Civil War arguments

[BCPVP]

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?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

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.

[elwoodblues]

[ 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]

[The Don]

[ 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 ]

[peritonlogon]

[ 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.

[The Don]

[ 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?

[peritonlogon]

[ 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.

[slickpoppa]

[ 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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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?

[CCass]

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.