn't dissuade me from my point. Not to mention that the South drew first blood.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

I think that it is clear that the South had a right to secede, simply because there was no consitutional prohibition of same. But it is also clear that there was a moral imperative to end slavery in which the North had also been complicit to some degree. Nevertheless, it is clear from reading about the lives of many southern military leaders, including Lee, that they did not like slavery but were also unwilling to fight against their native states. We today in the US have a far greater sense of federal unity than citizens living in either the North or South in 1860 did.

"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
-Abraham Lincoln

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
Technically yes, but that doesn't dissuade me from my point. Not to mention that the South drew first blood.

[/ QUOTE ]

The north *invaded* the south. Fort Sumter is in *south carolina*.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
But it is also clear that there was a moral imperative to end slavery in which the North had also been complicit to some degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let's assume the only reason for the war was slavery. Is it worth 600,000 lives? Slavery ended peacefully everywhere else in the world, why was the US different?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Technically yes, but that doesn't dissuade me from my point. Not to mention that the South drew first blood.

[/ QUOTE ]

The north *invaded* the south. Fort Sumter is in *south carolina*.

[/ QUOTE ]

Federal troops were already garrisoned in the harbor area when South Carolina seceded. But it is true that the federal commander of another installation then moved his unit to Fort Sumter which killed negotions in progress with Washington and precipiated the southern attack.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK, let's assume the only reason for the war was slavery. Is it worth 600,000 lives? Slavery ended peacefully everywhere else in the world, why was the US different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it was not the only reason, but it was sufficient. And yes it was worth it to end the practice of men enslaving other men and the children of those slaves.

From Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:

"Yet, if God wills that [the war] continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Technically yes, but that doesn't dissuade me from my point. Not to mention that the South drew first blood.

[/ QUOTE ]

The north *invaded* the south. Fort Sumter is in *south carolina*.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't buy this trespassing argument regarding Fort Sumter. Like I said in the other thread, it's like declaring some spot you don't own yours and then calling the people who were on that spot trespassers.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously it was not the only reason, but it was sufficient. And yes it was worth it to end the practice of men enslaving other men and the children of those slaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it *required*? Was there *no other way*? You're ignoring the question - why was the US different? Why would it not have ended peacefully, as it did everywhere else?

Would it be worth 600,000 lives (and the 12 years of economic savagery that followed) if slavery would have ended peacefully in, say, 5 years? 10? Do you think there would still be slavery in the south today if Lincoln had not acted?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy this trespassing argument regarding Fort Sumter. Like I said in the other thread, it's like declaring some spot you don't own yours and then calling the people who were on that spot trespassers.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the south had the right to leave the union, the Union forces clearly should have evacuated the fort, and their refusal was an act of aggression.

If the south didn't have the right to leave the union, it doesn't really matter, does it? BTW, if this were the case, why would Lincoln wait for shots to be fired before acting?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

The North had no reasonable expectation to believe that slavery would end in the next decade or so. And they had already waited and compromised since the birth of the republic over 75 years previously and the only change was in 1808 after the consitutional time limit had passed, to end importation of slaves into the US.

Selling persons and then separating their offspring from them by selling them in turn was too great an evil to wait longer to end. Google for one of those pictures of a slave's back with scars all over from the whip and then transport yourself back in time and tell him to wait patiently a little while longer.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Why wait until secession then?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why wait until secession then?

[/ QUOTE ]

And why did the Emancipation Proclaimation only apply to the areas of the South that were still in rebellion?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why wait until secession then?

[/ QUOTE ]

And why did the Emancipation Proclaimation only apply to the areas of the South that were still in rebellion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lincoln knew he wasn't going to be able to walk into the White House and declare slavery illegal. There had been talk of secession for years and it became more serious and impending with every new day up to the election. I understand that as and out and out ACer that you probably don't give much respect to politicians trying to sway from impolitic decisions and trying to balance sometimes contradictory actions, words, and ideas because you think their power is illigitimate in the first place. But for politicians, some of which actually have benevolent ideals and wish well for the country, it's a way of life. If Lincoln had determined for himself that one day slavery would be outlawed, he wouldn't come out guns blazing and free every slave, especially right after states began to secede. Doing so would basically make it impossible to end the war without a bloody, drawn out battle and military surrender. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political as well as military decision, which of course furthered his own goal (in my opinion) of freeing slaves.

But Civil War was one of 2 Bs I got in college. So maybe I'm missing something.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why wait until secession then?

[/ QUOTE ]

A large part of the reason the South seceded when it did was that the North was blocking expasnion of slavery into new western states which would tip the balance of power in congress where anti-slavery states would have the votes to do that.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
...you probably don't give much respect to politicians trying to sway from impolitic decisions and trying to balance sometimes contradictory actions, words, and ideas because you think their power is illigitimate in the first place. But for politicians, some of which actually have benevolent ideals and wish well for the country, it's a way of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they lie so that they can accomplish good? If their secret agenda is so great, why do they have to lie about it?

[ QUOTE ]
If Lincoln had determined for himself that one day slavery would be outlawed, he wouldn't come out guns blazing and free every slave, especially right after states began to secede. Doing so would basically make it impossible to end the war without a bloody, drawn out battle and military surrender.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Isn't that exactly what happened? Or is 600,000 dead not "bloody" in your opinion?

[ QUOTE ]
The Emancipation Proclamation was a political as well as military decision, which of course furthered his own goal (in my opinion) of freeing slaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got the first part right. The political goal was to gain foreign support for the union (which succeeded), and therefore to end any possibility of foreign assistance to the confederacy.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the south had the right to leave the union, the Union forces clearly should have evacuated the fort, and their refusal was an act of aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? The forts were federal property. The South said "Get out, that property's ours now". The North said "Like hell it is." The South then opened fire on it. How did federal property magically turn into state property simply because the South seceeded? Seems to me the South initiated the aggression and escalated it by attacking the fort.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the topical meaning here reveals Lincoln's true motives. Lincoln was the most gifted orater of his time, and maybe the most gifted orater in American History. His motives are QUITE unclear in an open letter... that is a letter to Horace Greely sent to a bunch of newspapers. Read the Lincoln Douglas debates.... He says some things that would make most of us blush...but then again he was running for President and had to campaign in Slave States too, which is why Lincoln's message varries a lot based on his audience. But to think that emancipation of all slaves in America was not high up on Lincoln's list is just absurd....According to that argument, the South must have just made a big blunder in seceding... the leaders must have been the stupidest people on the planet.... "You mean you wouldn't have made us give up slavery... We just wasted over 300 thousand of our most fit men...Woops...I'm sorry...my bad...yeah, really fealing guilty about that one" Not all that plausible IMHO, especailly coming from the party whose whole rease to be was to end slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's high up there, but clearly the "paramount" objective of the struggle was to "preserve the union." If anyone believes that the death of 600,000 men is worth this goal, please give me an explanation as to why.

Also, if people are going to use the slavery issue, I would like people to defend their "two wrongs make a right" stance. That is, that it is justifiable for the US Government to enslave everyone (conscription) in order to prevent the slavery of others.

Finally, if anyone believes that the South wasn't justified in their succession, just look at what happened. The southerners were bound by a contract (the Constitution) that they didn't sign. By virtue of that, I don't see how anyone can actually bind them to it. If 3 people are on an island and one wants to escape, do the other two have the right to prevent him because they won a majority vote? Do they have the right to kill him when he makes his attempt? All because their grandparents signed an agreement stating that no man is allowed to escape from the island without the consent of the majority?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the topical meaning here reveals Lincoln's true motives. Lincoln was the most gifted orater of his time, and maybe the most gifted orater in American History. His motives are QUITE unclear in an open letter... that is a letter to Horace Greely sent to a bunch of newspapers. Read the Lincoln Douglas debates.... He says some things that would make most of us blush...but then again he was running for President and had to campaign in Slave States too, which is why Lincoln's message varries a lot based on his audience. But to think that emancipation of all slaves in America was not high up on Lincoln's list is just absurd....According to that argument, the South must have just made a big blunder in seceding... the leaders must have been the stupidest people on the planet.... "You mean you wouldn't have made us give up slavery... We just wasted over 300 thousand of our most fit men...Woops...I'm sorry...my bad...yeah, really fealing guilty about that one" Not all that plausible IMHO, especailly coming from the party whose whole rease to be was to end slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's high up there, but clearly the "paramount" objective of the struggle was to "preserve the union." If anyone believes that the death of 600,000 men is worth this goal, please give me an explanation as to why.

Also, if people are going to use the slavery issue, I would like people to defend their "two wrongs make a right" stance. That is, that it is justifiable for the US Government to enslave everyone (conscription) in order to prevent the slavery of others.

Finally, if anyone believes that the South wasn't justified in their succession, just look at what happened. The southerners were bound by a contract (the Constitution) that they didn't sign. By virtue of that, I don't see how anyone can actually bind them to it. If 3 people are on an island and one wants to escape, do the other two have the right to prevent him because they won a majority vote? Do they have the right to kill him when he makes his attempt? All because their grandparents signed an agreement stating that no man is allowed to escape from the island without the consent of the majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Change the subject again why don't you. I think the federal government ought to do away with paper dollars... they're rediculous... they should all be coins.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]

Finally, if anyone believes that the South wasn't justified in their succession, just look at what happened. The southerners were bound by a contract (the Constitution) that they didn't sign. By virtue of that, I don't see how anyone can actually bind them to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what government is. Do you think everyone born in the United States should have to sign onto the Constitution before it applies to them?

[ QUOTE ]
If 3 people are on an island and one wants to escape, do the other two have the right to prevent him because they won a majority vote? Do they have the right to kill him when he makes his attempt? All because their grandparents signed an agreement stating that no man is allowed to escape from the island without the consent of the majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a bad analogy. The North did not prevent the South from leaving the island. If everyone in the South wanted to pick up and move to Mexico, they certainly could have.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Finally, if anyone believes that the South wasn't justified in their succession, just look at what happened. The southerners were bound by a contract (the Constitution) that they didn't sign. By virtue of that, I don't see how anyone can actually bind them to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what government is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, finally someone admits it. Government is something that is forced upon you without your consent.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think everyone born in the United States should have to sign onto the Constitution before it applies to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me. What if Thomas Jefferson had signed a piece of paper that said "In the year 2006, slickpoppa will pay pvn $3,000,000 per day" - do you think you should be held to that? Why is the constitution any different?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds good to me. What if Thomas Jefferson had signed a piece of paper that said "In the year 2006, slickpoppa will pay pvn $3,000,000 per day" - do you think you should be held to that? Why is the constitution any different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thankfully a piece of paper declaring that I need to pay you $3,000,000 is a bill of attainder, which would be prohibited by the Constutition.

But more to the point, it would be nice for each individual if he had the right to decide that a particular form of government coercion were unjust and declare immunity from it. But obviously such a system would never work. If everyone could just opt out of whatever laws they wanted to, then laws would be essentially useless. From reading your earlier posts, it sounds like that is what you want--no laws. If you really want to have that argument, then that is the topic of another thread. This thread is about the South seceding from the Union. Even the people in the South who seceded from the Union were not envisioning no government at all after they were successful in seceding.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

I never consensted to any law that prohibits me from killing, stealing, and raping random women. Perhaps I am not bound by those laws since I never signed a piece of paper where I agreed to such restrictions.